The American Gun Control Debate
I used to be 100% in favor of harsh and strict gun control laws. But lately I feel torn.
On the one hand, I think gun control has been shown to be a very effective method of reducing mass shooting and other gun violence in countries like Australia.
On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in repealing the constitutional right to bear arms, as lately - largely in light of the autocratic tendencies of President Trump - I have had largely negative attitude towards strengthening the federal government.
Where do you stand on this debate? Do you support stronger gun laws in America? Why or why not?
On the one hand, I think gun control has been shown to be a very effective method of reducing mass shooting and other gun violence in countries like Australia.
On the other hand, I'm not particularly interested in repealing the constitutional right to bear arms, as lately - largely in light of the autocratic tendencies of President Trump - I have had largely negative attitude towards strengthening the federal government.
Where do you stand on this debate? Do you support stronger gun laws in America? Why or why not?
Comments (2133)
Yes, because common sense.
So I put it that the lack of regulation on firearm use is what is unconstitutional, and not the other way around.
Why allow a product the sole purpose of which is to create something entirely illegal?
That said, I find the debate on gun control taking place in our Great Republic to be very peculiar. There is, first, the reference to a militia in the Second Amendment, as StreetlightX noted, and a well-regulated one at that. It isn't clear to me what the drafters of the amendment intended by "militia" but apparently it's believed by some that it's intended to refer to the citizenry at large, which would seem to me to be less than well-regulated.
But even assuming the reference to "militia" means citizens generally, those who oppose gun control seem to think the Second Amendment cannot be limited or restricted. That simply can't be the case, unless the Second Amendment is different from every other constitutional amendment. The fact is that rights granted by Constitutional Amendments (e.g. those granted by the First Amendment) have always been limited or restricted in some manner. Rights of assembly and free speech are subject to time, place and manner limitations, for example.
So, I think, there can be no doubt (legally speaking) that reasonable limitations of the right to bear arms may be imposed, regardless of the question "what is meant by 'militia'?". The question simply is--what is reasonable? I suspect the leaders of the NRA are mere shills for gun manufacturers and retailers, and so want no restrictions whatsoever. Money being essential in the politics of our nation, many politicians are beholden to them.
Yes, that and the powers of persuasion of said nefarious elements re the general public seem to me the bulk of the explanation.
It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want.
But so would banning all guns or passing regulations that make it nearly impossible to own one be unconstitutional, since the amendment presupposes gun ownership by the citizenry. "Nobody has said that" you say? Pelosi just said that she "hopes" currently proposed regulations are a "slippery slope." So I think proponents of the second amendment have a genuine concern about the intentions of those who push for greater regulations. I honestly doubt that you and Baden, for example, would shed a tear if guns were abolished outright. Michael in fact wants this to happen.
And they're against a prohibition. Why "regulate" something that can only lead to ownership of illegal guns?
I don't know. I think it should be prohibited. The point is that the NRA is not monolithically opposed to any and all gun regulations, as was suggested.
What you say here is bizarre. Find me the person who said, "I prefer that the current murderous state of affairs stays as it is."
I just cited a quote from Pelosi, the meaning of which could not be more clear. Try again.
Amazing. Honestly, people like you need to be put in a Petri dish and studied. I mean, how do you get from - 'the constitution allows for regulation' to OMG THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR GUNS FOR EVER AND EVER. What kind of response is that? It's paranoid delusional.
It is. I see no alternative explanation of her words from you here.
Quoting StreetlightX
What a lovely thing to say. It's the kind of thing I've seen the mods delete before on many an occasion. Perhaps flagrant hypocrites like you ought to be studied first.
No, nor would I shed a tear if Trump's wig took over as President. But we, some of us, are bounded by reality and make our suggestions in that context. To imagine that Nancy Pelosi is going to take all your guns away is Alex Jones territory and you know better.
If you can't recognize the tactic of minimal concession, you just haven't been around the block more than once.
No you don't. You're purposely overreacting to make me appear crazy.
Quoting StreetlightX
Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned. It's not at all difficult to imagine that someone like Pelosi privately prefers all guns to be banned, viewing the regulations she proposes as the best step in that direction. She and her colleagues have already proposed the banning of certain kinds of presently legal firearms.
Quoting Baden
She said: "They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so."
This cannot but mean that she would like to pass a bevy of regulations that would undoubtedly make it harder to legally own a firearm, which in turn is a step closer to an outright ban. In what other direction is it a step?
I don't wish for you to stop posting, but I wouldn't shed a tear if you did.
There's nothing inconsistent here. Wanting some restrictions on what you (or anybody else) can post isn't the same as hoping that you (or anybody else) will be silenced.
Says the dude who responded to a point about the constitution with 'they're planning to take away all our guns - look what Pelosi said the other day'. That's not the appearance of crazy, that is crazy.
I just turned west and took a step. I guess I was headed towards London. Does that mean I am going to London?
There was an "or" followed by another possibility that you have now conveniently ignored. I never said anyone was planning to ban guns. I said I can imagine that someone like Pelosi wishes she could. In the meantime, she would like to make guns harder to own by introducing much stricter regulations and by banning certain guns altogether. That was the clear intent of her words I quoted.
It's not hard to imagine, seeing as Baden on this very forum initially said he was opposed to banning guns only to reveal that he's not.
I don't think the individual right to a gun is a right worth having, but you have it (at least that's the way it's been interpreted), and it's not going anywhere. The proposal I made took that into account. It's fairly straight-forward.
Quoting Thorongil
You brought me into it by mentioning me. I wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Anyhow, seeing as you feel persecuted, I'll withdraw from the conversation.
This is bizarre. The "regulated" in "a well-regulated militia" does not refer to gun control. Where did you get that idea from? Judging by the wording of your comment above, it seems you just pulled it out of your ass. The second amendment is there to establish the positive right to bear arms. It wasn't drafted to enforce regulations on firearms that make it difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to purchase, own, or carry a firearm. The regulations the Democratic party, one of whose leaders, and not just any old representative, wants to enact would greatly contribute to making it thus difficult.
God you're annoying.
Quoting StreetlightX
How queer, I came on a forum thread and ended up in the zoo...
Except it's not a stupid game, because the left sometimes openly claims to want to do just that. That's why the right has to be careful. What did Saul Alinsky say in Rules For Radicals? Introduce change gradually - by the time they realise it will be too late to go back. Look what the left claims with regards to abortion now - too late to go back.
And Alinsky's not the only one - left-wing agitators continuously use this double speech, and frequently openly claim that they want to use gradual changes in order to implement more radical ones.
Just look at you squirm here! It does refer to "some manner" of regulation, yes, but not the kind Pelosi et al want. That was precisely the point I just got done making.
Given my interest in strategy you shouldn't discount the fact that I've read Alinsky's manual, and have actually paid close attention to how the left goes about trying to implement its policies. This isn't about the gun debate now (I probably side closer to you than to Thorongil on that one), but a discussion of principle. I can understand why people on the right in US are so protective of pro-gun legislation - because there are some actual crazies on the left who really want to take all guns away.
Don't you start or I may have to return as the thread undead back to haunt Thorongil with annoyingly humorous comments he only half appreciates (the first half).
Speaking of humour: Pelosi as left-wing agitator - the woman who can't even bring herself to say the words "Universal Healthcare". Please, I'm choking on your rotting brains.
Sure, except I never mentioned anything about Pelosi :-d - nor did I claim she is a left-wing agitator. But there are many such people in the US.
If they only wanted to implement a minimal change and restrict access to automatic machine guns, assault rifles, and the like I'd have little to no problem. The issue is that they CLAIM to want only that, while in truth they want to use that as a stepping stone for future changes of law. I may be wrong, but I remember Michael openly expressing approval for such a strategy in a similar context awhile ago.
Do excuse my assumption your comment was relevant to the point at issue (i.e. Pelosi and her "slippery slope" comment).
It was relevant, but that isn't to say that Pelosi was addressed as a left-wing agitator. My comment was at a more general level to explain why people on the right are reluctant to agree with those on the left with regards to guns.
That's the third time quoting it. Did you know the "manner" of the regulation in question, as the founders understood that word, when you made this comment? Do you even now? I think not. When you hear the word "regulation," you think of measures like those Pelosi and the Democratic party want to enact. Stop playing dumb.
We were discussing a specific comment by a specific person and what it meant. And you think it's helpful to bring in other people who are not that person and talk about what they mean instead. OK. Thanks.
/s
No you weren't:
Quoting Thorongil
You were disucssing a situation of which Pelosi is just one example. "Those who push for greater regulations" and their intentions are under question. That's not just Pelosi.
And me. Don't forget about me. I was perhaps the most vociferous.
As for the topic, I've said [I]a lot[/I] about this already over the last few days, so I refer you to those comments of mine made mostly in the Shoutbox, or, if you like, I can move them over here.
And what do the Cardassians think of all this?
I have no clue. Shall we write them a letter of invitation to a discussion on the forums? May get us some publicity ;)
I take it all back. You're a genius. :D
I love it. The clear implication being: "if you don't agree with what I want done, you're not doing anything and don't want to do anything."
Leftist tactics in a nutshell: take sincere disagreement by the other side to be a sign of callousness, insanity, or moral inferiority. Don't dispute the points they make. No, just go straight for the ad hominem. There's really no use arguing with someone who thinks other people are evil for disagreeing about how best to solve societal problems, no matter how much the latter acknowledge the problems and want to try and solve them.
Sounds similar to all discussions about abortion with some leftists >:O
The thing with many leftists is that they really don't care about what the other thinks, they just care about doing anything to get their policies implemented.
X-)
The fascination with the rival of the same sex may show some latent homosexuality Freud would tell us.
How condescending of you.
I did. You said "Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned." That's a non sequitur, as I've shown.
Not wishing for something and not caring if that thing happens aren't incompatible positions to have.
https://www.scribd.com/document/267470669/Voegelin-Eric-on-Hegel-a-Study-in-Sorcery-1
From Star Trek to Harry Potter in a page of posts. Nice.
A distinction without a difference. Baden both does wish for the second amendment to be repealed as well as for guns to be banned. The reason he didn't state his opposition to the second amendment earlier, he now tells us, is because it's "not going anywhere." So he's pretending to be a pragmatist.
Moreover, I can merely repeat the question I asked you in the Shoutbox: why repeal the second amendment if not because one wants to ban all guns or make them virtually impossible to own? Again, you're not really fooling anyone here. Anyone with half a brain would make that inference (which may exclude most leftists, but not all of them).
Hey @Baden, what was that about feeling persecuted?
Why ask? You apparently can read my mind.
State rights.
I don't believe the second amendment is a right worth having if it means it increases the chance of people being killed or injured as opposed to the average risk in other developed countries that don't offer such a right. If there were a way to keep the second amendment and not have such obviously adverse consequences then I would not consider it such (I'm not closed to the possibility). Apart from which, as I said, no proposal relying on its repeal is realistic. The fact that this seems even remotely unreasonable or difficult to understand for you is something I can't help you with.
Ordinarily, this might be a good reason (one I doubt you sincerely hold), but it's not in this case, because the second amendment is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. It's not something that can be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right.
So not allowing civilians to buy grenades and fully-automatic machine guns infringes on an inalienable right?
Why do you assume that it's the second amendment that causes gun deaths? Take a look here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.085b6df2f17f
Quoting Baden
I understand that you lied and are now covering your tracks.
Banning such weapons doesn't infringe on said right, correct.
But banning semi-automatics and handguns would?
*Adjusts microscope* Hmm, bacillus paranoias... ;)
I have no reason to lie about my views on gun control. I can't even think one up. Feel free to enlighten me. Why am I lying about what I think about gun control and what do I really think?
Edit: Actually, you've done the second part. Just the first then.
Plato, in think, would be in favor of strict gun control. Only the guardians would own and use guns and they would only use weapons in the best interest of the state, which they would be selected, trained for, and indoctrinated in. Common people would only be allowed firearms if it is was necessary for their chosen occupation (professional hunters, Olympic sports shooters) but everyone would focus on their chosen profession. Bankers would not also be hunters.
John Locke, would be for limited and reasonable restrictions. We have freedoms of our own bodies given to our souls by God. These freedoms include purchasing and using a firearm. However we loose this right when it infringers on others rights (to live and to be free from violence). We also forfiet some of our rights and power in a social contract to the police and military.
I think both these perspectives are helpful. Firearms belong mostly in the hands of the professionals (military, police). They may be used for recreation or hunting but their danger to human life far outweighs these uses. It's a very different hobby than golf. Golf clubs are seldom murder weapons. I don't think practically an armed populace protects freedom. The police are armed to the point and purposefully have SWAT teams for the express purpose of taking down armed criminals. Having guns won't stop you from being arrested. Likewise in a theoretical revolution to a tyrannical state, willing rebels would much harder to recruit than it is to obtain firearms. Preventing dictatorship by political means seems much more productive than stockpiling weapons. Then it's too late because you can't stockpile armored vechiles or military grade weapons. A bunch of small arms won't really help. Everyone will all different kinds of guns will run out of ammo very quickly in actual war situation.
I'd be willing to sacrifice my theoretical ability to keep a gun for the possible revolution in order to reduce the real and actual gun deaths in the country now.
Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. In other words, the right to self-defense entails the right to the appropriate means of self-defense, but such weapons are clearly inappropriate. One doesn't need a tank to protect one's ranch from coyotes or a grenade launcher to protect one during the commute home along a dangerous road. However, a rifle and a pistol might be prudent to have respectively in such cases. And there are hundreds of thousands of cases each year where people have saved their own lives, the lives of others, and private property by the use of guns.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
The last one sounds like a threat. Maybe I should buy a gun to protect myself.
Oh, well why didn't you say so sooner? I guess that makes it okay, then. I'll bear that in mind in the case that I'm shot by some idiot who was able to get his hands on a gun far too easily. It might be of some solace.
How should I know? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not actually a mind reader.
Oh, I see. Looked at in that light, it seems I was right about the persecution complex.
You are an odd one sometimes. Why would you presume something you can't even think of a reason for? But, fine. Your complaints about tactics ring a little hollow now though.
OK, so only guns that were available at the time the Second Amendment was written should be allowed.
Also, you've switched back to talking about constitutional rights, whereas before you were talking about inalienable rights. Are you saying that we have an inalienable right to 21st century handguns and semi-automatics?
Quoting Thorongil
Hey I'm not the snowflake who can't write a sentence without crying about persecution. And like, do I need to /s everytime I'm being sarcastic? It's really no fun if I do.
If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team.
@Agustino: Rene Girard, eat your heart out!
Guns are nothing new in the United States; many of us grew up in regions where hunting was common and lots of people owned and used ordinary rifles and shotguns. There were also handguns, which of course were for not for hunting game. In the 1950s--even with all the paranoia about communism--there was very little (if any) talk about gun rights. The 1960s were busy with dead Kennedys and dead civil rights leaders, the summer of love, hippies, Vietnam, the Great Society legislation, and the Democratic train wreck in Chicago. It wasn't until the late '70s, post Richard Nixon, a spike in crime, New York City near bankruptcy, and so on that a group of conservative insurgents staged a coup d'etat at the NRA convention that gun rights became a "thing".
Under the new conservative leadership, the NRA became proponents of gun rights, second amendment fetishists, and were dedicated to the normalization of guns in public and domestic settings. The new NRA with 5 million members, a 100 million dollars for lobbying, and a very focused agenda was able to bump stock the whole conservative movement forward.
Sure, there have been some dramatic mass shootings. Yes, it's appalling that nearly 600 people have been shot with handguns in Chicago this year, so far. But the reason this debate is taking place here is that it has very much been ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED into politics by the conservative NRA and Republican Party.
You said one thing in the Shoutbox, which you then contradicted here. I'm just calling it like I see it.
You also ignored the first half of my post. So my point about leftist tactics still holds good.
Or their rough equivalents that are appropriate means of self-defense.
Good summary at the link.
There's a false suggestion in your argument, namely the part where you suggest that a gun would've been necessary.
No, it isn't. Some form of self-defence would've been necessary, but not necessarily the one that you clearly favour.
You were thinking?
It's about sufficiency rather than what's more or less effective. And yes, in many cases pepper spray would've been sufficient, especially if you factor in the effect that tighter gun controls would have on the weapon of choice that your attacker pulls on you.
Yeah, and sometimes a gun is the most sufficient.
Quoting Sapientia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.944a791e15bb
That makes no sense. There's no "most sufficient". Something is either sufficient or it is not.
'"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.'
There you go. Get rid of legal guns and there won't be gun crime.
Perhaps. But the militias, as I understand it, were at the service of government; primarily state and local but also, in some instances, the federal government. So, for example, state militia were provided by the governors of certain states to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion." It seems now that the militias envisioned by some are to be available in opposition to the government.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, it's rather hard to maintain that bump stocks are, themselves, arms. But I know the NRA leadership is fond of AR-15s and semi-automatic weapons, and American Hunter, which describes itself as an official journal of the NRA, has been excited about modified military weapons which it would be hard to characterize as being for hunting and recreation, so I am uncertain of just how far they're willing to admit of restrictions. There was a time when the NRA actively supported gun control legislation and even assisted in drafting such laws. Now it seems to actively encourage the purchase of firearms unrelated to sport and recreation.
Poor Fabio. I can just imagine him now, a confused expression on his face, deep in thought, still trying to figure that one out.
"Detective Fabio! Please help me! I gave my little boy a sharp knife to play with and he's cut himself!"
"How on earth could that have happened? I'll have to investigate the many paths which could have resulted in this mysterious incident".
Pachelbel's Canon has little self-defense value, true. Krupp's Cannon, on the other hand...
The point I was making was that THIS discussion is but one of many that result from political engineering, using the NRA and the gun industry. Towards which ends "a gun in every hand" might be targeted would be a better topic. Personally, I suspect a certain variety of conservative harbors a wish to destroy relatively peaceful communalism and replace it with a certain kind of openly hostile individualism that requires guns to maintain itself.
Sure. My point remains either way.
You didn't respond to me when making that post. I'll look at it shortly.
Quite. But I've been responding to several people in this thread, all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac), so forgive me if I don't respond to every post not explicitly addressed to me.
It's been tried. Didn't work.
I do like your brand of comedy where you pretend to spectacularly miss the point, but let's be serious for a moment. My point was obviously that there are means of self-defence - [i]besides guns[/I] - which are sufficient.
I think this is mostly true, but the preamble to the second amendment doesn't negate, and wasn't meant to negate, an individual right to bear arms.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
That was the view at the time too, not just now.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
Excepting bump stocks, most of these modifications are cosmetic in nature. I think it's kind of silly, to say the least, to ban guns that "look" like scary military weapons, when in fact they're not.
And my point is that, in addition to being sufficient, guns are the best means of self-defense in many cases.
No, the best is that which is sufficient and does the least damage. But even if we assume that to be true, my point from earlier undermines it. Prevention is a better strategy than self-defence when you take into account the bigger picture. Your way aggravates and prolongs the problem rather than alleviates it.
The problem for you is that the American founders were in favor of having every American citizen armed. In fact, the desire for people to be armed can be traced back to 17th century England and even to the medieval period. Guns were a normal feature of public and domestic settings for a large portion of American history.
Which is a gun, in many cases. Why do you still refuse to understand my very simple point here?
I agree.
Quoting Sapientia
I disagree.
Mostly cases in which no one got shot, but in which the risk level was nevertheless more severe. Still a big problem.
Out of the fire, into the frying pan.
It would be even sillier, and indeed creepy, I think, to want to own one because it looks like a scary military weapon.
Regardless, though, the one I'm thinking of in particular is the FN SCAR® 17S, touted as just like the weapon used by special forces, except for what those charming rouges who are amused by such things call the "happy switch" which would render it fully automatic.
Guns were needed for hunting and protection of livestock from wolves, foxes, etc. Guns were needed for the defense of or attacks on people -- but mostly as defense. Bow and arrows were also used for the same purpose. All that, granted. But what wasn't present -- as far as I can tell from reading American literature, is that the possession, use, and valorization of gun ownership as a topic of discourse is a very recent phenomena, as is the public discussion about gun control.
Can you cite a founding father (or founding mother) to the effect that every American should own a gun--outside of the 2nd amendment? Is there an old draft of the Declaration of Independence that starts out "now, in the course of human events, it has become necessary for every man to get himself a gun and periodically wave it around to make sure everyone knows he has one and to strenuously set forth arguments and reasons for a gun to rest in every hand..."?
I think I would agree actually, but I still wouldn't ban them on account of aesthetic differences.
Quoting Noah Webster, 1787
Tiff probably has this tattooed on her arm.
It remains to be seen whether this is true today -- one hopes it will not be put to a test. If the hundred million (give or take a few million) Americans were to revolt and turn their guns on the military, I am not sure they would win.
It is an axiom of the left that it is best to not take on the military of the state, especially a well armed state, because state armies tend to be better at violence than unorganized citizens.
Kartrashians don't think.
It is not in the interest of the state or the citizens to have well armed and totally unregulated thugs running around armed with all sorts of guns and ammunition of varying lethality.
You objected to cannons; are cannons above the ceiling? What about armour piercing bullets -- spent uranium points, for instance? What about rockets (not ICBMs, of course -- I think there are zoning ordinances that rule out missile bases in people's back yards) like the kind that the Taliban and lots of other insurgents use? Are they over the top? If the citizenry need to defend themselves against the government, surface-to-air missiles would be handy for keeping the air free of government attackers.
Dune introduced the concept of family atomics. Maybe the Bush clan would want an atomic bomb at some point, or perhaps Trump's real estate operations would need to clear a slum quickly. A big bomb would save time and money.
I've seen this point and its general template before. Here I would point to a fact that is sure to warm the anti-war left's cockles, which is that the American military, with all of its objectively superior armaments, has found itself bogged down in Afghanistan for well over 15 years, unable to finally defeat a ragtag insurgency numbering far less than the total of gun owning Americans. Think of Vietnam as well. If the US government fully descended into tyranny and, among other things, attempted to disarm the populace, I think it would have a very hard time indeed emerging victorious in a war against them. I would note that we're very far from that potentiality, however, since those in the military are often the most vociferous defenders of the second amendment.
Yes. I've said just that in this very thread.
Probably yes, although I am not exactly well up on either of their histories. But if you want to become famous the Cardassians will get you nowhere. And the kartrashians are just about as far into space as the Cardassians.
Little do they know that I've never owned a gun, am not particularly fond of them (I most admire the katana as far as weapons go), think hunting is an immoral activity, and am wary of people wielding them in public. For example, I was in an antique store with my mother several years ago, and I noticed across the street several people with assault rifles slung over their shoulders. I assumed they were part of a pro-gun rally or something of the sort, but I found it uncouth and wanted to leave immediately. Maybe this is what @Bitter Crank means by "normalization," and if so, I agree that it's repulsive.
But there is another sense of normalization that I think the founders had in mind, which is that private citizens be encouraged to learn how to responsibly own and use firearms appropriate to self-defense and to "the security of a free state."
I don't think anyone important takes immaturity, and name calling as all that devastating of an opposition.
What's the philosophical rationale for an individual right to bear arms? Apart from that the US constitution says it.
I have two rationales against it earlier in the thread (Plato and Locke)
The inspiration was the British bill of rights, which allowed protestants to keep and bear arms for their own protection. They were kind of persecuted back then.
The argument seemed to be that for a government to take military power, the people must disarm, but because the Americans were not super trusting of the benevolence of government, they wanted to ensure the people's rights to self defense against a corrupt state, like the protestants maintained in Britain.
Maybe we could arrange for people with those good intentions to go to the US. Then let them go around and take all of the guns off the bad guys. Once they have done that I am sure that the Americans will feel safe enough to hand over their guns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309620/
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188
Just some information from a few studies relevant to my earlier point, which has received only a weak response, [i]if any response at all[/I], from those on the other side of the debate.
I have had that feeling too. Silly me think it was just about me.
Why would one be necessary?
On what basis?
JOHN LOCKE (“Two Treatises of Government”, 1689):
“Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: self defense is a part of the law of nature, nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself...”.
Thanks that's interesting. I worry in today's world that giving untrained people (maybe with marksmanship but without tactical trainging) small arms is unlikely to be a significant threat to an organized and well equipped state. That's why the FBI and police has SWAT teams with gear and training civilians don't have. Their job is arrest or stop armed criminals and they are very good at it. Yet modern history has shown the long term cost of fighting insurgencies. I don't know if arming the minority with small arms really prevents genoocide. It's a good question for historians.
If the second amendment is helpful to protect minority rights then it is the least important of the 10 rights (even after quartering) because without the other rights the state will just take away guns or arrest their owners. A bunch of rednecks with limited ammo in a vast array of calibers is no match for a uniformly equipped and well trained force with air superiority, armored vehicles, and superior firepower.
As long as self defense doesn't infringe on the rights of others to live and be free of violence. I do wonder what Locke would say about mass shootings and if they justified surrendering of arms to the state or if he says only the criminals should have that right taken away.
Why is it more dangerous to give an untrained, or even unscrupulous person a gun, than political power, and influence without being informed, or scrupulous?
You have politicized caricatures of the government, and the types of people that would want guns for their self protection as dumb, violent red necks or something...
I think that he would note the overall significance of them, and number, and see them as not nearly as worrisome as people pretend, compared to much more significant issues.
People have a right from unjust violence, but that means that you would be protected from someone using unjust violence against you, you can't expect the state to, let along to have the omnipresent ability to remove all possibilities of violence from the land... that's not minimal government at all, and Locke was in favor of a minimal government.
That's pretty funny and very true.
It's not fair to characterize gun owners and dumb rednecks. Fair point. But there is a big difference from being able to shoot okay and tactical skills. Granted, I think history is still deciding the effectiveness of poorly trained and poorly armed insurgents against well equipped militaries. The dynamics of war are always changing. So it's an open question.
Really my argument comes down to a cost and benefit analysis. Does the potential ability of a armed public to resist tyranny outweigh the current gun violence rate? Of course neither of these values would be zero under complete gun control, so the formula is complicated and there maybe a happy medium which may even be our current system. But I don't think because the 2nd amendment says so is sufficient reason to continue to gun violence.
Also perhaps the solution isn't as simple either. Perhaps if we as a society say gun ownership is critical to who we're are we need more robust mental health screenings and early warning systems and increased police presence in inner cities and better funded anti-gang initiatives. Maybe we want the right or privilege of gun ownership but aren't willing as a society to support their responsible use.
https://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-a-military-coup-happened-in-Europe-or-the-USA
https://historyguy.com/coups_in_europe_since_world_war_two.htm
I don't know exactly what it means, if the public having guns does stop the military or not, but I think it would be damned hard for the American military to take over if they wanted to. How long would it take for the English army to have complete control of the country?
Self defense cannot infringe on the rights of others without becoming offensive and stopping being self defense.
The fact that we do that, just shows how comfortable and safe we are. I personally, simply think people are soft, and whiny, looking for "micro aggression" because there are no real ones, and scouring the globe for danger, because it isn't anywhere near me.
Right. I certainly don't.
There are still serious points that have been left unaddressed, and this kind of nonsense appears to be merely a diversion.
I bet making it illegal to not wear a helmet at all times would save more lives, and prevent a lot of head injuries. Don't you want to protect everyone from head injuries? Leaving bed without a helmet ought to be illegal.
I can't resist.
Of course it is not going to happen, even if they are shit sick of the idiots that rule them. They don't have any guns and the bloody government knows it.
Oh, I remember...
I am 100% percent in favor of this idea. Draft the bill tonight and we can present to all of the governments in the morning. It is obvious that there are a lot of people walking around that have suffered grievous injuries to the point where their thinking is very unclear.
This is very true. Fear is a tool used heavily both by the Right and Left in politics.
Thanks, I appreciated your defense far more than the redneck inlaws I have that blindly support the 2nd amendment and are still talking about Obama taking away their guns.
Obviously I'm little bit left on this issue, but a Republic friend of mine were talking about how we really need civilized public debates by non-politicians, perhaps even philosophers, that covered these issues with an emphasis on mutual respect. Of course this exists on university campuses but it needs to be more central to our culture. It's a sad thing that the ratings would be so low.
I wouldn't blame the inlaws. The most expedient way to get people to do what you want is to just emotionally manipulate them, with fear, pride, sympathy, shame and things of that nature, and politicized topics have a hell of a lot of that flying around.
Remember that Plato's political work was called "the republic", making him a republican.
I'm not sure whether you're making a bad joke, genuinely making an absurd claim about the English army, or you just don't have a good understanding of how to clearly express yourself using the English language.
Given that we were both talking about the English army, and you even quoted me talking about the English army, then it would be conventional to assume that that's what you're referring to. But that's obviously false. So perhaps you meant to refer to the English citizenry, although that would be changing the subject.
Perhaps it was an exaggeration.
Someone help me out here. Which would be the most charitable assumption?
To be clear, my incredulity has nothing to do with your stance on guns as it was to your rhetorical strategy. Again, to move from a point about the constitution to a largely imagined - and entirely unrealistic - fear that all guns will be banned or made inaccessible is a rhetorical leap so wide as to be fantastic. It's the immediate argumentative instinct - to imagine and conjure up a thinly grounded fantasy mired in conspiracy theoretic language - that I think is so wild. It's as if, having suggested that perhaps dogs should be put on leashes in public, you were to immediately leap to the fear that the real, hidden and nefarious motive is to have all dogs everywhere put down or made unavailable for purchase. In-sane.
Plato's political theory is completely unworkable. I think Plato meant the Republic on both a literal political level and on allergory to the individual soul to which it works much better.
He does say one gem though. If we raised our children without being ever exposed to anything short of collaboration in the stories they hear, they would learn those values over violence. I think about how ingrained and normalized violence and being unkind to others is in our culture. It's not okay to get what you want by unkind means or unjustly, yet culture sends all sorts of mixed messages there.
As an actual voter, I never vote based on gun rights. The issue doesn't really worry me. I used to own an AR-15 but I sold it and don't plan to own a firearm again. I am an army vet and would be happy if never heard gunfire again.
If that is what you want to call it. Maybe I could have worded it a bit better.
Who rules England? The government.
Who backs up the government? The military.
They don't need a coup because they already run the place, and could the citizens do anything about if they wanted to. No
Fair assessment and apt analogy.
Not to mention the facile talk about "the left". Unfortunate yet predictable.
Moral principles are important to be freely chosen or imparted, otherwise it is just tyranny, and slavery. I really don't think that violence is ingrained and normalized. You know what the major delusion of people is? That everyone else is a product of their culture, but they're immune. Are you violent and unkind? If you aren't, then you can be sure that most people aren't either, as you're all products of each other. This is also why societal, and cultural change doesn't happen with arguments, war, or laws, but you and me. Change yourself and you'll change the world.
I don't much like guns either, but because they're too unskilled and equalizing, destroying the majesty of the martial arts, which has never truly been a thing after their invention. Making it possible for there to be child armies, and for four hundred pound hunters to wheeze from cover and kill animals four hundred yards off.
And is this a serious consideration worthy of bringing up here? No.
We live in a stable democracy with a very good track record.
Based on the fact the the American want to keep this from happening to them and that the English have already let it happen, maybe yes.
My statements aren't inconsistent particularly seeing as I clarified the first one in the Shout box in a reply to Sapientia. But even if there were an inconsistency, your conclusion makes no sense. You think you've found an inconsistency, you admit that you know of no reason that I would lie.Your conclusion: I'm lying. As I said, you're an odd one.
Quoting Thorongil
I like that you presume I'm a leftist and I have tactics. It's kind of like being in a movie.
When you're unable to discuss substance, all that's left is to invoke ideological spectres to cover over argumentative inability. It's generally a good sign.
You're forgetting the other possibility, which is that you modified your position into the pragmatic one you've presented here when it was pointed out to you that you were inconsistent. I don't know that, though, which is why I said I can't read your mind.
Quoting Baden
Nice dodge.
Were I running the coup d'etat, I would recommend that the troops NOT fight it out with the citizenry on a block by block basis. There are much simpler ways of bringing the masses to their knees:
1. drastically reduce electric power; let local government allocate limited power to water supply, sewer pumps, hospitals (or cut it off altogether, if need be)
2. cut telephone/internet communication
3. ground airplanes (like on 9/15, only longer)
4. Sharply reduce ground transportation
5. Block radio signals
All of these actions can be taken without pointlessly killing a lot of people or destroying infrastructure, and can be eased off or leaned on, as needed. Conflict will probably arise around generation plants, major transmission switches, and wherever road and rail blocks are established -- generally, well outside of residential areas.
Power and telephone/internet cuts and sharply reduced ground transportation will produce real post-apocalyptic sensations which will reduce the entertainment value of revolting against the government to a minimum. Hot spots can be kept on ice longer, as needed.
Amazing projection here.
You mean... stutter, stutter, you aren't? You don't? Oh, woe is us.
We didn't "let it" happen. There was a civil war, and throughout most of it, the Parliamentarians did not even seek to overthrow the monarchy. History could have easily taken a different path, and we might never have had a Commonwealth, or later, a Protectorate.
But in any case, that was hundreds of years ago. And, moreover, why should what the Americans want take precedence over what's in their best interest? Yes, that might come across as authoritarian, but, to give an example with which many would agree, I'd be strongly against the reintroduction of barbaric forms of punishment, such as hanging, beheading, and being burnt at the stake, irrespective of whether or not that's what my fellow Englishmen wanted.
Again, we should not give credence to, or encourage, these sort of unreasonable desires. Here or elsewhere.
And he's not the only one. Although Agustino - to his credit - seems to have gone quiet after I called him out on it earlier.
Yes that's right, the English have no memories of the rights they once had. The Americans do however.
Quoting Sapientia
It's their country, if that is what they want who has the right to deny their wishes?
Quoting Sapientia
I'll bet the crime rates were low in those times though.
The thought that owning a weapon would be any kind of defense against the US Department of Defense, if it came to that, is surely a ridiculous fantasy.
On the other hand, if arms really were to be organised and stored in the service of a 'well-organised militia', in a proper armoury, subject to checks, controls and balances, then you might have a workable model.
But there is about as much chance of that happening, as...I don't know...Trump appearing intelligent.
The threat of a real bloodbath would probably forestall any military action against the people. Could you imagine the American government being called out because they sent in the military to battle with the citizens. If there were no guns it would be a completely different story.
Quoting Wayfarer
And who would you say should have the job of organizing it? The military possibly.
Indeed. It seems as though some would rather focus on ridiculous fantasies than on evidence-based objections.
I did try to divert the course of the discussion, but to no avail, and then I allowed myself to get sucked into it.
You say this quite often don't you. Is there some special reason why? Did you never consider the fact that saying something is wrong is not enough, that there should be an explanation there somewhere.
Please be nice and tell me what is wrong with the post.
No. I refuse to go in to details. I'm not going to humour you. I don't think that you put enough effort in on your end, and it's [I]quid pro quo[/I] - so take it or leave it.
The point I was making was that the original Second Amendment quotation says:
'"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Everyone remembers the 'right to keep and bear' but nobody mentions 'the well-regulated militia'. If you had the former, then you would have a semblance of control and accountability - not the mere selling of any gun, to any buyer, as you see now. It's not a 'well-regulated militia', but armed anarchy and blood in the streets; not at all what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, I would think.
In any case, the fundamental lie behind unrestricted gun ownership, is the proposition that by owning a gun, you can feel safe. Whereas, in a properly civil culture, you DON'T have to own a gun to feel safe. NOT needing to 'bear arms' is a measure of civility, if you like. So I think the instance of gun death in America, is an indication of a failure of civility, or even, of the American conception of what constitutes a civilized society. It really is a grave and fundamental problem.
You should be able to work out the answer from what I've written. But anyway.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not calling for a repeal of the second amendment (that would be futile) and I don't know that the second amendment in and of itself is the cause of the problem I'd like us to address (the disparity between the US and other developed countries in terms of violent crime and gun violence specifically), which is why I made a conditional statement about it rather than a categorical one and then clarified that. But we're never going to be able to have a normal conversation until you get over your paranoia about my (and others' here) motives. Isn't it possible that like most people, I don't want to see needless loss of lives and would be happy to see any measures taken that would solve the problem? That whether or not you keep your second amendment in this context is unimportant to me? That I'm not actually a tactically maneuvering leftist working (on a philosophy forum of all places) to try to ban all guns in America just to piss off the right?
Correction: "rightist evil maniac". ;)
Quoting Thorongil
Nope. It's your demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps that were objected too. I know you're not a gun lover but you do hate the left in a way that makes you sound irrational at times.
How soon you forget (or ignored to begin with). I made this post not long ago:
*Sigh*
Quoting Baden
Perhaps one reason why is because I keep being smugly accused of "demonstrable paranoia and logical leaps" by the left without evidence. Something to think about.
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Nice idea. Didn't work out for you in practice though.
Quoting Thorongil
The difference between you and a person with a sense of humour in a nutshell. Cheer up, please. Lighthearted comments like that are an attempt to steer things back on a more productive path not a serious attempt at insult.
I see nothing productive about it. Even if it were, the horse is already out of the barn.
Quoting Sapientia
I couldn't say it better.
By the way, I knew it wasn't an attempted insult. The bitter sarcasm and hyperbolic reactions in this thread have always been accompanied by an implicit wink and a nudge. You know that I know that you know that you don't really think I'm crazy. The idea is to make me respond in kind so as to entertain you. I've tried to stick to my position and the argument at hand, however, and not fall for the bait. This is why I say with complete sincerity that you haven't refuted anything I've said. I know what it looks like when someone knows they have me dead to rights. This thread is mostly shitposting and moral preening on the part of you and your mod buddies.
Thank goodness.
Quoting Thorongil
I can only again suggest you cheer up and stop taking things personally. You did become the butt of some jokes and harsh criticism because of some things you said. If you really feel you are being picked on, you can raise it in Feedback. Anyway, on with the discussion hopefully.
No, that's not true. The logical leap has been explained multiple times now. I know because I've been following this discussion closely since it began in the Shoutbox. StreetlightX did a good job the last time.
Isn't that the same in the U.S.?
The leap is from "repeal of second amendment" to "ban on all guns".
Yes, why not raise it in feedback, so that a verdict can be given by a group of leftist mods on their own behaviour. Sounds like a good idea. >:O
So if members of the left assert - like you yourself - that for strategical reason things must be started with small gradual changes, how is that a leap?
Are those who argue that the first amendment doesn't protect the right of any adult to marry planning to ban marriage in its entirety? Or do they just wish to allow for bans on certain types of marriage (e.g. same-sex marriage)?
Wanting to repeal the second amendment so that greater restrictions on gun control can be put in place doesn't entail wanting to ban all guns.
It wasn't even 'repeal', it was, 'hey, the constitution itself provides for a reading in which regulation is written into the very passage itself'. And as Ciceronianus pointed out all those pages ago, none of the constitutional rights are unconditional, and practically none are treated as such; the insistence that the 2nd is somehow special is itself a complete anomaly.
I get it but I actually don't want unfair treatment and it's difficult to be objective when involved in a discussion. As I've said before I believe all of these debates should end with a smile and a handshake if possible.
Well two things. First of all, they state that their intention is to ban same-sex marriage but not the other kind of marriage. In this other case, some of the leftists openly state that the intention is to ban all guns, but that should be approached by gradual change. So the situations are not similar.
Second of all, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman so there isn't even a problem.
Quoting Michael
No, you're right, it doesn't entail it. But do some people on the left want to ban all guns, and intend to do this via the route of gradual change?
Yes, when I was an immigrant there, I remember having trouble buying a knife.
:-}
Quoting Agustino
Yes, and some don't. Some might just want to address the fact that a ban on anyone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution is unconstitutional. Some will think that bans like this are needed, and so a repeal of the second amendment is required.
Ok, so then you can understand that it's not such a big leap when actors on the left publicly state that this is their intention. At least you understand how Thorongil can come to make the leap.
Selling, buying and carrying knives:
It’s illegal to:
Nonsense rhetoric. Slippery slope fallacy.
People are never going to feel safe enough, it clearly is a slippery slope. There is going to be push and pull. Obviously some will never be pleased until they get personal nukes, and others won't be until we all can't leave the house without helmets, and permanently attached oven mitts. It probably just has a lot to do with temperament, what temperature the water is you're already sitting in, and personal feelings of security, and anxiety.
Everyone should just get sweet knife defense courses. Obviously not a slippery slope when things have gotten that ridiculous.
>:O . It's an interesting paradox. Some think it's safer if everyone has weapons, and others that it's safer if no one has weapons.
Now this comment reminded me that you said something interesting to me about imitation in a comment yesterday that I meant to reply to and forgot, but I need to find it first.
Some do think that guns makes them safer, but I think that the debate tends to be more phrased as freedom vs safety, smaller government and "nanny state". So whether it made people safer or not I don't think is the issue for most that are pro gun rights.
They haven't gotten that ridiculous, as you don't have to be 18 to use safety scissors with gloves.
How reckless.
I can't resist:
If marriage is defined as between a man and a woman then same-sex marriage is incoherent, and so no same-sex couples are married. Whatever the current legal status of their relationship, it isn't marriage, and so those who oppose it have nothing to worry about (and nothing to ban).
Besides, such a ban would clearly violate the first amendment, as Americans have the constitutional right to use the word "marriage" to describe the relationship of same-sex couples, even if such language-use is contrary to the historical definition of the term. We're free to speak gobbledygook.
Only your manly parts. :)
Sure, but many of them are simply concerned about marriage being the words that are used, and the fact that religious groups are forced to recognise these unions. Apart from that, no issue.
Quoting Michael
Sure, but the issue is that this gobbledygook can impinge on the freedom of religious organisations since they will be expected to recognise these new gobbledygook forms of marriage.
Yes, they are obliged (or can be obliged) to officiate marriage ceremonies or recognise the couple as married.
Then the problem isn't with same-sex so-called-but-not-really-marriage per se but with religious institutions being required to officiate such unions.
Would it be a problem if same-sex couples are allowed to be issued so-called-but-not-really-marriage licenses but that religious institutions are not required to officiate such unions? That's how it works in the UK.
That's the bit I'm confused about. What does it mean to recognise a couple as married?
No, people are free to associate as they wish, and live together with whoever they wish.
Quoting Michael
Recognising a couple as married (from the point of view of religious institutions) means according them the status of married in a religious sense - meaning holding religious ceremonies to recognise their marriage.
So when you say "they are obliged ... to officiate marriage ceremonies or recognise the couple as married" you're just repeating yourself?
Then I guess the whole debate against same-sex marriage is pretty pointless, as from what I understand, religious institutions aren't required to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies (at least not in the UK or the US).
You are right, but this is a counter intuitive truth. It would seem, on surface, that best way to promote morality is by force and by heavy progranda. Yet, you are correct this would not be true virtue since it would not be a free choice. In fact even a morally good nation where virtue is an easy or natural choice (the default) would do little to encourage true virtue that requires choosing against vice. In fact our current nation is probably ideal, it grants freedom to choose while providing an atmosphere where virtue is neither present nor truly known. That is a perfect situation to raise up rare individuals who seek out virtue and pursue it even against the common zeitgeist. I suspect the world has always been this way and I doubt good societies ever existed. I think virtue is a probably better with quality than quantity.
I agree with you that culture is made a scapegoat that everyone but oneself is prone to. Several factors are at play here. First, most people are basically good and decent yet being good and decent doesn't sell ratings or catch the spotlight. So we have the illusion that our neighbors are morally worse than we are. Second, we have many subcultures, many of them religious, which provide a contrasting narrative and offer a stronger moral code that people follow. Third, I would be bold enough to say I do not allow my culture to determine my values and have an ethic and worldview that us fundamentally oppossed to modern culture's ethic. This is because I'm heavily drawn to contemplation almost monasticism and firmly reject materialism. In high school I had dreams of becoming a monk, but I foolishly didn't listen. I blame culture for the lie that getting a job and having a family is the key to happiness and having them I feel a bit tricked. I think there is a way to be a family centered contemplative. The way I fundamentally differ from culture is that I know that my happiness is completely independent of my material or social success. I really don't care about my salary or promotions or what others think of me. Or perhaps more accurately put I know I shouldn't care and I struggle to live my life without seeking those things.
It is strange to me that people have such strong convictions over a (supposed) misuse of a word. How can it actually bother you that a word which (supposedly) means "union of man and a woman" is being used to describe the union of two men or of two women? Are the religious just deeply committed to preserving definitions? Are they just deeply opposed to semantic change?
Some ministers/priests were obliged in the US.
Becuase the misuse of the word can have repercussions on their own freedom of religion, obviously. Ideas matter.
The lie is that happiness is all that important at all, which is psychologically just extroversion minus neuroticism, or there are plenty of drugs that will do the trick. Why should the highest conception of existence be a hedonic pleasure cruise? People care more about significance, reality, and meaning than happiness. If you could live in a hologram with artificial people that did nothing but tell you how great you are, with drugs keeping you in constant bliss, would you want that? Isn't that undesirable because it would be hollow?
There is something to be said about emotional maturity. The emotionally mature know how to regulate themselves, in most, hopefully all of the dimensions. They do grinding meticulous work to achieve that virtue, which is an uphill battle. It wouldn't be rare if it wasn't difficult, and suffered. One doesn't eat all the cookies because it feels good, or just do whatever they want for personal happiness. They eat right, exercise, sleep at regular intervals, restrain themselves from emotional outbursts, listen even when they don't like what is being said, and demonstrate the virtues they wish others to adopt.
I definitely don't have it all figured out or anything, but I do take culture and tradition seriously, the things that were maintained for centuries, even millennia were done so for damn good reasons, and not out of ignorance or stupidity.
So 79% uses a fire arm that doesn't belong to them but rather someone else who was a legal owner. But if there were no legal owners because guns would be prohibited, wouldn't that suggest this percentage would be much lower as well?
How so? I fail to see how giving same-sex couples the same legal protections as different-sex couples and referring to same-sex unions using the word "marriage" has any effect on freedom of religion.
If the issue is with being forced to officiate same-sex marriages, would it bother you if such unions weren't called "marriage" but were instead called "civil partnership"?
If so then the opposition has nothing to do with what is or isn't the definition of "marriage" and everything to do with same-sex unions, which makes the earlier remark on the "correct" definition of "marriage" a red herring.
If it wouldn't bother you then I repeat my earlier claim that I find it strange that one can be so deeply against semantic change. Why does it matter if the word "marriage" is appropriated for a new, albeit related, use? Does it bother you when people say such things as "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip-hop"? Being opposed to officiating same-sex marriages but not same-sex civil partnerships on the grounds that the traditional definition of "marriage" is "a union of man and a woman" just doesn't make sense to me. It's just a word.
Quoting Agustino
So this has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage being "a union of a man and a woman" and everything to do with opposing homosexuality? If the issue is with homosexuality and not the traditional definition of marriage then why does it matter if the word "marriage" is used to describe homosexual relationships or not? The use or non-use of the label doesn't change anything. They're a couple regardless.
Unless the real real reason for the opposition is being opposed to granting same-sex couples the same legal protections that marriage offers different-sex couples? Then this has nothing to do with freedom of religion at all, and everything to do with thinking that the law should discriminate based on sexuality.
I have no idea what this means.
Legal protection is not at issue.
Quoting Michael
No.
Quoting Michael
If you define that as marriage - which is the same word used to designate the religious institution - there's a problem. Sooner or later religious institutions will be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage, which infringes upon freedom of religion. Ideas have consequences.
Quoting Michael
No, that point was unrelated. It explained why the religious institutions have a moral prohibition against homosexuality. Has nothing to do with the law and with secular partnerships.
Quoting Michael
No, homosexual people should have the same legal protections as other people are granted.
Quoting Michael
I can see that.
Right, so it's the bizarre commitment to being opposed to semantic change.
Besides, what does it mean to be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage?
Sounds vaguely Lacanian. I'd also ask for an explanation but we're veering off-topic. Might be worth a new discussion.
"Prevention" is the consciously locked gate that has to be opened to get on the property. "Prevention" is silent Rottweiler's that have access to their people's bedroom as well as the property line fence. "Prevention" is the consciously locked solid wood front door.
Quoting Sapientia
You are correct to a degree. The degree being how good of a shot the shooter is and how quickly the target can move in an unpredictable way.
What is considered a reasonable amount of "Prevention" before self defense is acceptable in the eyes of Sapientia?
Precisely. This was covered earlier, when I emphasised that we are talking about [i]sensible[/I] restrictions, but he persists nevertheless. Time waster.
As I noted, I'm a gun owner. But I don't feel the reverence for them so many of those against gun control seem to feel. "Reverence" is, I think, an appropriate word. To me, my shotguns are rather like tennis racquets or golf clubs, but subject to a need for greater care in their use. I take no pride in owning guns, I don't feel as if I'm more of an American for having them, I don't go about proclaiming all Americans should have one or two or even more, I don't feel I'm exercising some quasi-sacred right, I don't think it's good to own a gun, I don't go about wearing them in restaurants or stores. I certainly don't feel I need them in order to protect myself from the armed forces or law enforcement.
Guns seem to have a kind of sanctity in American culture, or so it seems from the example of the more vocal of those who oppose gun control. Those gun owners I know personally merely use them, primarily for hunting, with little or no pomposity. The fact that guns are revered inhibits their reasonable regulation, I believe. Perhaps if it was agreed reasonable regulation is necessary, things would be less contentious, but those who oppose gun control seem mostly to contend that it doesn't work. Even if that's true, though, that would merely relate to existing regulation, not all regulation. Too often it seems to me that those opposing gun control take the less than sensible position that there are so many guns available that it's necessary that we are able to get more.
Pfft.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Why are you listing forms of prevention? I don't dispute that gates, dogs, and doors can act as forms of prevention.
Prevention can also come in the form of gun control, which is the topic of discussion.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
That's a misleading statement. Yes, to a degree, and that degree is about as close to certainty as you can get. It's physically impossible to dodge a bullet that has been fired in your trajectory. We simply aren't fast enough. Manoeuvring to avoid that trajectory before a shot has been fired is not the same thing, and was not what my statement described - or at least meant to describe - and that should have been clear.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
The use of any kind of force should always be a last resort, and the kind of force used matters. If it's excessive force, then that's unacceptable. However, mitigating factors, if there are any, should be taken into consideration before passing judgement.
It's also very important to assess the risks involved, as well as to weigh the costs against the benefits.
So why do the military need to produce so many millions of rounds of ammunition if the are crack shots. Would it not be easier to send someone to count the enemy and send the right amount of bullets with maybe a few extras?
I know someone that claims to be a good grammar tutor if you are interested in improving the way you express yourself.
And on top of that, prevention should also include the idiots thinking about what kind of trouble they are going to get into.
Why does prevention always have to be part of the good peoples lives.
If the bad guys what to stop their own deaths let them be preventive as well.
Has anyone bothered to check out how many of the people that died because of guns were actually innocent nice people?
I didn't find clear statistics just now on "innocent victims". When in 1 year you have 3000+ injured by guns, and 600+ dead in Chicago, and where 75% of the murder cases are not "cleared" (solved), it is hard to say. 41 Chicago children under the age of 14 were killed last year. But there were also adult men and women who were killed in Chicago who are innocent of committing any crime whatsoever, and who's misfortune was to get in the way of a bullet.
Some people are involved in crimes, gangs, drug dealing, and so on, and happen to get shot as they walk down the street, say by rival gang members. Are they "innocent" and "nice"?
It was just a thought that stuck me, everyone seems to take for granted that all of the people that have died in gun incidents are people that are undeserving of dying. I have not had the time to do any research but it seems to me that a fair number of the people that have died, not in mass shootings of course, might actually have had something to do with their own death.
Quoting Bitter Crank
That might be part of the total, but how many of the deaths are related to them carrying guns with intentions to use them?
I stand in support of gun ownership. The purpose of outlawing or restricting ownership of weapons does not make much sense in the long run. Outlaws and criminals are outlaws and criminals for a reason; simply because they do not follow the laws. They would get ahold of weapons one way or another, and I can be sure that most average criminals did not go through the legal process of obtaining weapons legally. By restricting gun ownership, one merely creates a crisis to law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves by causing it to be more difficult to obtain legal weapons.
But the thing is, Ghettos & Slums, Inc. houses many people, not all of whom are engaged in crime. Not engaging in crime might be a crime by local norms. Also, your typical 'hood thug is not operating at a high level of sophistication. They often shoot first and ask questions later, shoot wildly, shoot vaguely identified people, don't really know what the fuck they are doing, and so on.
From the accounts I've read, a lot of the "innocent deaths" are due to the stupidity of the killers.
Quoting Sir2u
When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know.
That's a strange relation you've suggested there. Having had something to do with their own death means not undeserving of dying?
An insidious question. He's suggesting that there are people who deserve to be shot.
No, you can't leap from the particular to the general like that. It's fallacious and misleading. Restricting gun ownership poses no obstacle whatsoever to seeking [i]other[/I] weapons or [i]other[/I] means of protection.
People like you are contributing to the spread of harmful myths.
What's interesting (and not seemingly talked about) is that whereas suicide accounts for 63% of gun-related deaths, self-harm only accounts for 6% of gun-related injuries. I suppose that's obvious as it's harder to fail to kill yourself with a gun. If we add deaths and non-fatal injuries together, intentional self-inflictions account for 25%.
Another interesting fact is that "firearm injuries result in over $48 billion in medical and work loss costs annually", and that according to this, the gun industry is worth $16.6 billion annually. I wonder how much the medical and work loss costs will change if the gun industry went away (except for manufacturing for the military/armed police).
I am listing the multiple forms of MY proactive measures taken to ensure my safety as well as the living creatures I call family from those that wish to do us harm, man or beast.
Quoting Sapientia
Thank you Sapientia, I am aware of the topic of the thread and YOU were the one who spoke of prevention. If you could please back off the condescending attitude and I am asking you to do so, it's your choice to do what you want but know that it is offensive and makes me not want to interact with you.
If someone, after encountering all MY conscious decisions to "Prevent" harm to myself and my family, still wishes to enter without consent, attempts to cause malice to my livestock or theft of property?
Sure, there are other ways to protect against thugs breaking into your home. Maybe try hand grenades? Perhaps it would be more efficient to evaporate them with some fancy laser. Mustard gas anyone? Personally, I would opt for a pistol because it is better controlled and effectively eliminates the threat while keeping a distance. If you chose to heavily regulate the victim's ability to defend him or herself, then they will likely be hurt by following those laws more so than by the criminal activity.
For instance, if the security guard in the Los Vegas hotel had possession and trained in the use of firearms, then perhaps those 59 people wouldn't have died. But with heavy regulation, then more and more law-abiding people will lack this opportunity to defend themselves and others. Criminal activity will never cease as long as this world exists as we know it.
Yes, and I asked you why you were doing that, since it wasn't requested, and it doesn't seem to really add anything to the discussion.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'm trying to keep things on track. That's more important to me than how I come across to you or whether you're offended. If you don't like arguing with me, you could always argue with someone else - Aristotle, perhaps.
I spoke of prevention because I think that it's of relevance to the topic, i.e. gun control. It wasn't an invitation to share aspects of your personal life, but if they're relevant to the topic, then by all means, be my guest. Although, if so, then I'd ask that you kindly spell out the relevance.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
That's an incomplete question. How should it end? Are you suggesting that you believe that you'd be justified in shooting them?
The evidence is not on your side. The US allows far easier access to firearms than most other countries. The US also has a disproportionately high level of gun crime compared to most other countries. Your cops have guns. You also have a higher level of police shootings. All you have to do is put two and two together.
If the police officer who shot dead Scout Schultz had used pepper spray or a taser instead of a firearm, then what is the likelihood that Scout would be alive right now?
What about that security guard that you mentioned? Would a taser not have disabled the target without killing him? Would it not then have been the case that even more lives were saved? (Although, did he not in fact manage to slip past the security guard? If so, then why are we even discussing this? Either way, it would not have made any difference in this particular case).
Perhaps one day - hopefully sometime soon - you, and others like you, will realise that you're part of the problem.
Is this kind of answer some sort of a defense mechanism for your inferiority complex.
It seems to happen a lot. Especially when you don't have sensible answers or anything of value to add.
I'm going to count how many times you have given answers like this to people. It might make some interesting statistics.
Are you telling me that you genuinely expect me to take those replies seriously? Why would I do that?
See, you did it again.
You were the one that said no one can dodge a bullet so I figures that the worlds military organizations and I were missing out on something.
Are you not capable of explaining your own worlds?
It's not about capability. It's about spending one's time wisely. If you're having trouble figuring things out that plenty of others can easily grasp, then you have my heartfelt sympathy, but that's all you're getting.
See, you did it again.
Who's time are you talking about?
I don't have a lot to spare but I do at least take the time to understand you, even if you refuse to explain things. What I don't have time for is googling all of your ideas to get explanations.
Someone carrying a gun always intends to use it. Why else carry a gun? Nobody carries a gun with the intent not to use it. That includes what is called the law abiding citizen who, for reasons unclear to me, walks about in public with a firearm concealed or worn openly.
They intend to use it "when necessary." The law abiding citizen, presumably, intends to use it to protect themselves or others from someone also carrying a gun.
I'm not at all certain that a law abiding, gun-toting citizen would do a significant deal of good in a public firefight. It isn't easy to accurately use a firearm, particularly a handgun, without extensive training even in circumstances where there is no threat to life and limb setting the adrenaline flowing or people milling about. Even those trained in use of firearms, like law enforcement personnel, can end up shooting the innocent, e.g. the incident involving a gunman confronted by two officers outside the Empire State Building in 2012. The officers ending up shooting 9 innocent bystanders in addition to the gunman. One officer shot 7 times, the other officer shot 9 times. So, it seems 9 of the 16 shots fired didn't hit the intended target. For me, this doesn't inspire much confidence in the utility of gun carrying ordinary citizens trying to confront the bad guys.
As I have already said, I agree with this. But the distinction is as you say.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
The non-abiding folks are intent on using as necessary to advance their own way of life, and bugger the rest.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
That would depend on the situation. As I have said sometimes the presence of one and the knowledge that it will be used is enough to avoid further problems. I already explained my personal experience with gun carrying.
Another example that might be pertinent happened on the same bus route I use daily. Almost everyday one of the buses would be robbed. A different man would get on somewhere at the beginning of the trip and wait for the bus to fill up. Then he would reach into his bag and pullout a gun before making everyone take of their valuables, wallets, mobile phones and once even a pair of tennis shoes.
It stopped the day three people pulled guns on him. He got off the bus after returning the few things he had already picked up and started running. But as usually happens here phones are for taking selfies and no on thought to take his picture.
The case you mention as well as others involving police are not the norm. They are if you look at the big picture very rare incidents.
Two thoughts come to mind with these types of arguments. As much as I loathe Donald Trump, and as big of a megalomaniac as he is, the fact of the matter is that if this current kakistocracy did transform into some sort of dictatorship, there is very little the citizenry can do. There are a handful of examples where armed US citizens clashed with the government (in the form of one armed agency or another) and always goes poorly with the former. It is a delusional fantasy to think that armed US citizens can stand against the US government.
Secondly, the idea that the US government will transform into a dictatorship remains just that, an idea. It is a hypothetical. Gun avoidance, however, exists in the very real quotidian. This is a substantive issue that has plagued our nation for decades, whereas other similarly developed countries have fixed their gun avoidance problem with gun control.
Only a British resident could write that. Well, actually, I searched and, based on this page, realised I need to add Ireland, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand to that.
Anywhere else - including where I live unfortunately - 'armed police' is a tautology.
I really respect the model where the only police that handle firearms are specialists that have been highly trained and tested for the temperament and capabilities that are needed to be able to handle firearms judiciously and skilfully when under pressure. It seems to work well in the countries where it's used.
Of course, it helps that gun ownership is tightly controlled in those countries.
Here's a BBC article about why British beat police don't carry firearms. I was intrigued by what it says about the effect on the relationship between the police and the public.
Britain has its share of race problems, but people of colour regularly being inappropriately shot by police is not one of them.
The question: in what specific way should they be made tighter?
If you won't listen, then I won't speak. I have already spoken on this subject, yet your question indicates that you have not listened.
I suspect that most of the law abiding citizens carrying firearms for protection haven't spent much time being trained in their use.
The use of firearms as a preventive method does not always require one to fire it. But the incident did involve the use of firearms. If one of the passengers had started to fight with the thief things might have ended up very different as has happened on several occasions before.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
And I suppose the bad guys are about the same, except for the practice they get attacking others.
Quoting Maw
"It is a delusional fantasy to think that COLONIAL citizens can stand against the BRITISH government."
How unpleasant this idea would have been if it were mainstream in the 1770s. Thank god the founding fathers weren't disposed to it.
Military technology has moved on a bit since muskets.
Also, the enemy wouldn't be half a world way, and also opposed by France, Spain, the Netherlands, and the Kingdom of Mysore.
It's inexplicable. I think other countries should take the lead from the US and loosen up their ridiculously strict gun laws - unless they think their citizens are generally bad people who would use guns to do harm to others. Clearly the US is doing something right.
Huh?
Why would you think it would be worse with gun control? Have you ever considered that it would be better? If people can't get hold of guns (and ammo) then how can they use guns to commit crimes?
According to this:
Make it easier to get guns and I guarantee that gun crime will increase. That's why we don't free up our own sensible restrictive gun laws.
I think you missed the irony of his post.
As to the question, why gun crime is much lower in countries with gun control than in countries without it, well, it's an inexplicable mystery that the finest minds have been unable to fathom. Some people say that it's because gun control actually *causes* the lower murder and crime rate. Obviously, that is ridiculous. Most people who have guns don't mean any harm and there are only a few bad guys with guns, so that would have no effect on the over-all murder rate. No, it's a mystery and beyond all possible explanation, as far as I can see.
http://www.theonion.com/article/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-36131
The genuinely distressing thing is that you can post this kind of nonsense and the irony is missed - not because people are insensitive to irony, but because the arguments are peddled so widely without the slightest irony at all....
Quoting Cuthbert
Quoting Sapientia
Hmm, actually by my research from a study in 2011, places with high gun-control laws are more likely to have gun-related crime. Within the United State, Washington D.C and California have the highest rate of firearm-related murder. California ranking at 3.25 murders per 100,000 people, accounting for 68% of deaths in that state. Utah, quite contrary, with its laws being deemed the most relaxed towards gun-control, has a rate of about 0.97% of firearm-related murders. Which, given these facts, it would seem most plausible that gun-control to extreme extents, increases firearm-related murder.
As for the United States having a high level of gun crime compared to most other countries, I must ask where you obtained those statistics. The only statistics I could find supporting this was from a 2003 study of all homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm-related death among high-income nations, not most other counties.
Quoting Sapientia
If the police officer had a taser or pepper spray instead of a firearm, the risk would have been greatly increased for the lives of other students and the officers themselves. You must understand how a taser operates before recommending such weapons. Both require relatively close distance. Given that Schultz called 911, declaring that he had a knife and a gun and that he purposefully threatened the officers by advancing with multiple warnings to stop, one would be insane to want to endanger everyone else's lives by using a taser or pepper spray. So rather the question should be, what would have happened if Schultz wasn't stopped?
Actually, no. If a taser was used, you would have to again be relatively close (15-20 feet) and pray that the barbs latched onto the clothing of the one you shot. You only have one chance, and if you miss, you die. If the security guard was armed with a firearm and used it properly, then it would have been more likely that lives would have been spared.
Hmm. I'm unsure what the point of this remark may be. Law abiding citizens need not train in the use of firearms because those who break the law don't? The more untrained users of firearms, the better? The only way to stop a bad incompetent shooter is with a good incompetent shooter?
There are those Americans who seem to regard the gun as a kind of totem (I'm not saying you're one of them). It's virtually impossible to enter into intelligent discourse with such people about guns. Those who take a less worshipful view of them should, however, consider the possibility--I would say probability--that, when push comes to shove, people who carry guns with them for purposes of protection may present more of a danger to others than anything else if they lack training in shooting them.
Well, yes, of course the concepts of good and bad, and therefore the notion that there may be good people and bad people who can be identified as such, are the stuff of bedtime stories and fairytales. But the less intelligent and sophisticated among us are entitled to a certain indulgence in this regard, don't you think? So, "bad guys" might, as a kindness, be accepted as intended to refer to people who use firearms in the commission of crimes, for example, which of course can't be described as "bad", not really, but generally is as a matter of common speech.
Government's ability to regulate or control suicide is limited. Some, like Nietzsche, and the Stoics, would consider such regulation unwarranted; suicide being within the reasonable discretion of a person according to the Stoics, or allowable if it isn't possible to live nobly according to Nietzsche if I recall correctly. Government's ability to insure the mental health of its citizens is likewise limited and many would also consider the imposition of its power to that purpose unwarranted, and dangerous, for good reason, I think. Gun control generally refers to regulations intended to limit the use of guns to cause harm to others, and that I think is a subject that government is better equipped to address and is more appropriately one of its functions. That, I believe, is why you have people referring to good guys and bad guys.
Regulation addressed to acquisition of firearms by the mentally ill is a proper subject for consideration in gun control efforts, again as a means to prevent harm to others by a shooter. I think a law prohibiting someone from owning a gun (or any other potentially dangerous object) solely because someone else might use it to commit suicide raises all kinds of issues regarding the proper extent of government authority, and I don't think it could realistically be considered a topic involved in the gun control debate in America. It would be what people these days would probably call "a nonstarter."
This, as we like to say these days, is fake news. As the NYT article I linked to notes, one of the easiest ways to change the suicide rate is to alter the conditions of access to easy means of suicide - as with Isreal's decision in 2006 to prevent soldiers from taking their service weapons home on weekends, leading to a 40% drop in the suicide rate. Or the dramatic drop in the English suicide rate when ovens were altered so that you couldn't gas yourself to death quite so easily. Still, I agree that this kind of reasoning, which would demonstrably and effectively save thousands of lives when translated into policy, would be a 'nonstarter' in the US - this, on account of the fact that the US is a society of Neanderthals for whom the imagery of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' plays a larger role in its reality-divorced self-image than the necropolis of dead guys which far better marks America's celebratory culture of death and social decay.
The only delusion here, I'm afraid, is the idea that there is a genuine historical parallelism between the actors within the Revolutionary War, and modern day US citizenry and US military.
OK, so the majority has stated that the US of A needs to bring in stricter gun laws. Let's do the planning.
Who wants to write up the laws?
Who wants to work out how much it is all going to cost and where to get the money?
Who wants to be the one to implement the plan? You know, like going out there and start taking the guns off the people?
That no one has any balls, that leadership is dead?
Perhaps you are right.
Not "you", "them"
Quoting Banno
Banno, how could you possible read all of that from my post?
All I did was try to see if anyone was available to do a job that is well worth doing.
Let's wait and see how many volunteers there are.
It's unfortunate, but we'll probably never know the rate of suicide among the Neanderthals or what they could have been deprived of in order to reduce that rate.
Congress.
The Congressional Budget Office and The Department of the Treasury.
The Department of Justice.
Their God given right to die at extraordinarily disproportionate rates despite clear life saving-solutions, no doubt.
The officer was [I]at[/I] relatively close distance. Look at the footage. You'd have to be insane to support that officer's actions.
Quoting Lone Wolf
The security guard would have been relatively close, as they always are. They're typically close to an entrance. Why would anyone position a security guard far away?
You do realise that there are professionals for that, right? And that this is just a philosophy forum?
Such a shame that only one person understood. :-*
My view is that this is primarily a safety issue. Why are seat belts required by law? Because statistics show that there is a correlation between the use of seat belts and the severity of injuries in car accidents. Similarly, we should look for the correlation between gun ownership and injuries, regardless if these are intentional or accidental. By collecting data points on these two parameters in as many states as possible throughout the world, we can determine the statistical correlation between the two; and one of three possible results would follow:
(1) There is a correlation, with an upward slope where more gun ownership increases the probability of injuries. As such, gun ownership should not be legal.
(2) There is a correlation, with a downward slope were more gun ownership decreases the probability of injuries. As such, gun ownership should be legal, and perhaps even required.
(3) There is no correlation. As such, gun ownership is not a significant factor in the safety of the citizens, and so its legalization is a matter of personal preference.
Now I am not a hard-working scientist but a lazy philosopher; and so I don’t know the final answer; but I think this is the best way to end the debate.
This is a problem that the NRA is well aware of, and it motivates one of the very few gun regulations that they would approve of. They have thus endorsed a new regulation proposal that would make it illegal for people who are being shot at to move.
I have seen the footage of the Schultz incident. You would be insane and heartless to not protect those around you by allowing a crazy kid to threaten the entire campus. It would be crazy to try to get closer to have a sure aim with pepper spray or a taser.
Quoting Sapientia
:s From the way I understood it, the security guard would have had some distance from the murderer because he was near the entrance of the room. A distance across a room can easily span more than 15 feet from the entrance. As for positioning the guard, he was not expecting a murderer to be lurking in that room, so obviously he would not have been positioned to engage such a person. The only response would have had to have been immediate and fatal. Pepper spray would have been completely worthless in this situation, and a taser would have likely proved useless also due to the precision necessary to effectively aim it; perhaps even getting the guard shot more times, and killed himself. Again, if the guard had a firearm, there may have been a chance he could have spared the many victims.
It is clear to me a well-regulated militia is just not any Joe Schmo.
Now the only question is: is it a ‘thoughts and prayers’ massacre, or a ‘tighten the immigration laws’ massacre. This depends on whether the shooter claims allegiance to a foreign terrorist organisation or whether he is the (now typical) deranged loner with a pointless grudge and military-grade weapons. If the latter, then all that can be done is to send ‘thoughts and prayers’ (apart from reminding everyone how insensitive it is to “politicise such tragedies” by talking about gun laws). It seems they’re the only kinds of categorisations that the US body politic will consider; the question as to how these appalling incidents can be prevented, is more or less off the table.
So this one, so far, looks like a ‘thoughts and prayers’; not that they will do a lot of good.
Maybe it would be helpful to consider why it is there are so many berserkers running around.
In this Church shooting AND it is still early in the investigation but first reports are a good guy with a gun shot and chased this killer by car, while reporting to the local police while in pursuit. They don't yet know if the bullet the regular citizen fired led to this man's death but I think it is safe to say, the regular citizen with a gun, used it responsibly and ended what could have been a continuing killing spree.
Perhaps we should do a cost benefit analysis. Does the availability of guns in the U.S. protect more than it harms or vice versa? How many people would have been killed if the killer hadn't had access to a gun?
I am simply stating that there are times when a good guy with a gun, a regular armed citizen, actually does happen and this might be an example of that very argument. Time and investigation will prove that to be true or false.
I think the availability of firearms can be a double edged sword but I am not sure how to quantify your question. Are you asking if the 300 million privately owned firearms, owned by responsible firearm owners in the USA, are responsible for the damage that terror inspired or the mentally ill carry out?
I'm saying that if bad people with guns kill 1,000 people and if good guys with guns save 100 people then it probably isn't worth having guns.
Thank you for helping me understand your question. Your idea would be apply if we had to have a reason to own a firearm but we don't because owning a firearm is a right.
What is being brought to light is that this killer was "Devin P. Kelley was court-martialed on one count of assault on his spouse and another count of assault on their child. He received a bad conduct discharge, 12 months' confinement and a reduction in rank"
That is a HUGE communication gap between our military and our private citizens list of people not allowed to buy firearms. I am not sure he would have been allowed a firearm with domestic battery IF the two systems were walking and talking together.
Quoting Michael
I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally.
Always? I doubt that. Some certainly will, but I reckon a lot of would-be-killers wouldn't know how to get one (or afford to get one) if they weren't so readily available.
Besides, you seem to only be thinking about those who plan on committing mass murder. As far as I know, most gun violence is a spur of the moment decision in anger (or drunkenness, probably).
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I know that it's a right. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be a right if it causes more harm than good.
This supports the argument that most good-citizens should be armed, (what the hell, at all times), so that bad guys can be taken out right away, before much damage is done.
Oh, I suppose that might work out well -- at least some of the time.
But if we all need to be armed to gun down the occasional bad guy before mass murder ensues, then we might as well throw in the towel. If that is where we are at, then as a civilized society we are finished, totally screwed, all over but the shouting--and the gun fire.
As it happens, there are alternatives. Nothing as quick and easy as putting a gun in every pocket and purse. See here, in Wayfarer's Mass Murder Meme discussion for a lengthier suggestion of what we might want to think about.
With 100 million guns in circulation (not all of them suitable for mass murder, of course, lots of them are only good for selective murders, one here, one there), any bad guy who wants a gun will certainly be able to get one, no matter who talks and walks with whom, or what laws are passed.
That horse (the whole herd of horses) has long since left the barn.
Making lists of people who are too bad to carry a gun will not, therefore, work very well. The supply is just too extensive.
Who is to blame? Well, gun manufacturers are partly to blame, certainly, as are gun customers who stock up on types of guns which have no place in a civilized society. Gun advocates of years past, who approved of pumping millions of guns into the market share some of the blame. Legislators who have refused, refuse now, and will refuse to act in the future are partly to blame. Presidents who say, the day after a mass murder with a gun, that "guns are not the problem" are partly to blame (and Trump isn't the first one to say that),
Chief Justice Berger (1969-1986) called the interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean everyone had a right to a gun "stupid".
Rights are granted and taken away all the time. It's a bit more difficult with constitutional rights such as, say women's suffrage, but it can be done. The right to bear arms was granted initially for a reason and doesn't exist in a vacuum. If that reason is no longer valid or supervening reasons against that right come to the fore, it seems reasonable to withdraw the right or to introduce limitations on it.
I understand from various discussions that originally it was to prevent oppression from the government and there's some division among constitutional lawyers as to what a "well-regulated militia" means. It doesn't follow from there that limitations aren't possible. Although I personally think doing away with guns entirely is even better, at least some form of gun control could be applied.
I also like Chris Rock's solution. Make each bullet cost 100 USD. That way, before you're going to shoot someone you better make sure it's worth it.
Sorry Tiff, but I find the thought of a "good guy with a gun" firing away at bad guys rather frightening because, as I've said before, I doubt the majority of those good guys have spent or will spend the time necessary to learn to shoot accurately. It may be that someone would be of some use in some situations, but in the majority of cases it's likely the good citizen will shoot some poor unfortunate standing too close to the bad guy.
The NRA leadership, with its ties to the gun manufacturers, sanctions the "good guy with a gun" argument for only one reason, I think--to sell more guns.
The principled reason is that we have the second amendment, which is based on the natural right to self-defense. The pragmatic reasons are that 1) there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, such that it would be impossible to confiscate all of them, 2) those who would do the confiscating, the police and military, are themselves made up almost entirely by people who privately own guns and support the second amendment, such that they would never follow an order to confiscate guns, and 3) even if such an order were followed, armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns, such confiscation originally being meant to prevent... mass murder by guns. Ergo, guns will never be banned in the U.S., and those who believe that they can or ought to be are both ignorant and naive.
As for statistics, there are conservatively hundreds of thousands of instances a year of law abiding citizens preventing crimes and protecting themselves with the use of a gun, which dwarfs the number of gun deaths per year. So one can quite easily say that guns protect more than they harm.
That would get my vote. It would at least be a start, until a greater solution can be reached.
Quoting Thorongil
Given the current state of affairs, it would be hugely impractical and come at a great cost. As a progressive, and not a defeatist, I view that as something to work on. I don't need a summary of the reasons, although some of them I find weak and meaningless, like this interpretation of the second amendment as a so-called natural right for just about any old schmuck to own a firearm.
Why would you doubt this? Do you have statistics to prove it? Most gun advocates, like the members of the NRA, are very well trained and encourage proper training and gun safety.
Consider the following from a CNN article (hardly a pro-gun outlet):
As for this:
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
From the same article:
I'm not saying that the NRA isn't in bed with gun manufacturers to sell more guns, but to pretend that that is its principle reason for being, one would have to ignore all the evidence that points to the organization principally being one that wants to protect the second amendment and provide gun information and training to its members.
But said right doesn't and ought not apply to just any old schmuck. Convicted felons, the psychologically impaired, and, I would add, the untrained don't possess it. They have forfeited it.
Then there's something very wrong with American society. Because when most gun ownership was banned in the UK and Australia, private citizens didn't go to war to keep their guns; they gave them up voluntarily (and with compensation, I believe), because that was the (new) law.
My qualification of "just about" accounted for those excluded by current legislation, so I stand by that statement. It is comparatively true that in the U.S.A., just about any old schmuck can get their hands on a gun. That ought to change, and that ought to be the goal, irrespective of the finer details about the means.
What, in addition to the things I listed, do you think ought to bar someone from legally owning a firearm?
Yes, there is, and that needs to change.
The goal would be to replicate what we have here in the UK. The question is how best to go about it.
What, in addition to the things I listed, does UK law include that bars someone from legally owning a firearm?
Without looking it up, I don't know, or don't remember from what I've read previously. Presumably there are important differences in terms of both legislation and enforcement.
One of the key parts is that there must be a good reason to own a gun, which includes profession, sport, collecting, study, and research, but doesn't include self-defence.
An ironic example, given that Nazi Germany banned Jews specifically from owning guns.
Well, we could exchange articles on the NRA and its connections with gun manufacturers all day, no doubt. Try this one:http://fortune.com/2016/01/05/nra-gun-owners-obama/ Or, this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
The real money connecting the NRA with the gun manufacturers is in advertising and donations which aren't necessarily made in a political guise. The NRA likes the money. It's back being scratched, it scratches back. Thus, "the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." I say nothing of most of its members.
As for the accuracy issue, it's based mostly on personal experience as a gun owner who uses shotguns with some regularity in shooting clays and is impressed by the number of times he and others who do so also regularly miss. That can happen for a number of reason, not necessarily related to the user of the gun.
Shooting a small, moving target with a shotgun takes some skill, as its barrels are not rifled, but with a shotgun one also benefits from the fact that the shot spreads. That's not the case with a handgun, and handguns are what people who like to carry guns with them all over the place (either concealed or unconcealed) typically carry, long guns being a bit cumbersome, in case (or with the hope?) they'll have the chance or need to use them to fight the bad guys. Handguns are, in my experience (which is limited) very difficult to shoot with accuracy even when one is using them to hit a stationary target. I infer from this that they're even more difficult to shoot with any accuracy when the target is moving, shooting, and the adrenaline is flowing.
I ask myself, then--to what extent is it likely that those who scamper to get handguns and concealed-carry permits whenever there's been a shooting and the NRA and others are shouting that they're gonna take our Second Amendment rights away, spend significant time training in their use? I think it's likely that not many spend much time doing so. I have no statistics, though, alas.
Well, it was a vastly different time, as too many fail to consider. It's likely most everyone had guns then, and that many used them even to get food to eat. Also, the Founding Fathers were probably a bit leery of professional armies like that of the British, had first-hand knowledge that they could be used to suppress people, and perhaps imagined what it would be like if they didn't have the guns they had. That's no longer such a pressing concern, though.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter because I don't live in USA and it isn't the center of the world. Speaking of which, it's not even the centre of America, which is the continent and not the country. I don't think Canada has a problem with their gun laws.
I was under the impression this was an international forum. How local issues may be discussed here until the moderators take action? May I start a thread on the selection of mayor in my home village? Where is the line drawn?
There is no line. Talk about what you like, so long as it's in the right category (and not illegal or offensive).
Although I wouldn't expect many replies in a discussion about your village's mayor.
With winter approaching, the events are about to turn most fascinating, don't you think?
What actual basis is there to ban the guns or limit them? Can the issue be discussed before we discuss the necessity of laws, society, even morals or value of human life first?
What if we just eliminate the real problem, which seems to be people? As Stalin (I think) said, "no people, no hunger".
I think a majority of them. The people who fall into the category you describe above are the people who would likely be found at gun ranges practicing, at education events, gun safety events, etc.
Obviously, the effect that it would likely have on gun crime.
Quoting BlueBanana
It already has been. It takes some gall to turn up to a discussion and start making requests about the direction of the discussion without having paid enough attention to what's already been covered.
Quoting BlueBanana
Serious proposals are welcome. Do you have any?
You're more optimistic than I am. But, perhaps you're right. Then we may take comfort in the fact that, e.g., only 40% of those carrying guns have no training in their use.
I hope that people are as eager to train as you think, as there are several states which have no concealed carry permit requirement, and many of those that do don't require live fire training as a condition for issuance of a permit.
If one is cornered in the street at night by a would-be thief or rapist or drug dealer, for example, which is statistically more likely than confronting some mass shooter who's meticulously planned his attack, there's no time to call the police, who will merely show up to the scene with the same handgun one could have used to ward off one's assailant and prevent the crime in the first place.
That’s the sense in which this whole issue has become a vicious circle. A truly vicious circle.
So neither you nor cicerone know and are just guessing. Let's make it 50-50 then, ok?
Most gun violence incidents do not involve lawful gun owners, such as members of the NRA, so this has no bearing on my assertion.
Yes, but it also opposes state concealed carry permit laws. Thus the push for reciprocity or a single federal law. The NRA, like gun manufacturers, wants people to be able to buy guns as easily as possible. Once they've bought them, training is fine...as long as its not required.
Certainly I'm guessing. Hell, we can't even know whether we're seeing a tree or a mental construct.
Highly trained sharp shooters are able to hit targets with few wasted bullets (think Lee Harvey Oswald) but most people are no where nearly that well trained or equipped. The acid test is: On very short notice (a minute or two at most) can you load, track, target and hit a moving subject under quite possibly adverse conditions (bad light, intervening obstacles, non-targets in the immediate area, adrenaline rush, fear, excitement, shots being fired at you...)?
If you can, then you may be able to achieve successful intervention. If not, you'll probably just add to the carnage inadvertently.
There is probably nothing wrong with American society that is not also wrong with other societies. If we are different, it is that some of our problems are more extreme than most other G20 countries.
Neoliberalism has left hefty percentages of our population without access to social services when they need it most. There is no "nanny state" here, there is mostly a punitive system that takes a harsh approach towards people with problems. Our culture promotes quite unreasonable expectations for financial success. (Like people who are sure they are going to get rich; they just have an embarrassing lack of cash right now.) Under the pressures of lost jobs, falling wages, and higher costs of living, a lot of people have been driven into the ditches of permanent poverty, with the consequent dysfunctions in family life.
A huge difference is that lots of people already have guns, and those who don't do not have to look far to find one for sale. People get frustrated. In the ghettos guns are routine. In the mainstream society they are mostly used for suicide. Guns are a preferred vehicle for mayhem -- and they probably would be in any country, IF they were as easy to obtain as they are here.
Yes, that's terrible, at least for those who do not regret having lived past times of suicidal depression. I am certain that I would have killed myself years ago if I had had easy enough access to a gun, and I still wouldn't trust myself to own one. That's a very disturbing thought. I would not be here right now. I might never have interacted with any of you over the internet.
I am confident that, had things been different, I could have slipped through the system. So, if we wish to discourage suicide, at least in cases like mine, where I am now at a stage where I can look back and say that I am glad that my thoughts and plans did not come to fruition, then we should be looking to make the system as stringent as possible.
How many people have there been who were like I was, but tragically got hold of a gun? How many of them got hold of a gun owned by their parent or parents? How many are at risk now?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
"In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance."
The most likely outcome of a police officer firing their gun is that they'll miss. Private individuals are not going to do better. More than half of shots by police miss at a distance I can throw a baseball in someone's face 75% of the time which would be an argument to arm police with balls.
Guns cannot be accurately handled in stress situations. That's reserved for only a very few, highly trained individuals.
Did you read what I said in context? Thorongil said that if a ban on guns were to happen then it would lead to something of a civil war. It didn't happen in the UK or Australia. So if, in the face of a ban on guns, "armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns", then there's something very wrong with American society (that isn't wrong with other societies like the UK and Australia).
You have sides that look at each other at such hostility, that the "debate" is quite worthless. On one side you have basically a strategy of no-compromise ever: that every compromise, every limitation is just a way to ultimately to a total gun ban, hence fight every step. The NRA accepting that basically now the way to make semi-automatic guns automatic ones does actually go against the law is only the exception to the rule.
The other side has in my view a policy of taking up the issue (or the issue is taken up by the media) after mass shootings and hence try to milk the popular feeling. And this is quite universal, the EU started to make sweeping changes to the gun laws after the Paris terrorist attacks, which basically were written by the anti-gun lobby and was just waiting for the correct time to be made public.
In a way I find both sides and the debate nauseating. I am for gun control, yet also am against a ban on privately owned firearms, even if don't own myself guns. Now I truly think there actually is a reasonable middle road, which people (even gunowners) would find acceptable and workable, but that middle road cannot be found when the loudest lobby-groups are the extremists on both sides. In the US this is a bigger problem than here in Europe.
Basically I think that it's the lobbyists who want the public debate just to be a circus, so they can dominate the actual legislation.
Quoting Thorongil
isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event.
Is the United States fundamentally different than the UK or Australia? No. Are there differences? Yes.
Had the United States limited private gun ownership in, say, 1935, with an exception for ordinary hunting rifles, antique gun collectors, clay pigeon-shooting aficionados, and the like -- such a law would probably have been possible. (This is speculation, too.)
If the UK and Australia had a history similar to the US with respect to gun manufacture, and with a post-1970s NRA devoted to torturing a relatively minor piece of your constitution into a blanket right for everyone to be armed with whatever gun they so chose, then in 2017 you would have problems like ours. (This is speculation, not fact.)
Why would you have problems like ours? Because our societies are not fundamentally different.
Except that I was responding to CTW's claim that such misses will involve accidentally killing innocent bystanders. I don't know what kind of scenarios he's imagining take place, but I doubt most people, whether private citizens or policemen, would try to take down a perp who's fleeing in the midst of a crowd or some such situation.
Maybe you're thinking about CTW but the below was not a reply to CTW but to me.
Quoting Thorongil emphasis mine
I take it though that we're in agreement guns are generally not used accurately even within a distance of 6 feet? So if a person misses that bullet is still going to travel far. Even the police regularly hits innocent bystanders as a result (google it). And that's people we expect to handle guns and protect us. If you look at innocent bystanders hurt due to gun violence in general the picture gets a lot worse.
And when we're talking about the police we're talking about handguns mostly, which I imagine are the most accurate after rifles. The accuracy of semi-automatics and automatics probably drops significantly in comparison. But I'm guessing since I'm not familiar with anything else than air-pressurised rifles.
So that said, why not limit gun ownership to handguns and rifles? The former for personal protection and the latter for hunting or protection against wild animals. I can see how a handgun can be a deterrent in a dark alley even if you can't aim properly if your life depended on it.
Handguns are not, certainly.
Quoting Benkei
The key word here is "regularly." They obviously do hit bystanders occasionally, but to elevate that adverb to "regularly" would require citing some statistics.
Quoting Benkei
No, it's precisely the opposite.
Quoting Benkei
It already is, lol.
Quoting Benkei
Indeed. Often, one doesn't need to fire a single round, as the mere threat of using a gun is enough to prevent crime. This is what the CDC included in its estimates about cases of defensive gun use, for example, which, as I noted, runs into the hundreds of thousands each year.
Shotguns, assault rifles are allowed too right? By rifle I mean a typical hunting rifle. One shot, reload, sort of thing.
Quoting Thorongil
What is?
EDIT: Quoting Thorongil
I'll remind you that I'm from the Netherlands and what you call "occassionally" is "regularly" from my perspective. :D
Your describing it as "unlikely" is equally mere speculation. By the way, I never prefaced the pragmatic reasons I gave by saying that they were indubitable facts, since we're talking about possible future events.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I never responded to Michael's post about there being something very wrong with American society, so your claim here is not in reaction to anything I said. As for the claim itself, I don't know what you've packed into the word "fundamentally," so I can't say whether I agree with it or not.
I didn't yesterday, but I had the thought of responding with a tu quoque to Michael's post. That is, if there's something wrong with American society on account of there being mass shootings, then there must likewise be something wrong with British society on account of the mass killings it has experienced recently.
Shotguns and semi-automatic assault rifles can be legally purchased, yes.
Quoting Benkei
That rifles are much more accurate than handguns. I suppose a handgun with a dot sight might be equally accurate at short range, though.
We are in agreement then because I said that handguns are the most accurate after rifles. In any case, I'm not an expert. There's an article in this in the NYT today stating that the sheer amount of guns is the problem. If that's the case, 1 gun per person seems to make sense.
I wasn't saying that there's something wrong with American society on account of there being mass shootings (although I will also say that); I was saying that there's something wrong with American society if you would engage in a civil war to retain ownership of your guns.
British and Australian citizens didn't go to war with the government when strict gun control and mandatory reclamation was introduced.
Alright, I might have read that sentence wrongly.
Quoting Benkei
What is the problem, specifically?
http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution
I understand why they did back then. From that article:
It isn't at all comparable to the situation of Congress (and the States) – those with legitimate authority over the U.S. – agreeing to an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment, and subsequently introducing strict gun control.
At best you can argue, using historical precedent, that gun ownership is required to defend against foreign governments trying to impose their rule on the U.S – but then that's exactly what your armed forces are for.
In the situation we're discussing, a legitimate legislature would have made it illegal to own guns, and would send designated officials to enforce the law. It would therefore be illegal to retain ownership of said guns, and even more so if you use violence (which is also against the law) to do so. And it's wrong to break the law.
You'd need a compelling justification for the use of violence, especially to defend what would be a criminal situation (owning guns).
But the second amendment was intended to enable the citizenry to protect against both foreign governments and domestic, should the latter descend into tyranny.
Quoting Michael
I don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to merely beg the question by assuming that a "legitimate" legislature would ban guns.
Legitimate as in they were elected (in a fair democracy). They have the legitimate authority to decide what is or isn't to be illegal (and given the numbers, what is or isn't to be constitutional). As opposed to China deciding that it doesn't want Americans owning guns and so trying to take them away.
So you're saying that because of British intervention in the 18th century, Americans are fearful of a tyrannical domestic government, and so will start a civil war to defend their gun ownership in the event that the Second Amendment is repealed and strict gun control introduced?
I stand by my claim that there's something very wrong with American society if you would be willing to kill those who would simply be enforcing gun control laws.
Was it? Where does it say single-shot muskets were to attack the government? Nowhere. The 2nd amendment was to enable the "militia" to be armed and ready against Indians, French, and British.
We have moved on since then and that amendment is hopelessly out-of-date.
Yes, I think this is what would happen. And the founders who drafted the second amendment did so on the basis of said fear, which, as I tried to show by linking the article, didn't come out of nowhere.
Quoting Michael
Just as I stand by my claim that there is something wrong with a government that would forcibly try to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. You gave examples of countries that elected representatives who then passed laws that effectively banned guns, which means such laws had the consent of the people and in turn that the people were willing to give up their guns when the government enforced those laws. That is very different from a government attempting to seize guns unlawfully, which is what the "civil war" scenario is predicated on. Obviously, the second amendment can be lawfully repealed. However, you still haven't given me a reason why it ought to be and why, subsequent to that, guns ought to be effectively banned. That is what I have been asking for. So once again: why is it wrong for people to retain ownership of guns?
This describes me completely. I appreciate your post.
Thank you. As for the NRA, understand my quarrel is with its leadership, not necessarily its members.
I wasn't talking about the government attempting to seize guns unlawfully. Were you? Because it seemed to me that you were offering reasons for why it would be impractical to repeal the Second Amendment and pass stricter gun control laws (or maybe just pass stricter gun control laws that the Supreme Court deems to be constitutional).
Handguns are terrifyingly inaccurate. I think TV series and movies about the "Old West" have persuaded too many of us that they can be handled with considerable accuracy. Gunfights likely involved many shots.
Yes.
Quoting Michael
The reason I gave that you have focused on was about a scenario in which the state attempted to confiscate guns. It wasn't predicated on the second amendment being lawfully repealed and strict gun control passed, as I said in the clause right after the part you bolded above.
Thorongil, I was responding to this post by Michael in which he quoted you. Green Alert: You are not under attack.
Quoting Michael
I posted your statement, rather than quoting his use of your statement. It was to Michael that I was directing the statement "isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event."
You are right, my statement about a seizure of guns and civil war is also speculation.
As far as mental health is concerned:
And as to whether America is intrinsically more violent than other countries:
In conclusion:
Calling a constitutional convention would be another way of changing the Constitution, but there is a huge risk in doing so: At this meeting, the present constitution could be junked and a very different, less felicitous, document could be presented to the states. I don't think anyone wants to take that risk at this point.
Besides, it isn't necessary. We arrived at our present state through normal political processes. We can get out of this state by employing the same normal political processes.
So why the hell don't we do so, then?
Reason number 1 is that the number of people who believe in the rights of Americans to own guns, and actually own guns themselves, is more than a small minority. In 1959, the Gallop Poll found 60% of Americans were in favor of banning hand guns, except for the police. In 2017 the Gallop Poll found 28% were in favor of banning hand guns.
Reason number 2 is that pro-gun voters are more militant than anti-gun voters. People vary in how strongly they hold opinions. Pro-gun opinions seem to be more strongly held than anti-gun opinions.
Reason number 3 is that banning any type of gun seems to be pointless, because there are so many guns already in the hands of citizens -- something like 100 million, with more being manufactured and imported every year.
Reason number 4 is that many jurisdictions have laws regarding guns, and unless a class of laws (like segregation law) can be found unconstitutional and suppressed all at once, the battle would need to be fought state by state. (that is my understanding; maybe I am not correct on this point)
Reason number 5 is that there is some logic in the idea that guns are not the problem. I don't accept this logic, but a lot of people do. Ban guns and deranged people or terrorists will find other means to kill: bombs made out of certain fertilizers combined with aviation fuel, trucks or cars, poisons, sabotage of gas lines, and so on.
The action that can and should be undertaken.and is entirely practical even if not easy, is a major, focused effort by a broad coalition of people to first change the way we think about guns, and secondly to curtail access to new guns, suppress the manufacture or importation of ammunition, and the manufacture of guns. This might be a decades long effort. The #1 idea that can be promoted is that GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.
The article is by David Kopel, who has an interesting history.
That seems odd, because...
Not all suicides employ guns, of course, but most do. I am assuming that suicide represents a mental health issue, at least.
That argument about ‘gun control’ and Hitler seems entirely vacuous. What a pity that an otherwise intelligent fellow seems to have swallowed the NRA kool aid.
Quoting Wayfarer
What argument are you talking about? The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws, but the Nazis later relaxed them for everyone except the Jews. There are other historical examples of governments banning guns and confiscating them from a certain demographic about to be persecuted or undergo genocide.
You've no reason for such surety.
Quoting Wayfarer
You might consult more the pages of history, which show that revolutions can and have occurred, despite the military power of the state being overthrown.
"Assault rifles" are legal, if by that is meant semi-automatics. Semi-automatic guns are self-loading (you don't have to manually load after every shot). Semi-automatics go "bang-bang"; automatic firearms go "rat-a-tat." Semi-automatics may function as automatics through the use of bump firing, i.e. using the recoil to fire shots in rapid succession, which is facilitated by the use of bump stocks as all now know. There are semi-automatic shotguns, but sporting shotguns have limited magazines, usually 3-5 shells with one in chamber. "Assault rifles" usually have magazines with 20-30 shells.
I'm not a hunter, but know of no hunters who would use an "assault rifle" in hunting. I know of no sporting events in which they're used, but perhaps there are such events. I'm not sure why anyone would want to own one; I can think of no good reason for owning one, personally, nor do I know how a "right" to own one could be defended.
The Second Amendment has obtained a peculiar status in the U.S., for some of us in any case. The gun itself has a peculiar status for some also. For them, the gun is an object of reverence. For them, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. I'm not sure how this came about, but I think the gun has become a totem of sorts. Ownership of a gun or guns seems to be considered something which makes someone American; it's a source of pride and distinction. I don't say the gun manufacturers are responsible for this attitude, though I'm inclined to think they exploit it.
You'd perhaps have to provide examples, because I cannot properly recollect of a single revolution in which we can clearly and simply say that the revolutionnary powers have defeated the state's military force. In each cases I can recollect, the revolution was a success despite the armed forces of the state (because they were otherwise engaged or simply not present), or because of them (because the revolutionnaries mostly coincided with the militaries).
When the armed forces are deployed effectively against an armed population, the result is either a very quick massacre (Napoleon against the Royals in Paris comes to mind) or a very drawn out massacre.
Cuba might be the conterfactual here, but I simply do not know enough about it.
Right, this observation is not opposed to my point.
Utter nonsense. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. It's a sad fact that so many otherwise intelligent people are convinced, somehow, to deny the obvious in respect of this particular matter, but that is the only way I am able to understand it.
I'm not sure if you were specifically trying to cite the Wikipedia article, but it was the top result so that's what I used.
"the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.[136][137] He also finds that robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim, but less likely to result in injury to the victim.[138] A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.[133][139] Overall robbery and assault rates in the U.S. are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.[135][139] A strong association exists between the availability of illegal guns and violent crime rates, but not between legal gun availability and violent crime rates.[140]"
I'll also cite a science podcast I just listened to a few days ago that says this exact same thing.
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/guns/
The relevant part begins at 29:15
They cite all of their sources further down on the page:
"National Research Academies Panel which found guns don’t increase or decrease crime
Wellford, Pepper, and Petrie, editors, “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review”, The National Academies Press, 2005"
There's a hyperlink on the actual site that leads directly to the full publication, if you want to read it.
I had been aware of this information for a while from other sources, as well. It may not be well-known information, but it's been very well-demonstrated. I have no dog in this fight. I don't care an ounce about gun availability or control, I only care about the actual statistics, and they clearly show that there is zero correlation between legal gun availability and crime. As I said in my original comment, the only trend that the statistics show is that more guns = more gun deaths. Of course, this is what you might call a "no-brainer". How can you kill someone with a gun if you don't have a gun? To quote Bill Burr: "If you get a pool in your backyard, you immediately increase your chances of drowning in your backyard."
I'm not talking about the comparison of gun death rates between various cities in the USA, but between the USA and the rest of the developed world, where the USA is a clear outlier by orders of magnitude.
You seem to somehow be misunderstanding every single thing I've said. Violent crime is not equivalent to gun deaths. You've created a strawman argument that I never made--in fact I have said the exact opposite multiple times now. I'm not sure what it is you aren't getting. Go back and read what I've said in my previous comments more carefully. I think you're seeing what you want to see and not what I'm actually saying.
So you've read nothing I've said since that statement? Because everything I've said has very clearly been about how guns do not cause people to be violent or commit crime, they only make the crimes more lethal. The original statement of the saying "Gun's don't kill people..." was in regards to a claim a person was making about religion causing people to commit atrocities, so I compared it to the implication that guns cause people to commit crime and how that has been thoroughly debunked. The point in both arguments has been to avoid blaming the tools people use for the acts that the people commit with those tools. The saying, whether you agree with it or not, is a fact. It may be used by certain groups to make implications that it doesn't actually support in order to further their own agenda, but that doesn't change the truthfulness of the actual sentiment.
No harm done, though. I'd just advise you to try to be less reactionary. You literally let one thing I said blind you from everything else I said because of your emotional response to it. Also, I hope you do read the information I've provided so that you are more informed about the issue, since this seems to be something you like to actively debate about, and I always encourage people to be as educated as possible about things they want to argue for or against. Both the Wikipedia article and the podcast I shared have some great resources and statistics which provide proof that having less guns does lead to less murder and less suicide, so less death overall.
(Y)
I really hate to acknowledge this bit: The number of guns--all types--in the possession of Americans is somewhere between 100 million and 200 million. Clearly, the vast majority of those guns are not being used to perform violent acts. For which we can be very grateful. On the other hand, as they say in the advertising business "the product is a message". Shall we say, "Guns help people kill people"? In violent areas, it's safe to say that "Guns give people good reasons to kill people".
On the other hand, the number of guns is very large, and the number of deaths by guns (manslaughter and suicide) is also large. Let's not forget the damage caused by non-fatal gun shot wounds.
It's always important to look at how national averages are composed. Some places in the United States [mostly the northern-most tier of states) have rates of violence similar to northern Europe--quite low-- while other areas [the former states of the Confederacy] have very high rates of gun violence. Some cities, like New Orleans, are remarkably violent. Parts of Chicago too.
Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, laid the high rate of violence in the south to 3 cultural features:
1. A strong sense of personal honor (which must be defended)
2. A suspicion of central government -- not just the federal government, but the state and local government as well.
3. A tradition of "do it yourself justice".
People who wear their honor on their sleeves, are suspicious of any encroachments by peace-enforcing government agents like police, sheriffs... are going to have more conflict than most other people, and because they prefer to carry out justice themselves, there are going to be more violent deaths.
Much the same thing prevails in Mexico where the drug industry personnel tend to kill each other, and anyone who gets in their way, quite regularly. Mexico will have something like 25,000 murders this year, with a population of roughly 40% of the US--126,000,000.
Yeah, don't you just hate it when that happens?
It's hard to believe that this fucking weapon is still on the streets. Shows what money can do in this America.
Where did this perspective come from?
I see--and directly experience--almost every day the kinds of things that people get bent out of shape over in this culture. "Give me another pack of sauce", they command. You tell them that that will be 25¢ and start to ring it up. "You mean I have to pay for sauce?! What horrible people you are charging me for sauce!". And so on.
Out of all of the things in the world that there is to be angry about, they get angry about a pack of sauce. They [B]verbally abuse [/B] you over a pack of sauce.
Therefore, I am not surprised when I hear that, again, somebody in this culture has gone on a shooting spree and killed many innocent strangers for no reason.
O’Reilly said after the Las Vegas massacre that maybe mass-shootings are ‘the price the American people are willing to pay for the freedom to own guns’. It seems to me that he’s correct, unfortunately. But he also said that ‘the right to bear arms mean that even loons can buy guns’. However, the second amendment specifically states that
‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’
Nobody seems to pay any attention to the ‘well-regulated Militia’ part. What if, in order to buy a military-grade weapon, one had to report to the local Militia Leader and undergo an interview for one’s suitability to own such a weapons, to contribute to civil defence? And that such weapons were required to be kept in a secure armoury and registered as such?
Now, of course, the response of the NRA to any such suggestion will be that would be a ‘government plan to take away our weapons’. The Second Amendment has been read very selectively, so as to maximise the commercial potential of gun-sales.
I have thought for several years now that when somebody buys such weapons that a point of sale interview should be conducted by law enforcement personnel. "Why are you buying this type of weapon? What training do you have in its use? How long do you plan to own it? What measures have you taken to prevent unauthorized use of it?..." Don't prohibit the sale based on the results of the interview--that would be flirting with Second Amendment infringements. Instead, if there are any red flags put the buyer under constant surveillance.
If people know that they are being monitored their behavior will probably change.
The Second Amendment may guarantee the right to possess firearms, but it does not guarantee freedom from being treated with suspicion.
How can any rational person now not see the purchase of weapons designed to kill large numbers of people quickly as suspicious?
If the gun rights lobby does not like the reputation that certain weapons and their owners now have then they should correct the behaviors that have built that reputation. Their own irrational, robotic responses to massacres would be a good place to start. Meanwhile, they could show that they are serious about gun safety and responsible gun ownership by volunteering to conduct some of the aforementioned surveillance at no cost to taxpayers.
Well, those are called ‘background checks’, and the NRA has fiercely resisted their expansion for years. Besides:
Salon
Also:
So - don’t hold your breath. If anything, gun laws in the USA continue to be rolled back. Trump speaks at NRA rallies. Unfortunately, in this case, the bad guys are winning, and the innocent will continue to suffer.
17,250 murders per year (which excludes many suicides by gunfire) is in all respects a policy failure, but it may be the case ([i]I hate saying this[/i]) that it isn't the number of guns in American's possession that is the critical problem; it is the fact that we have no effective way of denying anybody a gun, should they wish to have one.
Worse, we have no really effective system in place to deny gun access to someone who is unstable and intent on committing mayhem. If the gun inventory was the same in the US as it is in European countries, limiting control wouldn't be a problem. But that is not the case. Our inventory is too large now to look after effectively.
The way that I understand it, background checks can result in a seller legally being required to deny a sale.
What I am talking about would not be a background check. It would occur after a buyer has already passed the required background check and made a legal purchase.
It would, basically, be law enforcement patrolling the point of sale of guns like they patrol the streets. The buyer would have the legal right not to cooperate. However, if you have nothing to hide then you should not have a problem with answering a few questions--you should not have a problem with cooperating like you do not have a problem with cooperating during a traffic stop. If a buyer won't cooperate then that would be a red flag and reason to put him/her under constant surveillance. If he/she does cooperate but the interview reveals red flags, put him/her under constant surveillance.
No matter what happens as the point of sale is patrolled, a buyer will know that he/she is being monitored.
The public would likely be safer when it has been made clear to a gun buyer that the gun and he/she are being monitored.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not a professional historian, but I think that it is safe to say that women's liberation, equal rights for minorities, and other progressive changes weren't wholesale, overnight overhauls. They were probably one step forward, two steps backwards--one minor victory followed by a major setback--until through attrition and other factors the tide turned.
The way that I understand history, it was television--the horror of peaceful activists being met with vicious police dogs and fire hoses being broadcast onto TV screens all over the U.S.--that turned the tide in favor of the Civil Rights movement. But even with that momentum the margin by which civil rights legislation passed Congress was, if I know history correctly, very narrow.
Even with major legislative victories finally secured, equality has been realized slowly. Just one example: an African-American did not start at quarterback in a Super Bowl until 1988.
This whole gun violence business may be equally difficult to change, unfortunately.
I was concurring with your idea. I was showing how I have already developed a similar idea in a way that could withstand Second Amendment challenges and even give the two sides common ground.
The bad guys will fight tooth and nail until they are narrowly defeated, just like they did against the Civil Rights movement. But I don't have any reason to believe that they won't eventually be defeated.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Hey, I wasn't arguing against what you're saying - I think it's a very sensible attitude. It's just that the momentum is all with the Gun Rights side.
It's not just about power. It's also about firing rate and number of rounds. Presumably an AR-15 beats handguns and hunting rifles in that metric?
It is paid attention. See District of Columbia v. Heller:
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
That could run foul of the Fourth Amendment, though. There needs to be probable cause, not just "red flags".
The other point about the AR-15 style weapons is that they were originally designed as armaments, i.e. their purpose is the killing of people. Of course, the Gun Lobby has now had them re-defined as 'sporting weapons'.
I can sympathise.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/
I'm perplexed, because I don't see the means by which we can undo decades of gun acquisitions by a good share of the population.
I am not, and never have been a gun ownership advocate or a 2nd Amendment enthusiast. I do now and have always loathed the NRA.
The conclusion of the JPHA article makes perfectly good sense:
Gun ownership is already very widely distributed; There are around 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. At least 100 million Americans own 1, 2, 3 or more guns. That cat is out of the bag. Homicides by firearms, however, are not distributed exactly the same way that gun ownership is. Take Illinois: Illinois is not among the 20 states with the highest level of murder by firearms. Parts of Chicago have few murders by gun. But some parts of Chicago have astonishingly high rates of murder by firearms.
Blue = lowest, red = highest rate of gun homicide. In 2017, 625 were shot and killed; 2936 were shot and wounded.
36% of Minnesota households own guns, but the state has one of the lowest rates of homicide. Illinois has a rate of 26% but one of the highest rates of homicide (again... Chicago).
Quoting Wayfarer
There is a breakdown of civil order in some places, and various policies have contributed hugely to civil disorder. For instance, the inordinately high murder rate by gunfire in Chicago is in many of the neighborhoods most disadvantaged by an official public policy of racial segregation in housing, education, and unemployment beginning in the late 1940s. The ghettos and slums of Chicago didn't just happen -- civil disorder was created. Couple imposed disadvantages with powerlessness, insufficient and hostile police presence in poor neighborhoods, cheap guns, drugs, welfare dependence, lack of employment opportunity, etc. etc. and you have major problems.
3 million extra guns sold is another 155 persons dead according to the correlation. So stopping the sale of guns can save lives. Of course, that's constitutionally not entirely feasible but...
You could outlaw carrying or keeping certain guns that are particularly effective in gun massacres (assault rifles, bump stocks). Fine to put them in a vault at the shooting range and use there under controlled circumstances but not something to keep in a home, on your person or in a car. Any gun bought should have extensive background check, ID number and registered. In fact, I don't see why it would be possible to have the barrel of a gun imprint a bullet with a specific pattern related to that gun much like a handprint. That should increase the chances of finding a lead. You can also limit the number of guns per person (really, how many do you need?!).
Put some hefty fines on possession of the wrong types of gun for 5 years after the law is enacted, meanwhile confiscate when seen or found. Reward people for turning them in. Jail time after 5 years.
And by the way, there's international statistical evidence that gun laws reduce gun homicides as other countries went here before. I definitely agree there's also a socio-economic dimension (Milwaukee anyone?) and a cultural one but it starts with the ready availability of guns. Throwing your hands up and saying "but there are already too many is too cynica"l. Guns break, they get rusty, they are lost etc. etc. Nobody is expecting the problem to be solved today but doing nothing is just immoral.
You also need to combat the "good guy with a gun" bullshit as the good guy is always too late and most people are a crappy shot any way. Even with regular training it's something completely different shooting in a situation where your life is on the line. Police miss in 57% of the time at a distance of 6 feet or less. Basically, if I fall over I have a higher chance of hitting someone than a police officer with a gun. Excellent.
The use of the word "combat" and the "good guy with a gun" bullshit is a bit ironic in that in this instance, the school security guard was armed with a flashlight and nothing more. One shot from the bad guy with the gun took out what could have been, what should have been, what will be in the future "the good guy with a gun". It is not a perfect system to curb this trend but it is most definitely a start.
Another prong to help curb this trend is being studied by my son's University Embry Riddle in that they were awarded just over a three quarters of a million dollar grant to figure out a way to buy the kids within the school the extra 6 minutes that Sandy Hook Elementary school needed to save the lives that were lost in that school shooting.
"The Sandy Hook shooting took six minutes from the first to last shot," said Foley. "We are figuring out how to keep a shooter away from students long enough for police to arrive and stop the shooter. In essence, we are figuring out how to enhance security design to give the kids at the next Sandy Hook six minutes before the bad guy can get to them."
"The funds will be used to test various barrier technologies (doors, windows, window films, and locks) to determine how long each technology will delay an intruder's ability to move past that barrier. Each product will be tested against 9mm, .357, 5.56 x 45mm, and 12 gauge shotgun ammunition and brute force attacks."
The first line of defense HAS to be the administrators of the school because that is who, we the parents, are entrusting with our children's safety.
The proverbial horse branded with the NRA logo has left the barn and maybe it needs a revamp or maybe the mental stability of our nation needs to be weighed but this time, the signs were there, the dots were connected by fellow classmates and people did speak up, it is just no one was listening. The community approach has been "See something, say something" and this time it failed us, we failed us.
But this is peripheral, and ignores the fundamental issue: should private civilians have access to guns, and if so, what restrictions/regulations should be implemented? The idea that the 2nd Amendment's intent is to allow individual citizens the access to guns for reasons of self-defense, hunting, or other private uses outside the scope of regulated militias is dubious. But even if we are to accept that, a 19 year old was nevertheless legally able to purchase an AR-15, an incredibly destructive weapon, but is unable to purchase a beer. A few months ago, Senator David Simmons of Florida sponsored a bill, SB-1288, which would increase the minimum legal age of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco chew, etc. from 18 to 21. Sen. Simmons stated, "“Raising the age limit for smoking to 21 years is essential if we are serious about saving lives." And yet, Sen. Simmons has an A+ rating from the NRA.
'We", being? Are you advocating civil insurrection?
Yes, that small constitutional problem... Actually, the interpretation that everyone may own any gun is a recent interpretation (like, less than 50 years ago).
Quoting Benkei
Good idea. We'll just try to get that law passed.
Quoting Benkei
More constitutional problems. Buying guns off the street... sure.
Quoting Benkei
I'm sure they do. The problem is getting them passed and past a court review.
Quoting Benkei
Agreed. Total bullshit.
Benkei, I'm not perplexed because I haven't thought of any of this; I'm perplexed because there are
a) so damned many political barriers, given politics operating the way it does.
b) so damned many guns already installed.
Yes, guns wear out, they rust, break, etc. But we have to assume that EVEN IF we stopped further gun production and sales today, (which I am in favor of) it would take many years to exhaust the existing inventory.
A ban on ammunition would perhaps be more effective. Bullets are a disposable one-use product. The existing supply of ammunition could be exhausted a lot sooner than the guns themselves.
Will ammunition manufacturing be reduced? Over the dead bodies of the NRA. Of course, there are ample guns and bullets available to accomplish converting the NRA into dead bodies, but it would probably be considered, hmmmm, bad form, bad taste, impolite, politically incorrect, rude, etc., not to mention murder in the first degree.
Our gun problem is the result of poorly regulated or entirely unregulated capitalism; this is true for a lot of our problems, like global warming, pollution, pandemic obesity, poverty, etc. etc. etc. It's also a product of a right-wing political agenda which has been in operation for around... 40+ years. It's no accident that the NRA was taken over by right wingers and converted from a gun-safety to a gun-rights organization.
Then when I go into a retail store and asset protection / loss prevention personnel are following me and watching me--and you know that they are doing it--they are violating the 4th Amendment?
It is insulting--I feel like laughing at them and saying, "Do you really think that there is anything in this store I would find worth stealing?"--but, no, it is not likely that any court would say that my 4th Amendment rights are being violated.
But that is a private business. What about the state? Well, many times when I am at a gas pump I see a picture of a state police trooper with his arms crossed and words warning me about driving off without paying. In other words, "You are being watched". All perfectly constitutional, apparently.
Meanwhile, I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that you do not need a search warrant if the person or property owner cooperates and gives you permission to search.
Again, the gun buyer would have the legal right not to cooperate.
And I do not see how keeping an eye on somebody from a distance violates any protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or any right to privacy. You are watching them to be able to stop them if they try to kill people, not to try to incriminate them.
Many of these shooters don't care anyway. They kill their own selves, so there is never a trial and, therefore, never any requirement of probable cause.
And your argument could be made against all police presence. Has the U.S. Supreme Court said that there must be probable cause before streets are patrolled? Does probable cause have to be demonstrated and a warrant issued before police can be present at a football game? There have been massacres that were carried out with legally purchased firearms. The Virginia Tech gunman legally bought guns at a Roanoke, VA pawn shop shortly before using them in the massacre, if I recall correctly. Therefore, it goes without saying that the point of sale of firearms can be a public safety hazard just like streets and football games with no police presence. Therefore, I do not see how police monitoring gun buyers would be any different in the eyes of the Constitution than private businesses monitoring their sales floors and asking a shopper if they can be of any assistance or the police monitoring streets and asking a group of teenagers what they are doing.
Apparently the more that we try to stop gun violence the more that we are going to interpret the Constitution to weaken the state and make it powerless to stop anything
No it doesn't. Many of the school shootings are suicides, for example.
This doesn't obviate the issue.
'We' being people who value human life. Governments are made of people. But the point of the comment was more that it's not so easy to treat the source of this pathology. And so, in principle, I don't think we should belittle strategies that treat symptoms.
The source of the problem is not quite that Americans have guns. That's certainly part of it, but it's complicated. e.g. 100% of the people doing this are young men. I think to take this seriously we need to look very closely at what we're doing to young men in public education. It seems a number of young men are flipping over the game board on a terrifyingly regular basis in America. Why? It's not just access to guns. If we get rid of all guns will they build pipe bombs? I don't know.
Dunno about age, but according to this, of the 95 mass shootings (3+ killed?) between 1982 and 2017, there were 3 women.
So they will undercut their own sales? Fat chance. There are toilets more regulated than this.
If you have the time/means, I'd be interested to know the demographics. I have the sense that these are mostly young white men age 15-35 with most of the cluster near 18-20.
Of the 90 mass shootings (I don't know why this number differs from the previous figure of 95), 66 involved legally obtained guns, 1 contained both legally and illegally obtained guns, and 10 were unknown.
In terms of numbers, white men are the majority, but then that's because most men are white (63%). Two different statistics on mass shooters shows white men to be responsible in 63% and 54% of cases.
Oh well please, let me teach my children to watch a person bleed out if they have ever been injured by way of malice instead of trying to come up a with solution to save the person's life. Once again, from the time he fired his first shot until he fired his last was six minutes. There is something about that six minute time frame that might relate to a swing in a mental breakdown, I don't know.
Quoting Benkei
While thoughts and prayers can be of a comfort they are not a solution either. So what exactly do I as an adult "don't have the balls to do"?
I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility. If you are 18 and get a DUI they don't put your parents in jail because you are 18. If at 17 you get a DUI, you loose your license till you are 21. The age of 18 makes legal sense in the age of enlistment into our military as well where they will be trained and issued a fire arm.
Thanks, interesting.
I do see it as a 'flipping over the game board' response. Anyone else? What makes people flip over game boards? How might we avoid eliciting this response?
Don't let them near board games?
Sorry, I thought you had an actual suggestion.
It was a suggestion.
Meanwhile, children are dying.
Voting for a President is based on more than a singular position, on a singular topic.
Children are dying from all kinds of threats Benkei and there are some threats that are 'hills I am willing to die on' to protect my children and others children from. A human out to injure others with a firearm is not the most prevalent threat to the greater population of children than those I am willing to take on.
What threats?
Opiates that 40% of high school students have tried and Heroin that is $4 a hit and easier to get that a tobacco cigarette. That is a hill I am willing to die on.
10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States - 2015
10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, United States - 2015
@ArguingWAristotleTiff, seems like guns are just as much a problem as drugs are.
If drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes doesn't "correlate to the age of responsibility" (i.e. 18), in what Kafka-esque world do we live in where owning a gun does?
I am absolutely sicken that this is a conversation we've been having for years now. It continues to happen, and yet nothing is done, and people callously shrug their shoulders. How the hell are we talking about opiates now, as if these are mutually exclusive issue?
You live in Arizona don't you? Don't you have to be 21 to buy alcohol? Strange that it's higher.
Not all in one Presidential candidate no.
Agreed
Hillary. Gun control and a plan for the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic.
In the USA Maw, where the right to own a firearm at age 18 is a protected right until someone proves themselves incapable of possessing that right.
Quoting Maw
I was responding to Benkei's observation that children are dying in the streets as a result of the abuse of firearms with the children that are dying in the streets as a result of the abuse of Opiates. I was stating what epidemic I was willing to fight but that does not relieve me of teaching my children how to responsibly handle a firearm, the knowledge of another firearm present and what to do in the event of an active shooter, BEFORE they are in the situation they might encounter.
Hilary Clinton's Democratic Party Leader slipped within the first few seconds of this video. Make no doubt about it, Democrats would like nothing more than "the slippery slope" of gun control to turn into gun confiscation.
I am not understanding your question. Yes you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol but if you are caught driving under the influence at any age before 21, you loose your license to drive until you are 21.
You said "I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility."
I'm pointing out that it's strange that at 18 you are legally responsible and can buy a gun but you can't buy alcohol.
I don't know about that. Seems like a far too risky move in American culture. Both Hillary and Obama have stated that they're against confiscating all guns.
But are you saying that it's better to allow domestic abusers and the mentally ill to buy guns that to risk the chance that all guns will be confiscated?
Can you not understand the insanity of this statement? "Solving" the problem after it occurs only enables it to occur endlessly. Which it has. The 2nd Amendment is not enshrined in divine inalienability.
Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to own guns. Guns are much more likely to be used as a tool for suicide or homicide than for self-defense. I think hunting is moronic. Civilian militias would never triumph over a tyrannical Government with the US army's backing. Luckily for you and others, I am not a politician. That said, the idea that the objective for Democrats is to confiscate all firearms (as if there were no differing views within the party, or among their voters) is paranoid and conspiratorial. As a matter of fact, a majority of Americans, including those who own guns, believe that new gun laws will not interfere with the right to own guns, and agree with other sensible regulations.
okay so we should just let it happen either way? suicide or murder. it's still a problem
The sale is already made. The buyer and the weapon are then being monitored.
Glad to hear someone has some sense.
Yes it does, inasmuch as the claim I was responding to is false.
Some problems can't be solved without creating or exacerbating others. Your question is hopelessly naive, as if it's easily in our (whoever this plural determiner is) collective power to simply let or not let bad things happen in the world. I assume you mean more gun control laws, but as I have gone over many times before, I fail to see how a law will stop any and all such cases of mass shootings. The most proximate cause for the present shooting is the FBI's incompetence. There were also dozens of phone calls to the police about the boy and dozens of visits to his home by sheriff's deputies, and yet no action was taken. But of course, it's all due to a lack of "better" gun control laws.
Michael, your question is making me think.
We have laws in place to remove current firearms from and remove the right to buy future firearms, from those convicted of domestic abuse and those who are diagnosed as mentally ill but as I have suggested before most who want to do harm with a firearm will find one illegally.
Having said that: I still don't have a solid answer as to which risk is greater to me.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
The statistics seem to be showing that there is a problem with those laws application as well.
What do you mean by "this problem?" Mass shootings? The obvious response is that mass casualty attacks have continued to occur in countries with strict gun control laws. Despite cries of being a red herring, unless you think mass death by firearms is somehow worse than mass death by other means, then in the wake of attacks like the one under discussion here, we should be focused on reducing mass casualty attacks. Passing stricter gun control laws will only make it harder for nonviolent, law-abiding citizens to acquire firearms. It won't stop all future mass shootings or mass casualty attacks. And again, if stopping those isn't your goal, then you don't really care about solving the problem and are only concerned with winning an ideological war due to a peculiar anti-gun pathology.
Quoting David Solman
Guns don't magically sprout legs and shoot people. They require human beings with certain motivations to pull the trigger. It's a cliche but it's true: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are merely a means of killing people. An effective means? You bet. But so are homemade bombs and poisons, as is ramming planes through buildings, driving trucks into pedestrians, etc. I doubt you are in favor of banning the legally obtainable raw materials that go into making homemade bombs and poisons, or planes, trucks, etc.
Bullshit. In the philosophical sense.
Nirvana fallacy. That it won't stop all isn't that it won't stop some. And surely doing something is better than doing nothing?
I don't really understand the logic here. You're saying that because gun crime will just be replaced with non-gun crime, it isn't worth doing something about gun crime? Because it's not as if after doing something about gun crime we can't also do something about knife crime (or whatever).
Depends on what they are. If they're just to make certain types of weapons illegal, like semi-automatic rifles, close loopholes in internet sales, increase the legal age, and have restrictions on risky groups (like the mentally ill), then that shouldn't make it harder for non-violent, law-abiding, capable adults from acquiring guns of some type.
Mad bastards. Time to love your kids more than your guns.
This is precisely the slide I mentioned. Are mass shootings peculiar to the U.S.? Perhaps, but not mass casualty attacks, which brings us back to the strange notion that mass death by gun is somehow worse than mass death by other means.
Quoting Banno
Ad hominem.
Their frequency is far higher in the USA than elsewhere.
Indeed; eventually one realises their is something wrong with one's interlocutor. At that stage one walks away, laughing or crying.
It's bullshit, Thorongil. Your refusal to see the facts is self-serving crap.
Two can play at this game. That defensive gun use by private citizens won't stop all crime isn't that it won't stop some. Surely we ought not to ban them, then?
Quoting Michael
No, I'm saying it isn't worth stricter gun control laws. There are things that can be done about gun crime that don't involve strict gun control laws or an outright ban of guns.
Quoting Michael
You're either displaying your ignorance here or just being crafty. To make semi-automatic rifles illegal would require making virtually all guns illegal, as most handguns are semi-automatic. Otherwise, banning certain semi-automatic rifles would be aritrary. Would-be killers would simply choose another gun, and there are several more powerful and dangerous than the AR-15 and its variants.
Quoting Michael
Sure, though it depends on what they are.
Quoting Michael
Maybe, but increasing the legal age doesn't always lead to a decrease or more effective use of what is being regulated.
Quoting Michael
Fully agreed. There is definitely a case to be made that Cruz's background ought to have prohibited him from acquiring a gun. He ought also to have been flagged as a mental health concern as soon as warning signs appeared. He liked to kill animals, for example, which is pretty strongly correlated in the literature with harming human beings later on.
Not being British you would not be aware of this. But quoting the Daily Mail as a source has about the same credibility as quoting a Trump tweet.
That is not to say that claims made in such sources are necessarily wrong - although they are more often than not. But if one even slightly suspects there may be a grain of truth in them, one has to go searching for credible sources that may corroborate the claim.
The facts are that anyone who disagrees with Banno on guns must love guns more than children? Find something better to do than such low quality trolling, dude. Good grief.
It's not arbitrary. Semi-automatic rifles are different to semi-automatic handguns. I don't see why one can't ban the former but not the latter. Is there a particular reason you find this problematic? Is it that you have some reason to prefer a rifle over a handgun?
Then ban the guns that are more dangerous as well. I honestly don't understand the problem. You don't seem to mind the ban on assault rifles (or do you?), despite the fact that would-be killers can simply choose another gun.
I'm saying that if gun control will reduce the firearm homicide rate then there's a good case for gun control. Whereas you seem to be suggesting that it's pointless if it can't cut it out entirely. That's a Nirvana fallacy. And now your objection above is a red herring.
Quoting Thorongil
Why not? Surely it's better to not have someone shoot at you than to be able to return fire at someone who is?
Quoting Thorongil
Such as? And why can't it be done as well? Surely it's not mutually exclusive. If your ideas will reduce gun crime and if gun control will reduce gun crime then both will reduce gun crime the most.
There comes a point where all that is left is to point to the bullshit and say "that's bullshit". Thorongil, that's bullshit.
There comes a point after the facts have been submitted and analysed, yet despite the facts one's interlocutor still refuses to see them, where it is apparent that one's interlocutor is a bullshit artist.
There comes a point where all that is left is to point to the bullshit artist and say "that's a bullshit artist".
At least if it's the former then there's a determinate answer; the facts can show us who is right. But if it's the latter? Then it's entirely ideological, and the argument a lost cause.
It is arbitrary. And you're right that they're different, but different how? There are handguns more deadly than a semi-automatic rifle at the kind of close range Cruz was operating at.
Quoting Michael
I mind because this would be a de facto ban on guns. Semi-automatic weapons (particularly handguns) are the most manufactured and purchased form of firearm. The people buying them aren't mass murderers either, so you would be confiscating the guns of nonviolent citizens, some of whom require them for self-defense, which means that you would be risking people's lives. As I say, there are trade-offs to every action chosen.
Quoting Michael
And I'm saying that if defensive gun use prevents crime (which it does), then there's a good case not to adopt strict gun control.
Quoting Michael
Most of the people who do the shooting that comprises gun crime don't possess their guns legally. So your plan would disarm the person being shot at while failing to address the person doing the shooting. This is why I said there are ways to reduce gun crime without introducing new laws that just take away guns from nonviolent, law-abiding citizens. One way is better enforcement and policing, i.e. enforcing the multitude of gun laws already on the books.
Quoting Michael
Because that would be to unjustly punish those who've done nothing wrong.
In fact I have. On this very subject.
We already have some forms of gun control is USA. As a practical matter the most I think those who want gun control can hope for is an increase in the age that a person can purchase certain weapons. There is current legislation being introduced into the Senate by Diane Feinstein of California to raise the age to purchase certain weapons to 21. The NRA have most politicians in their pocket and they will support opposition candidates to those who come out for gun control. The amounts of money NRA invests is considerable.
The USA is 350 million population and it has a lot of guns. I don't believe that gun laws would be as effective here as they have been in other, much smaller countries. There is a long tradition of gun use in the USA's history. I think the framers of the Constitution put in the provision in our founding documents out of the fear that some manic or ultra rabble might make use of such weapons necessary. It does not seem that far fetched these days and I don't not trust our plutocratic government very far.
Oh but I am British. Born in Manchester.
But did you notice the similarity of the circumstances between then and now in USA? Change of government maybe.
Would you believe something more recent maybe?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/25/knife-and-gun-rises-sharply-in-england-and-wales
yES i DO SEE THAT THE PROBLEM, AND i UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS WORLD WIDE. wHAT i DON'T SEE IS WHY YOU THINK THAT aMERICANS PROMOTE GUNS. mOST OF THE PEOPLE SIMPLY PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO OWN THEM.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2017
I wasn't sure what to make of the Guardian article either. Most of it was just about 'police recorded crimes' of all types, not specific to violent crime or manufactured weapons.
The second para refers to increase in gun crime of 20% over the preceding year but, for all we know, that's just part of the usual year to year variation, rather than evidence of a sustained trend. In any case, the increase would need to be in the order of thousands of per cent for Britain's per capita gun crime casualty rate to near that of the US.
I see you've just added a link to a government statistics report. Good idea!
The numbers match the Guardian report.
Source
A global comparison of gun related deaths by the numbers is flawed because of national and historical differences between countries.
You are also engaging in ad hominem attacks against Thorongil, which just shows who the real bullshitter is here.
Yes, I am. Thorongil chooses to ignore the facts. As, from what you have said, do you, in claiming that guns as not the cause of the deaths in your country's mass killings. Do you think the culture of Australia or Europe hasn't also changed?
Bah. A sick nation. You need people like Emma Gonzales.
Yes I saw the problem, it was almost as prominent as a total lack of capitalization.
Did you hear the part where she clearly says that they knew the kid and that he had mental health problems?
Did you hear where she clearly stated that he would have not have killed as many with a knife?
But he would have killed, because he was the problem.
I have never said that I agree with people killing others with guns, but people who are going to kill, will kill.
https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html
Your questions/observations are as close to the core beliefs of the need to own a firearm than you realize.
I haven't even gotten an answer to the last moral bite to chew on and you hit me with another. It feels like your nearing the core of the issue for me anyway.
Ban the bomb and look after the world replicas.
So full of good intentions.
How many old hippies turned into car, gun and fertilizer salespeople? I know a couple that specialize in old car repairs and one that produces and sells plastic products.
Back then we had good intentions and these kids still do.
Don't get me wrong, I am against violence of all kinds, not just gun violence. I was there shouting make love not war as well. But it really does take more than that to make a difference, how many countries have actually banned atomic bombs?
I wish them all the luck in the world and seriously hope they manage to do something about the problem. But, how many of the people in the audience had guns and how many are prepared to give them up? How far would the young lady go to defend her point of view?
Whether or not the constitution actually says that the people can or should own guns is not something that I can really say, but i do believe that the people believe this to be true. They really believe in the right to do so and that whatever infringement upon that right is the beginning of of the decline of their rights. If one right is taken away then the others will eventually follow.
It is true that some countries have had success banning the right to bear arms and own guns, but none of them has the situation that the USA has as a starting point. And none of them has had a total success, only reductions in the crime rate.
What is the relevance of statements like this
and this
It looks like an undiluted use of the Nirvana Fallacy. If that's not what you're doing, what possible relevance can those observations have?
A lot of people posting here think that banning guns will solve the problem of people killing other people, I am just pointing out that it is not true. They are the ones that use the fallacy.
It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could. What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun?
Quoting andrewk
There is no such thing as Nirvana. At least not for the living.
'maybe'?!? Come on, be serious. That 'maybe' is nonsense. Unless he were a ninja, it is inconceivable that he would have killed anywhere near as many people without a gun. That is the whole point.
It will be sensible to discuss things like that if mentally ill students taking nail bombs to their own school ever becomes a problem. As you know, currently it is not, neither in the US, nor in countries that have gun controls. Until then, we might as well discuss what would have happened if he'd paid a Mafia hit man to do the job for him.
Ironically, these few statements are loaded with fallacies. Irrespective of whether some users have claimed that removing guns will remove violent psychopathy (although I haven't seen that claim made here), it's nevertheless a common strawman argument. The objective of gun control is to reduce gun violence. This won't reduce the desire to commit crimes, but it will likely reduce lethal crimes.
It's also reasonable to assume that those who favor gun control also favor increased spending on mental health (myself included), part of which would be to help people exhibiting violent mental illnesses (thereby reducing crime and violence), but there is a perverse, and clearly deleterious, reticence when discussing mental health and illness in this country.
What would have happened had he taken a nail bomb instead of a gun? Well, that's speculative, of course, but the fact is is that the perpetrator did use a gun, and I imagine he chose a gun due to the ease of access, training, and device control (among other factors). England has similar crime rates as America, and yet there isn't a "nail gun epidemic".
Unfortunately, these arguments, facts, and exposed fallacies have been discussed for well over a decade now. And yet, some remain obstinate. As two new books on cognitive psychology point out, there is a limit in facts can change minds. One would have hoped that Sandy Hook, from a purely emotional level, would have been the final straw, but it wasn't. Failing this, one would have hoped that the 58 killed and nearly 900 injured in Vegas would have sufficed, but it didn't. One would think the regularity of shootings and abundance of gun homicides would drive change, but it hasn't. Sadly, this will undoubtedly continue. I would like to hold on to an iota of optimism, that something can change, but I simply don't see that plausibly happening anytime soon.
I've come to the same conclusion - for the short to medium term at least. The massacres just don't bother enough Americans enough relative to how much they love their guns. Arguing the point becomes almost an exercise in masochism.
You speak as if guns have legs and can go around shooting people all by themselves. People are the problem - people with issues that shouldn't have access to guns in the first place. There were many instances where people knew that this guy had a problem and reported it to the FBI, but the FBI failed to follow through. There needs to be more efficient information sharing.
Australian and Europe have changed, but not in the same way as the U.S.
When a person drives drunk and kills someone, we don't blame the booze or the cars. When a terrorist uses a bomb or vehicle to kill, we don't blame the bomb or the vehicle. So why is it guns when some nut shoots up a school? Blaming guns doesn't get at the root of the problem which is people with a political or religious agenda, or mentally unstable people that want to make a name for themselves and the media is there to provide them the medium to do it.
No, but we require somebody to have a licence to drive a car, and we take it away if they are caught driving while intoxicated, or if they are judged mentally unfit to drive. Why then does the US set a lower standard of care for controlling who can use a gun than for who can use a car?
We also register ALL cars and restrict what types of cars may be driven on public roads. For instance racing cars and monster trucks are not allowed, and even cars that are considered ordinary are denied registration if they fail a safety inspection. But no such controls for guns in the US, eh?
If the US regulated the ownership and use of guns similarly to how it regulates that of cars, I doubt it would have had the terrible succession of shootings that it has had.
Oh, and Trump is using the event as part of his polemics against the FBI - like 'the FBI were too busy trying to find evidence of Russian collusion to do their jobs properly.' What an outstanding statesman and fine leader he's turning out to be.
Not.
Some of the tweets by the students:
'"17 of my classmates are gone. That's 17 futures, 17 children, and 17 friends stolen. But you're right, it always has to be about you. How silly of me to forget."
"17 innocent people were brutally murdered at my school, a place where they should have felt safe. Their lives were gone in an instant. You are the President of the United States and you have the audacity to put this on Russia as an excuse. I guess I should expect that from you."
""...my friends were brutally murdered and you have the nerve to make this about Russia. I can not believe this"
""Oh my god. 17 OF MY CLASSMATES AND FRIENDS ARE GONE AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO MAKE THIS ABOUT RUSSIA???!! HAVE A DAMN HEART. You can keep all of your fake and meaningless 'thoughts and prayers'."
I have felt a shifting of the sands that I stand on in regards to this topic, so I am very interested in what you change you have found.
It takes a lot to change something fundamental about who we are, what we believe in and what we want our future to look like. It is very hard for me to let someone else's logic weigh something so ingrained in me.
It is almost like someone trying to convince me that there is a God when I was raised an Atheist.
(Just as an example as I was raised Catholic)
In looking at the deaths by gun violence around the world, you will find that gun control isn't the common denominator as there are countries with greater control over guns that have a higher rate of deaths by guns than the U.S. The common denominator is the culture of the nation, which can also include the country's wealth. The countries that have a higher rate of gun violence than the U.S. are all S. American and Carribean countries - drug trafficking countries.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
Cherry-picking. In the rest of that post I also said...
Quoting Harry Hindu
In other words, we don't let certain people who have exhibited violent tendencies to own a firearm and the FBI needs to do a better job.
We don't take away EVERYONE's car when one person uses it to kill others either by terrorism or drunk driving. We only punish the guilty person, not punish everyone because of the actions of a select few.
Registration doesn't stop gun violence. Just look at the South American countries that require registration and their rate of deaths by gun violence is much higher than the U.S.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation
Logically, it can't be the control of guns that influences the rate of deaths by gun violence. That is what seems obvious to me, yet Banno seems to think it is okay to berate others for not noticing the "facts".
The higher rate of gun violence occurs in South American and Carribean countries - countries known for their drug problem. Maybe we should look at the relationship between gun violence and drug laws. I would argue that most gun death in the U.S. are drug-related.
So, if we were to legalize drugs, or make stricter laws, does that have an effect on gun violence?
Research has been shared in this thread that an increase of 1% in guns results in an increase of .9% in gun related deaths. The number of guns has a clear effect. So I'm not sure which logic you're using or which facts.
You cite the NPR article where the researcher at IHME clearly states but conclude the opposite. That's a bit weird when you don't get into why the context he provided is irrelevant. Why do you think a comparison between Iraq (for instance) and the USA is a sensible one?
This I find interesting. Here's a graph comparing the United States to other countries with a high gun-related homicide rate:
And here's another graph comparing the United States to developed countries:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg&w=480
What is it about the United States that makes it closer to non-developed countries than to developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides?
Call it what you will but it feels like a thinly veiled road into the confiscation of legally owned firearms by the government we have elected.
There are circumstances in which the phrase "grandfather clause" is used to describe someone or something that is not going to have to change it's current stance but everyone or everything that comes after that point in time will be subjected to the change.
I have been on both sides of the "grandfather clause" and what I have found is that if there is anyway possible to preserve my current position, I am better off as a consumer, from electric company programs to rights to water on a private property, change is rarely in favor of the consumer.
So I am very hesitant to change my mindset that "gun control" is not gun take way but let me entertain the idea of enacting "gun control" in today's reality.
1) There would be a need to "grandfather in" the firearms that are already in the publics hands.
2) An armed guard at every school until we solve the 6 minute time frame needed for an armed officer to get to the school with an active shooter.
3) A person under the age of 21 may purchase and possess a hunting rifle after successfully completing a marksman course in safety.
4) A person who can pass a background check must also be 21 to purchase a fire arm.
Maybe
5) Having identifying numbers on ammo purchased for high capacity fire arms
Is the increase of .9% true for all countries? If so, then why not compare all countries instead of making exceptions for developed ones?
The facts I am using that contradict the research shared earlier in the thread are the ones I posted in the links I provided. The fact is that there are countries with more control over guns that have higher rates of gun violence than the U.S. I said that already.
I also mentioned that most gun related deaths are drug and gang related. Maybe we should be looking at our drug laws as the culprit for the amount of deaths that occur by people using guns. What are the drug laws in the developed countries?
Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. What are the drug laws of other developed countries?
Well said. I agree.
promoting the right to own guns is promoting guns in general. you haven't given any real contribution to this argument. only outdated articles that are just pure propaganda to the British conservative party, designed to make people turn their heads away from the labour party. id suggest you read the article before posting here. mass shootings are a regular occurrence in america. if you cant see that the accessibility of guns is the problem here than you're just being stupid.
nobody is saying that all guns must be removed, if you are you're being irrational. that just wouldn't be possible, it would take years and years and years to banish all guns at this point. If you think about what it would take to "MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL" it just isn't as possible as people would like. If you ask everyone in the country to hand over all fire arms, do you really think that 100% of guns would be returned? Of course not, probably not even 60%. But what needs to happen is more control and they need to be made less easily accessible. You cant just give a gun to anyone whIch is basically what happens in this country. On the terrorist watch list? Doesn't matter. This is what is wrong with the gun laws.
And as much as most people don't want to hear it, the reason you need to protect yourself with a gun is because of the law that says you can have guns anyway but like i said it isn't very possible to reverse that now but there certainly needs to be some new laws tightening the accessibility of guns, with more security and safety, that isn't much to ask.
I already covered this above. We DO outlaw the use of certain types of cars on the road that are particularly dangerous and for which there is no persuasive reason to allow people to drive them. And they are outlawed FOR EVERYONE. The examples given were racing cars and monster trucks.
So where is the consistency in your opposing the outlawing of private ownership of the gun equivalents of these - military-style assault rifles, of the kind used in this massacre and the last few before that?
In general, evidence has shown there is not such a need. Governments introduce buyback programs where there is a limited time frame in which owners of weapons made illegal can sell them to the government, who then destroys them. Here's a wiki page on it.
They work in other countries, albeit with a fair bit of grumbling from the owners.
Whether they would work in a country like the US where a gun has the status of a religious icon is a matter about which I have no idea.
look, forget about gun violence in general for a second. School shootings are the reason for the rise in debate on gun laws once again and they are something that's becoming far too regular. Show me the statistic that says that most or any school shootings are drug or gang related. Blaming Americas gun violence on gangs and drugs just seems like a generic excuse for keeping the law the same. the reason we are all here is because school shootings challenge the gun laws the most, because kids are getting hold of guns somehow and using them to shoot and kill kids at their school. you cant change the reason we are here and start using the gang card. not only is it painfully naive but also racist.
I said this over two years ago: "Gun policy: Ban the private use of arms, or else abolish the second amendment, or else enforce stricter laws."
I still don't much care for guns or "gun culture," and I view hunting as positively immoral unless done for survival. What I have come to understand is that there is a natural right to self-defense by means of arms, whether in terms of defending oneself, one's family, fellow citizens, or even country. It is not merely a legal or positive right brought into being by constitutions and legislatures, it can only be recognized or not by them, and so it isn't something that can be abolished without committing an injustice, even for the sake of some other hypothetical good. I am not a utilitarian. I also reconsidered the empirical evidence related to gun crime and mass shootings, but it is primarily for the principled reason just described that I changed my mind. Or rather, since I had already been convinced of there being natural rights, it was a matter of realizing that to be consistent, I had to allow for the natural right to self-defense by means of arms. Naturally, this isn't to say that there should be no reasonable limits on the kind of firearms that are suitable for self-defense.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/index-en.aspx
https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/bates-gun-violence-drug-policy/index.html
http://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459
Where are your stats?
Race cars and monster trucks aren't banned completely. You can still own them, just not drive them on the road.
The comparison with guns would be that you can own these guns, just not use them in schools, or in the mall or movie theaters. So you're argument is a red herring.
This is ridiculous. I never said that school shootings are drug-related. I said that most shooting are related to drugs and gangs. So you want to engage in selective outrage, or general outrage?
You are misinformed. The Declaration of Independence, which does not hold the same legal status as the U.S. Constitution, lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution assumes these rights but does not list them. It provides a Bill of Rights, most of which are based on the aforementioned natural rights, including the Second Amendment.
Quoting tim wood
Do you not know what the words "bear" and "arms" mean?
Quoting tim wood
Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense. I've since edited my comment to make that clear.
Quoting tim wood
Please do not condescend to me in this way. It sours the discussion enormously. If, like Banno, you don't care about such things, then I probably won't respond to you in the future.
So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. I'm quite certain everyone, including those evil people at the NRA, would be in favor of such a law if it existed, so if you've discovered the magic formula, by all means share it with us.
Exactly where did I state that the availability of guns is not the problem? Maybe you should read the posts before replying to them.
Quoting David Solman
And just who the hell are you to tell me what to do, but please do take your own advise.
If you cannot see the need to capitalize your writing then you must be rather ignorant of things like basic grammar and punctuation as well as common courtesy and manners.
I am. The grammar of the Amendment makes it clear. As the majority opinion in Heller reads: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." A court of appeals also wrote: "The Amendment does not protect 'the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people.' The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias."
Quoting tim wood
More condescension.
Quoting tim wood
I think I have already shown the openness of my mind, as I just got done explaining how I changed it on this very issue. You, on the other hand, have given me no evidence that your mind of a similar nature. In the future, if you care at all about persuading the other side of either your views or your sincerity, to insinuate of your interlocutor that he is not of an open mind on the basis of no evidence, while providing none that you are yourself, is a poor way of going about it.
Quoting tim wood
I don't understand the question. I am arguing that there is a right to bear arms. I don't myself have to bear arms to acknowledge and defend this right. If it wasn't already clear, I don't own any firearms and have no desire to own them at present, but that has no relevance to the argument I'm making.
Quoting tim wood
The question is incoherent. I don't have to be threatened in the immediate moment for there to be a right to bear arms.
Quoting tim wood
No. I want, and in fact have, the right to own and carry one.
Quoting tim wood
I gave a couple versions of such an argument earlier in this very thread, but not to worry, I don't expect you to have gone back and read the whole thing. I might not formulate it in precisely the same way now anyway. Since we apparently agree that we have the natural right to self-defense, the missing premise you're looking for is that I have the right to adequate, effective, and reasonable means of self-defense. This includes firearms.
Quoting tim wood
I agree.
I don't know what "the suggestion" is to which you refer. Some here have suggested an outright ban on all guns, while others want more gun control of various kinds and degrees, some of which I have agreed with and some not.
Yes, I can carry and own them. The Second Amendment reads, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."
Quoting tim wood
Yes, that's why the argument is one of principle, not utility.
What interpretation? I don't follow what exactly you're trying to attack now.
Quoting tim wood
Yes, and?
I don't see the relevance of this. In case you were unaware, Massachusettsians possess the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment applies universally.
I didn't include suicide for good reason. People have the right to choose to live their lives or end it. They do not have the right to end other people's lives and that is what we have been discussing in this thread. When the gun control debate centers around preventing violent crime I don't see suicide as being the correct place for that discussion.
These gun control debates always crop up after mass shootings and that is the context and the problem we are trying to address here (which includes all homicides, not suicides). Being that mass shootings are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths, maybe you should have brought this up earlier in the thread for everyone to show that they are engaging in selective outrage, not just me - just to create a red herring against my argument. The fact that you brought it up only now, and in an attempt to undermine only my argument shows that you aren't being honest or consistent.
The problem with most people in this thread is that they are reacting emotionally to this topic, and emotions cloud your logic - hence all the logical fallacies cropping up in this thread.
Wrong. Trump and the rest of the govt. are not saying the same thing as me. I have proposed that legalizing, or at least de-criminalizing drugs, is a means of making a drastic cut in the number of homicides where guns are involved. I already addressed the mental health issue in my first post in this thread.
Based on the interpretation by the Supreme Court, let's get on with actual laws:
1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles.
Of these only number 5 is contentious based on the Supreme Court ruling. 7 would probably raise a discussion whether they're "dangerous" or not but I'd say the proof is in the pudding for that one. The rest appear constitutional. At the very least, politicians could get started with that.
False.
Quoting tim wood
False.
Quoting Thorongil
I was under the impression was that it's purpose was to prevent the federal government from replacing state militias with a standing army.
Regarding no. 7, by my understanding, sale of "fully automatic" rifles is prohibited already. But, sale of semi-automatics is not. Unfortunately, semi-automatics may function as automatics through use of the now widely-known bump stocks and by other means. The recoil of a semi-automatic weapon may be used to fire multiple shots. I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Because I shoot clay pigeons, not animals or people, I usually load no more than 2 shells. There is the ability to load more. It depends on the capacity of the weapon's magazine (that's where shells are stored). Most shotguns have 4 + 1; 4 in the magazine, 1 in the chamber. Rifles like the AR-15 can be equipped with magazines with 30 rounds, or more I believe.
Since I think (perhaps wrongly) that many who buy guns don't spend much time learning how to shoot accurately, or care for them generally, and since I think hanguns are very inaccurate, I'd be all for training. I don't think there's much of a legal argument to the contrary.
I think it takes a peculiar kind of person to carry a firearm in public (I've seen someone wearing a handgun in a restaurant), or walk around with them, concealed or not. I think most of us gun owners are registered already. Criminal and mental health checks simply make sense.
The legal rights set forth in the Constitution are always subject to reasonable restrictions. These seem reasonable to me.
I was addressing the issue of why the right to keep and bear arms was granted. There's an article here about it that references the sources Scalia used[sup]1[/sup] in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller.
[sup]1[/sup] e.g. Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley in 1898: "A standing army is peculiarly obnoxious in any free government, and the jealousy of one has at times been demonstrated so strongly in England as almost to lead to the belief that a standing army recruited from among themselves was more dreaded as an instrument of oppression than a tyrannical king, or any foreign power. So impatient did the English people become of the very army which liberated them from the tyranny of James II., that they demanded its reduction, even before the liberation could be felt to be complete; and to this day, the British Parliament render a standing army practically impossible by only passing a mutiny bill from session to session. The alternative to a standing army is "a well-regulated militia," but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms."
If this is right, and the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide for an alternative to a standing army, then @tim wood is right in claiming that it's purpose is no longer relevant. The existence of a standing army (and one far better equipped and trained than a citizen's militia) renders the Second Amendment moot.
I could go on, but all of these and more are trade-offs that the US population must consider, otherwise we'll continue to flounder in mass murders and gang violence. If it were easy to solve this issue it would have been done so long ago. That it hasn't is down to the unwillingness of those in society to recognize that they've signed a social contract, which entails the giving up of certain degrees of freedom so that the whole of society can move forward and not regress into a Hobbesian-like state of nature. But, in the classically American way of wanting everything immediately and forever, I can't be too surprised at the unwillingness of people to give up what, in all reality, they must.
Changing laws does not necessarily mean that the people will change their way of life. The laws have to be enforced before they can start the process. Any ideas about how they could enforce a gun ban?
Quoting David Solman
This implies that the people do not know about the problem as you call it. That is not true. They are all well aware that the shit hits the fan sometimes. The main problem is that it affects so few of the population. And if as you say it is the people that use the guns that are the cause then it is such a minority of the people that no one feels guilty because some idiot used a gun wrongly.
Quoting David Solman
.I keep asking exactly how this can be done and as far as I know no one has come up with a workable solution.
Quoting David Solman
I doubt that anyone is saying that. Almost everyone thinks that something should be done to stop these disturbed people going this kind of thing.
Well, to be honest if I read USA vs. Miller, the language of the 1st amendment and the dissenting opinion of Columbia vs. Heller I have to agree with this.
The first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's an unqualified prohibition on Congress to not pass certain laws. The idea that the 2nd amendment is also unqualified because the first part is merely a prefatory clause doesn't seem to be a natural interpretation of the amendments taken together. So basically I disagree with the decision in the Heller case but at the same time it's pretty clear what the Supreme Court will rule in its current make-up and that's a continuation of Heller.
So you might be right but you're not going to win that case.
As I said, I already addressed the mental illness issue. The fact is that you are engaging in selective outrage. What about the uncountable number of children killed on the streets in the crossfire between rival gangs and drug dealers? You don't seem to care about them at all. The vast majority of gun deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. I have also shown that the relationship between other developed countries and their lack of gun violence isn't their gun laws, rather its their drug laws.
School shootings are a small fraction of the gun related deaths and it requires a different solution. It requires that the FBI actually follow through with the information given to them by people who havd reported someone with violent tendencies and has threatened to shoot up a school. It also requires that psychiatrists and psychologists report their patients to the authorities if they show that they are danger to themselves and others.
Another thing we can do is place armed guards at schools. People seem to think it is okay to have armed guards in banks guarding stacks of paper. Why would we have a problem having armed guards protecting our children?
Quoting tim wood
So people don't have a right to choose their own path for their life? So people wouldn't find other ways to commit suicide? Give me a break, dude. You're not worth my time.
Here's a question, would you even want to live in an apocalyptic dystopian world where there is armed struggle between the citizenry and government in an anarchic state of "anything goes" regarding weapons? At that point, the structures of civilization itself has lost, and it is doubtful it will be a good world worth trying to thrive in anyways. So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start.
Also, as some posters suggested, the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, large-scale missiles, and you name it. You think your assault rifles or other pitly firearms matter much to that? The Founders had muskets and cannons- that was it. What would they say with modern weapons? Would they possibly say the idea of a competently armed citizenry is ridiculous in the face of military grade weapons that have been stockpiled since WWI in the US Government?
Thirdly, your premise that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment was a tyrannical government is false. One of the main reasons was actually much more nefarious. Southerners, especially in places like Virginia, were suspicious of the new federal government's formation of a standing army. They thought that if there was a federal army, they might take away the local militias. Now, why did many southerners want local militias? Because the slaveowners were reliant on regional volunteer militias to keep the slave population from revolting. These slaveholders did not want the government interfering with their ability to control their slave population. James Madison, a Virginian himself, the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, knew this concern, and it was a factor in the prominence of this amendment.
That is precisely what you have done, tim. I have provided the reason, by quoting court documents, as to why the Amendment grants an individual, and not a collective, right to own and bear arms. You have merely asserted the contrary without evidence. Put up or shut up, I say.
No, not necessarily. I agree with Heller that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Protection from government tyranny, both foreign and domestic, may have been one reason for the Amendment, but self-protection was another and in fact underlies the former.
It's pretty selective to agree with Heller in light of the history of supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. It was pretty much stare decisis before Heller. Miller had been challenged 4 times before Heller overturned it and the interpretation had been reaffirmed by lower courts for decades until Heller. The Heller interpretation is not a very good one and definitely not unassailable.
It's no less selective than to agree with a previous court's interpretation to the exclusion of Heller.
I didn't claim otherwise. I was pointing out that the reason an individual was given the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia was to allow for the formation of a militia should the need arise, in lieu of a standing army. Although the prefatory clause doesn't restrict the operative clause, it isn't an irrelevant comment.
Quoting Thorongil
Do you have a source on that? The sources I've seen (e.g. those provided by Scalia in his opinion) seem to refer back to objections to a standing army and government tyranny.
There is one way to interpret the Constitution - by looking up the quotes of the founding fathers (the authors of the document) that relate to and explain their own reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” - George Washington First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Less guns in schools actually is one of the problems. Gun-free zones are where these kinds of attacks take place, which is why you have to wait for the police (more guns) to show up to handle the problem.
I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? Then why would you think having armed guards in schools a problem? We don't arm the bank tellers and so I'm not agreeing with arming teachers. I'm just saying to have trained guards at schools.
I'm glad you don't disagree with me concerning the perverse suggestion that teachers should be armed. Extra security at schools including the possible employment of armed guards is a different issue, and seems a less objectionable proposal on the surface for obvious reasons though I still don't agree with it. I'd rather we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the cause. There's a fairly simple equation at work here—the more guns there are in a given environment, the more often they get used, and the more often innocent people get killed through their use, both accidentally and purposefully.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, the problem is more people getting killed, so you're wrong to think I wouldn't argue for that. I'd rather bank robbers take the money, leave, and then be pursued by the police (armed if necessary) than that they get involved in shootouts with armed guards and risk killing customers in the crossfire. Obviously, the more armed the guards are, the more armed the criminals will tend to be, and the more potential there is for violence. And it's not as if it's preventative. Which is why we don't have armed guards in banks in Ireland, for example, and we have less robberies and less people getting killed in robberies. So, apart from this being common sense, it works. But just research it yourself.
https://www.revealnews.org/article/fbi-bank-robbery-data-shows-armed-guards-increase-risk-of-violence/
"Research [shows] that...the presence of defensive weapons creates a greater risk of violence
...In an environment like this, arming guards in all locations is premature. Even in locations where robberies do occur, the presence of a guard increases the likelihood of violence and injury."
Introduction to private security - John Dempsey
"According to the FBI, the simple presence of any on-site weapon automatically increases the potential risk of violence. When a Security Guard is armed on the job, the potential threat of violence automatically increases yet again..."
https://www.eldoradoinsurance.com/security-industry-news/security-guard-violence-trends/
(Insurance company).
"Many people perceive armed security officers favorably as a deterrent against violence and an assurance that a violent incident can be quickly quelled. From a client's ... The presence of an additional firearm—even in an officer's hands—only stands to increase the risk of casualties."
https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guns-and-Security-The-Risks-of-Arming-Security-Officers.aspx
(Security management company).
The idea that the way to solve the problem of violence is to increase the means of carrying it out is completely wrong no matter how selectively you try to apply the principle. And the attitude of looking to guns as being a solution to anything rather than simply a menace we'd all be better off without is very culturally specific to the U.S. The weight of empirical evidence shows that a less armed society at every level (apart from military defence) is a safer and more secure society. There is nothing to fall back on for the gun lovers except their love for their guns and a bunch of irrational attempts at justification that fall apart even on a very basic analysis.
What I found rather shocking though was the unwillingness of government even to compile statistics on mass shootings or to fund studies.
There's none so blind as they who will not see. But I have hope that minds will change and that argument and appeal is worth the effort.
What possible rationale is there for this?
Well there's a surprise.
So it was introduced because they were afraid that gun control advocates are right?
QED.
There are places that, should I be obliged to reside there, I would probably want to have a gun for defensive reasons, for example, Port Moresby. A friend recently travelled to a marine expedition was was embarking from that port, and his vehicle from the airport to his secure compound was escorted by armed guards from the prosaically-named 'Attack Dog Security'. He had had to receive a detailed briefing on personal conduct for the 36 hours he was to be in transit in Port Moresby. So there, you might want a gun. Even an AR-15.
But surely, in the 'land of the free', the fact that armed guards in schools is being seriously contemplated, is an indication of a breakdown in civil order - the basic fact that civilized behaviour is under threat in what is supposed to be the most advanced democracy in the modern world.
Despite all the obfuscation and politicking, if you can't see the threat that this represents, then you're not seeing it right.
Do you think that he should have gone in? I don't know much about police policy, but is a single man supposed to go alone in the case of a shooter, or is he supposed to wait for backup?
And if this deputy chose not to engage the shooter, what are the odds that a teacher wouldn't choose to engage a shooter? For all this talk about arming people in schools, how many are actually going to confront the attacker rather than just try to hide?
It's not just you, it's objectively stupid. Nothing more than NRA propaganda to 1) get more people to purchase guns, and 2) defend 2A. There are endless problems with the idea....
"The leftover consequences on other people is unfortunate but it has nothing to do with me. I have the right to fend for myself, and we should celebrate those rights. Why should I take on risk for the misbehavior of others?"
It's not about the collective but the individual. You see this kind of rhetoric all the time when it comes to military spending and intervention, not wanting to pay taxes so others that are less fortunate can be taken care of, not wanting to let refugees in, and so on. I suspect there is some rough parallel to that which prevents communication regarding guns, there is a fundamental difference in values.
Indeed, the absence of a sense of common wealth isn part of the USA's problem.
On the other hand, I like knowing that I have some way of protecting my little family against an extreme situation. The anti-gun argument tends to ignore that criminals aren't going to obey gun laws. I don't relish the idea of being a soft target in a society where only the police and the criminals have guns and not law abiding citizens. I happen to fear criminals more than the state, and I don't especially fear violent crime (I'm more likely to be smashed by some texting teenager's Toyota). Nevertheless, the idea of being threatened in my own home without recourse is sufficiently odious to me that I'd miss my 'nuclear option' if it were no longer there.
One of the first victims identified among the 17 people killed was Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and security guard. Feis was shot after reportedly throwing himself in front of students during the rampage.
I don't believe in heaven, or whatever, but cartoons like these kill me.
Mass shootings suck, and they make the news that is shown between commercials. But young people are more likely to kill you by drunk driving than with a gun, I believe, in the US. This is not at all to say that I oppose or favor this or that age restriction. Nor is it to say that I don't get the point of the cartoon. But we could just as easily show a cartoon of an 18 year old signing up for the Army or getting an abortion and not being able to buy bourbon.
It doesn't surprise me that there are 'absurd' situations in a democracy. The laws are not written by one personality. They are more like the result of sublimated civil war. This is not say that I am for or against this or that law, either. (I wouldn't expect a stranger's mere preferences to matter much, though I can imagine fitting into various pigeonholes in readers' minds.)
https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
Why is there so little research on guns in the US? 6 questions answered
U.S. gun violence is a symptom of a long historical problem
Quoting Banno
Quoting foo
Quoting foo
The problem with heated political discussions is the tendency to misread and project.
I vote Democratic and would like to have voted for Sanders in the general election. Nevertheless, I find many of my liberal acquaintances too shrill.
I don't think the individual has much power to change things politically. I'm not saying they should or should not try. I'm bored with shoulds. Shoulds are as cheap as tapwater. I'm just saying that all the fervor has a certain absurdity for me. I may participate in a little earnest back and forth for the novelty, but I ultimately don't care what some distant stranger (or my next door neighbor ) thinks about the issues. Nonvoters or one little voter among millions of votes. And I'm really not sure what's best politically, and I don't mind being not sure. I do have a instinctive distrust of those who are very sure. At what cost that certainty? How homogenized is their social circle? How accurate is their sense of the kinds of people involved? For me a theoretical and imperfect neutrality is a way to stay out of red bubbles and blue bubbles where everyone sings the one true song about the bad people on the other side.
I think, coming from a European country, this fear is probably exaggerated. Currently, most every criminal is carrying a gun because it's legal. If it weren't legal, most criminals aren't murderers that need guns and rather not serve extra time for gun possession or be labeled a criminal merely for gun possession. Most burglars, street dealers, hustlers etc. will give up their guns as a result.
In the Netherlands it's mostly organised crime where it's certain individuals' business is to kill others. They have guns and chances of you meeting them are slim as the more professional ones tend to wait until the victim is alone, if only to limit witnesses.
In summary, most criminals would obey gun laws.
Quoting foo
I can understand this sentiment. Breaking in and entry is a high impact crime that has a lot of emotional effect on the victims. On the other hand, I doubt they are often committed with the intent to commit violence - usually it's cash, phones, computers and TVs. The insurance covers those. Why even risk killing someone? I would hope killing someone is still more traumatic than being robbed and should be avoided.
Why do you put absurd in quotes? Don't you think it's an absurd situation? Perhaps you mistake me for a starry-eyed patriot. Nah, I was just born here. If Iceland will have me, I'm happy live in Bjork's garage.
I suspect moving to another country is your best solution.
Isn't this informed by the assumption that all political debate is ideologically motivated or decided along partisan lines? How would that apply to Banno (Australian) or me (Dutch)? Even so, it doesn't have any bearing on whatever argument would be forwarded by either side or facts that can be checked.
Finally, at what cost is uncertainty where it concerns gun control?
Actually, I agree. Yes, it does happen. But it probably won't happen to me. There is a certain 'magic' or irrational attachment involved: 'happiness is a warm gun.' I think it's a bit macho. 'Guns are serious business, a real man's business.' But so is drinking and being proud of having a high tolerance. Or proud of having been a tourist in a risky country. Or the gentrifiers pride in living in a neighborhood that the less hip consider scary.
Quoting Benkei
That sounds plausible. If guns are banned, I'd give mine up. I don't know if it can happen here, though. And I would be afraid about what other parties might do. (It's just not a big issue for me. I just put my 2 cents in to pluralize the discourse a bit.)Quoting Benkei
I think it's Civilization and Its Discontents.
But you also assume prudence on the part of criminals. We are also a country of serial killers over here. Some of them will eat your privates. (That's meant to be funny, but it's true.)
I don't know if the average American is all that afraid. Lots of us don't vote. When I was younger, politics was a boring channel on TV. The phrase 'belly of the empire' comes to mind. I think we have to balance the fear you mentioned with the confidence Americans have in American might.
I also think that political conversations are missing important voices, namely the voices of those who don't find it worth the trouble to participate in the conversation. Believers care enough to show up, so they clash furiously and forget that nonbelievers exist.
Something that occurred to me earlier was a Catch-22 in the American liberal's position on gun control. On the one hand, the cops are (systematically) racists, and on the other hand they should have the monopoly on legal force.
But on fear of gov., of course the drug war is violent and involves home invasion and seizure on the part of the government. I'm pretty sure we still have the gold medal on the proportion of the population we keep in cages. So that's a little scary.
But I'm more worried about some asshole texting in his or her Toyota. Seriously. And then, you know, cancer.
Banno is fine. I like Banno. But he did jump on me initially with a bad paraphrase or misreading of my point despite my anticipatory disclaimers.
I'm uncertain about the cost of uncertainty, too. I really don't know if my position is the good one. But I do believe that it doesn't matter much in the scheme of things. This is an uncomfortable thought, potentially. What if we are mostly picking out bumper stickers and making fashion statements? Do we enjoy breaking into 'tastes great' and 'less filling' groups? I think we do, and there's something dark in this that works against a willingness to tolerate the mere perception of complexity perhaps.
Totally. We're not immune unfortunately. It does assume prudence on the majority of criminals. It comes down to statistics and the relevant issues seem to be:
1. how many people want to get guns even though they're prohibited?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people for other reasons than self-defense?
3. how easy is it to get a gun illegally?
I have a lot of trust that no. 1 as a percentage of the total population is quite low and that 2.as a percentage of 1. is even lower. I suspect most US gun owners are not prepared to use guns against others. 3. is the backstop for where 1 and 2 fail.
The idea is that 1, 2 and 3 taken together leads to a lower risk than:
1. how many people get guns if they're legal?
2. how many of those are prepared to use them against other people?
3. how easy is to get a gun?
So 2 is the same in both instances. 3 suggests that any type of gun control lowers risk. 1 suggests a downright prohibition has the largest effect.
All good points. Frankly, I'm not against a gun-free society. I'm open to the idea of only the police having guns. But I don't think it's a realistic possibility here. Too many out there. Too much association with the American identity perhaps. But I don't think my openness to the idea will have a measurable bearing on whether it ever happens.
Something I worry about, however, is that there may be a kind of mass killing 'meme' that will seek other means. Yes, guns are part of the problem. But is there not some twisted desire for instant fame? A nobody can become a somebody in the blink of an eye. Vilified, sure, but no publicity is bad publicity for some nasty part of human nature. The killers seem to plot so that their numbers are respectfully obscene. One or two corpses in a school would make the news. Will they switch to bombs or poison? This is no reason to keep guns out the hands of the crazy little shits. I just wonder whether we can stop this kind of thing altogether (which is not to say we shouldn't try, just in case I need to emphasize that for partisan ears.)
Just. Wow.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-control-florida-shooting-school-teachers-arming-weapons-protect-parkland-a8222806.html
Key parts:
I'm just highlighting it.
The purchase of guns is the end in view; it's the constant in this kind of "solution." The question to ask is: Cui bono (more accurately, cui bono fuisset)? Translation" "To whose benefit is it?" A maxim employed by my distant ancestor, Marcus Tullius Cicero, as an advocate, but which he ascribed to Lucius Cassius Longinus.
If only they could be a little more subtle about it. But maybe they don't have to be any more. :death:
Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Fact is, you have made your home less safe.
It is a total disrespect actually of the military and of law enforcement to think that you need the kind of weaponry the military uses in order to defend yourself. That's basically saying that your military and law enforcement suck and you don't trust them.
Though I will admit that America, since many people already own assault weaponry, has a big logistical problem in removing all those guns, since a large number of those people may not willingly surrender it.
:gasp:
How does it compare with various Nations possessing fatal weapons?
They can't. It's illegal to own such weapons.
Quoting Agustino
Civilians don't own the kind of weaponry the military uses.
Quoting Agustino
Are you sure you haven't, in light of the two falsehoods you peddled above?
Quoting Thorongil
"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 ."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States#Proposed_Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2015
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings
...
Quoting Agustino
However, to this day, civilians can still own automatic weapons that were grandfathered in before 1986. "
http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#they-can-also-be-customized-in-a-number-of-ways-including-scopes-large-capacity-magazines-bump-stocks-and-more-all-of-which-adds-to-the-guns-popularity-8
"In a 10-4 decision, the federal court upheld Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban, finding that guns like the AR-15 are weapons of war, and thus American civilians don’t have an unfettered right to buy and own them under the Second Amendment."
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assault-rifles-ban-ar-15-weapon-of-war/
"Our father, Eugene Stoner,designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,”
"He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356
They are not falsehoods. If you're going to play with how weapons are classified, and what counts as assault rifles, etc. I'm not interested in that game. The fact is that there are guns that the public owns that the public has no business in owning.
Unless there are special circumstances - for example, someone works in the judicial system, or in law enforcement, and due to their job they are likely to be a target of the mafia, etc. - someone should not have a right to hold such weapons.
If the public loves shooting such guns for sport, they should all have to go to the shooting range, where they can shoot such weapons under supervision.
Again, there is absolutely NO REASON that your average person would ever need to have access to such a weapon. If someone is generally worried (or paranoid) because of the business they are engaged in, etc. they should apply and seek to buy regular handguns.
If America really is in such a terrible state that your citizens need war weaponry to defend themselves, then you really need to do something about your law enforcement and the military.
All in all, if one is for a generalized gun- control, s/he is against freedom for an individual to make his/her own choices.
Quoting Agustino
What needs to happen is to get the nose of the government out of the civilians personal lives, and get the politicians out of military and police work. Anyone can tell you that police can't be everywhere at once, and they obviously can't protect everyone at once.
Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too :snicker: I'm prepared:
Non-violent people within a country that has laws generally do not have the mafia chasing after them. I'm not sure what kind of banana republic the US is that you need such weapons for self-defence.
Regular people do not need assault rifles to defend themselves for fear of being attacked on the street. A regular handgun suffices for that (if even that).
Quoting Lone Wolf
Yes, I am against the freedom of an individual to own atomic weapons, regardless of whether he is Bill Gates and could afford to buy a few.
Quoting Lone Wolf
The police and the military are structures through which the government acts. The government cannot get "out of the military and police work", since the military and the police are created by the government to ensure that laws get followed.
How do you know? This sort of assumption is at the heart of the anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to me, and it's never demonstrated. There are lots of defensive gun uses every year, with people using guns of the kind you find so terrible to protect themselves, their families, and property.
Quoting Agustino
There are handguns more powerful than the "assault weapons" you've created as your boogeyman.
As I've already pointed out, and this is for @Baden too, there are guns more powerful and deadly than the AR-15. Mass shooters use it because they're copy cats. The civilian model looks more terrifying than it really is. So you're fear mongering once again over a gun skin.
Strawman.
Here you're defining the terms of what counts as a situation of defensive gun use: "being attacked on the street." A handgun might suffice for that scenario. But that's obviously not the only one.
One fact seems blatantly obvious -- and has been addressed by Steven Pinker in his book regarding violence -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact.
If you want to be taken seriously don't quote the Daily Fail. They are top of the list for reporting inaccuracies in the UK.
Whatever.
But I'm inclined to think that anyone buying a firearm like an AR-15 doesn't do so for hunting or sport. I personally am not over-concerned about what gun sellers like to call "home defense" but if I was, I don't think it reasonable to believe that requires use of a firearm which has the capacity to fire 45 to 60 rounds a minute depending on level of skill.
So, I think it's likely that AR-15s are acquired mostly by people who have other reasons for buying them; perhaps other uses for them.
So then, there any reason to ban such weapons if it is only of opinion that they "don't need it"? What harm does it do if such weapons are in the hands of a law-abiding citizen?
Quoting Agustino
As no one suggested that anyone ought to have atomic weapons, it seems irrelevant to this discussion. I said generalized gun-control.
Quoting Agustino
Politicians can get out of the business, as in most cases, they have no experience in actual police work. They should leave it to people who know proper responses. And as I said before, it is impossible for an officer to be in a place instantly, so the police force cannot protect everyone at all times.
:up:
People kill people with guns.
No. It's a metaphysical interpretation. Metaphysical interpretations are untestable and unfalsifiable, and hence of no relevance to discussion of public policy.
Just making a fool of yourself
It's a bullshit fact. Here's why..
People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children.
Ditto.
Quoting charleton
Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England.
Anyone who claims that guns like this are not the equivalent of war weapons and accuses those who claim they are of "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods" is either deliberately lying or willfully ignorant.
Quoting JustSomeGuy
You're citing findings which go against your initial claim.
Guns, clearly, are a more lethal weapon. This is both common sense and supported by statistics, some of which I cited earlier. Injuries can be minor, serious, or life threatening, but there's no such thing as a minor death. When you're dead, you're dead. That's it. Zero prospect of recovery.
Right, but gun deaths as a result of violent crime is of import. Violent crimes may vary from homicide to harassment, but clearly gun deaths which come under this category are higher up in terms of severity than other violent crimes in that same category, such as assault or attempted murder. And, based on the findings that you yourself cited, robberies in which the assailant uses a gun are more likely to result in the death of the victim.
So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL
Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself.
Total croc of shit.
(The comment above was directed at Wayfarer)
Oh, so you acknowledge the point that guns make the crimes more lethal, which is a big point against maintaining the comparatively lax gun controls in the United States. I'm fairly confident that the parents of those who died in the Florida shooting would rather have their children with them right now, recovering from their injuries, as might have otherwise been the case had a gun not been used, instead of them having been shot dead, which is the tragic reality. Sorry for preaching to the choir. I should have read more before replying.
Although charle's usually a dumbass, he said harder, not impossible. Finding an instance of mass murder that doesn't involve semi-automatic rifles doesn't make the regulation of semi-automatic rifles a moot endeavor.
Quoting Baden
The fundamental issue at play here is whether one has a right to self defense and the right to defend oneself how they want to. Certainly one does have a right to self defense - a right to bear arms - but I don't think that one has free reign on how they do so. The "don't take mah guns awee" crowd don't seem to realize that they can't "defend themselves" with lots of things already. You can't play with Uranium or VX, hell I remember in high school how many hoops and loops my chemistry teacher had to go through just to get some simple chemicals for us. The "fear-mongering" is rather on the part of those who think that others are out to neuter them and make them unsafe, which isn't the intention of anyone I don't think.
Agreed.
Bump stock. Shit stock.
No person can have any legitimate reason for owning or using such a weapon.
I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc when I made my comment. Civilians don't have access to these quintessential weapons of war.
If it matters so terribly to you, I can happily acknowledge that the weapons civilians do have access to are also military grade weapons, in that they or their equivalents have been or are used by the military. I can concede this because it doesn't affect my position in the slightest. You're fear mongering by calling these guns "weapons of war," the idea apparently being that that is the only setting in which they ought to or can function, which is false. The other falsehood, moreover, was the suggestion by Agustino that civilians have access to the first set of military weapons. They don't.
Believe it or not, I'm in favor of gun control, which means in part that I don't believe civilians ought to have access to the first set of military weapons and that there may be reasonable limits placed on the weapons they currently have access to as well as on their procurement. The change in my position has been one from, "we ought to ban all guns" to "we ought not to ban all guns." The continued attempts in this thread to paint me as some rabid, gun toting and loving NRA shill are getting really, really old.
Where did @Agustino claim that civilians had access to the first set of weapons you mentioned, which were:
"grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc"?
He said there was:
Quoting Agustino
By automatic war weaponry, I presume he meant rifles like the one in Buxtebuddha's video, which were designed with war in mind, and are, with modification, automatic. In any case, he obviously doesn't think tanks, helicopters and fighter jets are in civilian hands nor does anyone else. You know that, right?
Quoting Thorongil
I never mentioned you in connection with the NRA or rabidness or loving guns, and I'm not responsible for anyone who has. My comment concerns your mischaracterizing of your interlocutor's as "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods". We're not. The growing piles of dead children are testimony to the fact that some fear of these weapons being easily available is absolutely justified.
Simple. I demonstrate it by asking you to give me examples of realistic situations when you would need such a weapon for self-defence.
Quoting Thorongil
You're equivocating on "powerful". Guns can be "more powerful" in a lot of different ways. Deeper penetration from one single bullet but very slow firing rate for example. Or you can have very fast firing rate, with less damage per bullet. There are many ways to assess what is "more powerful". So you're just equivocating.
No regular civilian needs such a weapon for self-defence, whether in the bump stock version or in its traditional form.
He mentioned machine guns and bazookas. I filled in other weaponry that I had in mind.
No. You're obviously misrespresenting him. (Unless he's completely insane, which I doubt).
The only mention of bazookas is here:
If you can't distinguish a joke like the above from a serious point then you really have a problem, frankly.
It is estimated that there are between 60k to several million defensive gun uses each year.
I get that it was a joke, but it was clearly meant as a reductio of my position.
I see that the same mistakes are still being made. There's a distinction of the utmost importance between a right to self-defence and a right to bear arms, and the latter doesn't simply follow from the former as if it were a self-evident truth, since we're clearly not talking in terms of absolutes. Self-denfence? Yes. Right to bear arms? Hell no. Does there exist such a right anywhere in the world? Yes, in a sense, but on paper only.
No, that's not what I asked you for. You are just running from the questions. Of course there are defensive gun uses - but those cases do not demand the use of war-like weaponry.
And they call [I]me[/I] an Aspie... :lol:
Define.
If there are no non-war-like weapons, and it doesn't seem that there are, then you're just against weapons per se, which would seem to indicate your opposition to the possession of any means of self-defense. All weapons qua weapons can be used in a setting of war, but that doesn't mean that is their sole purpose or function.
You clearly regard "war-like" as a negative quality in itself. Does that mean war-like clothing, such as camo, should be banned? What about war-like haircuts? War-like vehicles? War-like language? Lots of things fall under the category of "war-like" that it would be absurd to ban, so just claiming that guns are "war-like" isn't sufficient to show that they ought to be banned.
Why doesn't a right to self-defense entail a right to the means of self-defense?
If you actually learned to read you would see that I did not in any way imply that I am in favor of people having bombs. But I suppose that is too much to ask for.
If a person wants to kill others he will find a way to do it. And that does not mean that I am in favor of people having automatic weapons either. I was simple pointing out that there is more than one way to kill a lot of people if that is what the person wants to do. Don't blame the hammer for the nail that is put in the wrong place.
Quoting charleton
The kettle talking about the pan or am I following your example?
That's a straw man, not a point that I've made. A right to self-defence [i]which is not absolute[/I] (as I specified, and by which I mean not unconditional) entails restrictions on the means of self-defence. There can be a right to self-defence without a right to bear arms. That's obvious, right?
Did I say anywhere that it was? I really do not remember saying that I think anyone and everyone should have automatic guns. I am not sure but in England it is probably easier to obtain what you need to make a bomb than it is to acquire a gun.
What I have said is that there is an issue regarding the rights of the people, an issue about the implementation and enforcement of any laws, and an issue about what qualifications someone should have to be allowed to have a gun.
Come off it. Your question contained a controversial assumption about my position, and that's what I was objecting to.
Quoting Thorongil
I don't think that it does. I think that it should, and I suspect that you know why I think that.
No, I clearly said, for example, many handguns don't qualify as weapons of war.
Quoting Thorongil
It's negative depending on context. It's not negative in a war setting.
I think a gun qua gun qualifies as a weapon of war.
Quoting Agustino
And I say it's not negative in other settings.
You're just stalling here. Why do you think it should? And no, I don't know why you would think that, but I can guess. If your reason is "because people use guns to kill other people," that's not good enough. People use lots of things to kill other people that you don't think ought to be banned. I would also counter by pointing out that 1) a large proportion of gun deaths are due to illegally acquired firearms by individuals who have criminal records and that 2) there is an enormous number of defensive gun uses each year, a number that dwarfs the number of deaths by guns, so that 3) to ban guns would be to take away guns from nonviolent, law abiding citizens who may have used them to protect themselves.
No. That's not what I meant anyhow. You can clearly see how, say, a pistol is very very different from the AR-15 with a bump stock. One can be used to EASILY kill many people at once, while the other cannot be used that way.
If by that you mean I'm hesitant to rehash the whole debate from scratch, then [i]bingo![/I]
Yeah, so what? That doesn't mean pistols are as capable of killing a large number of people as the upgraded AR-15.
No, they're not. This is just outright BS. Do a thought experiment - which weapon can kill more people faster? The answer will be clear. Of course, it's also possible to kill a lot of people with a pistol, just more difficult. So what I said is true:
Quoting Agustino
I answered this several posts before. Self-defence merely says you may answer force with force and it won't be unlawful (within reasonable bounds). That principle says zero about gun rights.
There are handguns that, under certain circumstances, will kill more people faster than an AR-15.
Have you, or anyone on this thread, asked WHY is it that in a country that has a 'right to bear arms', that these arms are banned from public ownership?
You got to be kidding me :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
If you think this one is as effective at killing a large number of people as the AR-15, then you're just kidding yourself. Given the same amount of time and the same situation, the AR-15 will kill more people.
The Orlando shooter disagreed, and he had a large death tally.
Also, I said that a handgun, under certain circumstances, is better than an AR-15, which is true. Handguns are, in the words of someone who knows more about guns than you or I do:
1. More concealable.
2. Ammunition and firearm are lighter, allowing shooter to carry multiple pistols and ammunition.
3. Less moving parts, therefore, less opportunities to malfunction.
4. More accurate at close range with less recoil.
5. Harder to disarm an active shooter, especially if the shooter has no "real" training or understanding of "Pie" with regards to clearing a room.
6. Barrel won't overheat as quickly.
7. Less recoil for faster target acquisition.
8. Requires less skill to operate with efficiency.
Nothing to do with its capacity to kill a lot of people quickly.
Quoting Thorongil
Same as above.
Quoting Thorongil
:confused:
Quoting Thorongil
Yeah, but when someone just wants to kill people, accuracy isn't so important as other factors - like being able to spray a lot of bullets quickly, covering a large area.
Quoting Thorongil
Hmm, sure. But again, this has nothing to do with the potential of the weapon. The one has greater destructive potential than the other.
Quoting Thorongil
Not true. It's harder to hit a target with a pistol since firing rate is slower. Close quarters it doesn't make much difference, but at some distance it does.
You've not demonstrated this claim.
What country are you talking about?
If you are speaking of the USA, what exactly do you mean by "banned from public ownership"?
Non sequitur.
You argued that self-defence is an argument for the right to have guns and this is simply false. I said, all the right to self-defence says is that it allows you to answer force with force. You cannot derive any right to hold any type of weapon from this principle and definitely not merely due to the existence of a weapon, which you seem to argue above except I need to extricate it myself as I don't really see any argument just an attempt to deflect from your silly comment before. If we accept your line of thinking then stopping at guns would be entirely arbitrary and we might as well include grenades and anti-personnel mines as those exist too.
The only thing we can conclude from the right of self-defence in relation to guns is that if they are legal to have it is probably acceptable to use them in self-defence, provided the force used isn't excessive.
Your comment about the Romans not inventing self-defense is not what I said, in any case irrelevant and incorrectly assumes the existence of natural rights.
...I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc in the USA
Quoting Thorongil
There's this?
Also this?
Then you haven't actually been reading my comments carefully. You don't understand my argument, which is no substitute for thinking it invalid.
He's talking about the wounds caused, not the ability to kill many persons quickly, which was the criterion we were discussing. I just gave a list of factors that make handguns preferable, though they don't apply in all circumstances. The Orlando shooter killed far more people with a handgun than the Florida shooter with a rifle. The Vegas shooter would not have been able to pull off what he did with a handgun.
Not in all circumstances, right.
This conversation is far too lost in the weeds to be productive, so I might bow out for now.
That was also mentioned in the first article: "so many mass shootings become mass shootings 'because the AR-15 was used'".
Quoting Thorongil
I looked into that but I couldn't find a breakdown of how many were killed with the Glock and how many were killed with the SIG MCX. Do you have a source? And it isn't a very good comparison, as there are rifle shooters who killed more than the Orlando shooter and hand gun shooters who killed fewer than the Florida shooter. Taking an average of all cases might be a better measure than comparing one particular case to another.
Quoting Thorongil
Of course not in all. A 9mm in the head is going to be more deadly than a 5.56mm in the foot. But all other things being equal, being shot with an AR-15 is worse than being shot with a Glock. Just as being shot with a Glock is likely worse than be stabbed with a penknife or hit with a baseball bat.
Quoting Thorongil
I don't think those factors support the claim that hand guns are more conducive to a higher kill count. At least one of them is wrong (according to the article I linked to); the AR-15 has less recoil than a hand gun. That's supported by this article from the NRA blog. The blog also seems to say that using a hand gun well requires more skill than using a rifle well, contradicting another of your factors.
I think the fact that rifles are more powerful, have longer range, have less recoil, and have a larger magazine is better evidence that it can kill more people than the advantages you offered of a hand gun (more concealable, lighter, better at close range, less opportunity to malfunction).
I possess the natural right to defend my life.
The use of adequate, effective, and reasonable means is sometimes required to do so.
Firearms are one such adequate, effective, and reasonable means.
Therefore, I possess the right to defend myself by means of firearms.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. Besides, you already have a ban on automatic weapons. I don't see why one can't add to the ban without adding everything.
Quoting Thorongil
You've been trying to argue against Agustino's claim (which I'm defending) that rifles are more dangerous than handguns.
There is no natural right to defend your life. That's irrational nonsense, because it is natural that you must die. We all must surrender our lives, that's the reality of living, and to claim a right against impending death is not natural. To claim the right to extend your own life at any cost to others, is selfish nonsense.
https://thinkprogress.org/parkland-shooting-survivor-forced-off-facebook-6fc397ab2b9f/
Quoting Michael
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Michael
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Michael
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Michael
Quoting Thorongil
So I believe this excludes semi-automatics, given that semi-automatics are not "rough equivalents" of the single shot pistols and rifles which existed at the time the Second Amendment was written. Banning semi-automatics is no less an infringement and no less arbitrary than banning automatics.
I'll reiterate then again as you don't seem to understand the right to self defense: the right of self defense does not concern itself with which instruments are acceptable but with whether the level of force used is acceptable (necessity and proportionality). In a society that prohibits guns any force exercised with guns is prima facie unlawful. If guns are allowed it depends on the circumstances.
No it isn't. I haven't derived any ludicrous consequence.
Quoting Michael
Yes, I have done so. My position is that handguns can be as, if not more, effective than rifles under certain circumstances. I've not been presented with any evidence to be dissuaded of that.
Quoting Michael
I wasn't entirely accurate. There were guns like the Girandoni air rifle, made in 1779, that would be rough equivalents to the semi-automatic rifles of today. This gun was used by Lewis and Clark on their expedition, for example. The first revolver was invented not long after that, which is not technically classified as semi-automatic but does have a high rate of fire.
Regardless, a semi-automatic is clearly a more effective means of self-defense than a single shot weapon. It's also still more reasonable than a bazooka or a tank, being of similar dimensions and portability as single shot rifles and handguns, which means the slippery slope you and Agustino have raised against my position doesn't go through.
These aren't the claims I'm making, but strawmen.
Correct, this is why the second premise in my argument is there. I don't say the right to self-defense gives me the right to bear arms, but that bearing arms is one way to reasonably ensure that one's life is defended. I can exercise my right to self-defense by means of firearms. The defense of my life is put into effect by my employment of firearms to that effect.
Yes. That's was precisely my intent.
I disagree.
I might add here that very few cases of defensive gun use involve the firearm being discharged, or if it is, it'sdischarged as a warning shot. In other words, the gun is used to deter a potential crime from taking place. If something like this happens, for example, there is no legitimate appeal to self-defense. The gun owner has committed wrongdoing.
It doesn't need to be ludicrous. A slippery slope is when "a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect." Claiming that a ban on semi-automatic rifles "directly entails the abolition all guns" does this.
Quoting Thorongil
In Austria, and as far as I can see only used in Austria at that time.
15 years after the Second Amendment was written.
Quoting Thorongil
So also after the Second Amendment was written.
It seems to me that you're really stretching it to suggest that the Second Amendment defends the right to use semi-automatic weapons.
And for what it's worth, it seems the courts agree that it doesn't.
You changed your position. Originally you claimed the right to self defence (self protection above) underlies protection from government tyranny and therefore implies a right to own guns. See, I was reading carefully.
So we are now in agreement that the right to self defence says nothing about the right to keep guns. Thank you for gracefully admitting that point by pretending you never said the opposite.
I have explained how your reason for banning semi-automatic weapons would apply equally as much to handguns, and any gun for that matter, that constituted the most commonly used firearm in a mass shooting. Banning semi-automatic weapons wouldn't be a "small" step either. They comprise most of the guns in circulation.
Quoting Michael
Your agreement with me concerned the time, not the place.
Quoting Michael
But it was developed at the time of the founding. I just gave this as an example to show that it was used by Americans in the manner in which modern semi-automatics are.
Quoting Michael
Please notice that this is different from claiming that we should ban semi-automatic weapons because they are most often used in mass shootings. You're on much firmer and more convincing ground by pressing the claim I quote of you above, which seems to be, if you'll allow me to fill it in, that we ought to ban semi-automatic weapons on the grounds that 1) they are more dangerous than their single-shot counterparts and 2) that doing so wouldn't violate the Second Amendment (which you oddly appear to assume the legitimacy of) and the individual right to bear arms that it confers. Is that right?
But I can't go along with this for the follow reason, which you didn't address:
"Regardless, a semi-automatic is clearly a more effective means of self-defense than a single shot weapon. It's also still more reasonable than a bazooka or a tank, being of similar dimensions and portability as single shot rifles and handguns, which means the slippery slope you and Agustino have raised against my position doesn't go through."
It is true that Heller did not rule on whether semi-automatics can be made illegal, but neither did it rule that they can't be legal. If you can successfully show why the reason I have provided above for why they ought to remain legal isn't good enough, then I will side with you and no longer object to a ban on semi-automatic weapons. In other words, you need to show that single-shot weapons can be just as effective as semi-automatic weapons in the majority of cases in which the latter are used defensively.
No, I didn't change my position. Here you're using "protection from government tyranny" as the premise that leads to the conclusion "there is a right to bear arms." That isn't the premise I used in the argument I provided you. You're attacking what you interpreted as an argument, but which in fact wasn't.
Quoting Benkei
If this is your way of saying that you agree with this post, then yes, we agree. But the content of that post had already been admitted by me, which leads me to think that, no, you don't read, Benkei, despite your protestations to the contrary. The following exchange occurred on page 29:
tim wood: "But a natural right to a gun for that purpose? That's a different right, and by no means a natural one."
Me: "Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense."
If the word "grounded" caused the confusion, then refer to my linked post to understand what I mean by that.
You've delineated one purpose, which isn't the only one. As a means of target practice, its purpose is to hit a target. As a hunting rifle, its purpose is to kill game. As a means of self-defense, its purpose is to deter a potential crime (which, as I say, needn't and typically doesn't involve firing a bullet).
Quoting tim wood
Of course.
I took the place for granted. I didn't think you were suggesting that the Second Amendment protected the right of Americans to own weapons that weren't even in use in America at the time.
Developed at the time but used by Americans much later.
Quoting Thorongil
The reasoning is that they're more dangerous than handguns (given their power, range, usability, etc.) and so an excessive means of self-defence given the availability of less dangerous but sufficient alternatives. That handguns in certain (fewer?) occasions might allow for killing a greater number of people doesn't deny this. There are likely occasions when a blade would be more efficient (quieter, no ammo limitation), but it's still the case that guns are more dangerous.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Second Amendment is a real amendment of the Constitution and is legally binding, so it's only right of me to accept it. Or do you mean something else by "legitimate"?
I wasn't trying to argue that we ought to ban them; just that banning them doesn't infringe the right to self defense. Therefore, the right to self defence cannot be used to oppose such an example of gun control.
The right to self-defence is the right to use reasonable force, not necessarily the right to use the most effective means of force, so I don't see why I would need to do this.
But would you accept the above logic in the case of comparing handguns and rifles? If I can show that handguns can be just as effective as rifles then will you accept a ban on rifles? Because you've already made that case for me.
The ever widening lines of argument in this thread are beginning to blur. By "legitimate," I meant that you agree that there is an individual right to bear arms as conferred by the Second Amendment. That surprises me, if true, as it was my understanding that you would be in favor of repealing the Second Amendment if possible. I'm pretty sure I've seen you say something like that. So which is it?
Quoting Michael
But you made the claim that there are "less dangerous but sufficient alternatives" than semi-automatic rifles. There is a burden of proof on you here, but if you don't see why you should meet it, then it's pointless to continue this conversation.
Quoting Michael
I made no such case. I said handguns can be just as effective at killing lots of people as rifles under certain circumstances, which is demonstrably true. There have been dozens of mass shootings by means of handguns. I asked you instead to show me that handguns can be just as effective as semi-automatic rifles, not even in all, but in the majority of cases where the latter are used defensively. You seem blissfully unaware or unconcerned that such a ban may remove weapons that might have otherwise been vital means to prevent crimes and save lives. If you can, then as I said, I could accept a ban on such rifles. As I also said, Heller, which I agree with, doesn't technically rule out such guns being banned.
Yeah, sounds fine.
Quoting tim wood
Yeah.
Quoting tim wood
I'd have to know more specifics, but I'm not opposed in principle to such measures. The "waiting" is of some concern, however. People often acquire firearms because they believe they may be in some imminent danger. I don't think it should take overly long to acquire one. How long is the ideal? I have no idea.
Quoting tim wood
This is known as straw buying (or a species thereof), and there are already laws on the books to help prevent it, as far as I know.
The issue is actually extremely complicated, involving issues of Constitutional law, cost-benefits, game-theory, and many other topics, so I do actually find it amusing whenever someone claims to have all the answers and their specific answer is childishly simple.
Ok, so you don't understand the Heller case which you said you agreed with? Heller invokes the right to bear arms as necessary in order to exercise the right to self-defense. From there, because the right of self-defence is a natural right, the bearing of arms is a natural right. So you disagree with Heller now?
I don't understand why you think that there's a conflict here. I agree, as per Heller, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. However, I believe that there shouldn't be an individual right to bear arms. Therefore, I believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed.
Quoting Thorongil
I provided links to three articles that explained how much more dangerous a semi-automatic rifle is to a semi-automatic handgun. They have more power (causing more damage), further effective range, less recoil, a larger magazine, and require less skill to fire accurately. So on that account I think I've provided evidence to support my claim. As for handguns being sufficiently effective, I think you've made that case already. They're concealable, light, and easy to use at close range.
Quoting Thorongil
For a study on the types of guns used in self-defence, see here, where of "justifiable homicides" ("the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen") between 2006 and 2010, 77.7% were with a handgun, compared to 4.5% with a rifle.
Quoting Thorongil
I'm not. I'm just weighing it against the number of lives that are lost and crimes that are committed due to the availability of such guns. As an example, for every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime, and from the study above, "for the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides."
There is actually a difference in meaning, perhaps subtle, between saying "there is an individual right to bear arms that is conferred by the Second Amendment" and "the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms." This might have caused the confusion. The first statement I read as codifying or acknowledging an already existing right, whereas the second reads as though the right is created with the amendment itself.
Quoting Michael
I've looked at them and haven't been convinced, sorry.
Quoting Michael
I was already aware that rifles were used in the minority of cases. That doesn't affect my point, though.
Quoting Michael
And here we swerve back around to another fundamental disagreement. I don't see the availability of these guns as the sole reason these crimes occur. There are other factors involved that can be addressed to help reduce the number of such shootings without banning the guns used, such as a reform and more consistent application of existing gun laws, better policing, better security of sensitive locations, better mental health screenings and infrastructure, and encouraging intact families and personal responsibility and accountability.
Quoting Michael
I would dispute those statistics. The CDC and other sources place the number of defensive gun uses conservatively at double the number of gun deaths.
It mentions that these [deluded] congregants identify the lethal AR-15 assault rifle with the ‘rod of iron’ described in the Bible thereby attributing to it a kind of divine sanction. (One wonders why the good Lord would look kindly on the deployment of a weapon that literally pulverises bones and liquifies vital organs, but there it is.)
Read more
Another ray of light from this particular instalment of the Daily Fiasco is that if Trump seriously pisses off enough core supporters, they might actually begin to agree that he should be impeached (although don’t hold your breath on that one.)
He has pissed off a lot of them. Obviously he'll tweet later today that he didn't mean it or whatever. It'll be interesting to see if and how Fox News covers it.
But one wonders more why the hell he does nothing about it.
Yes they do.
Quoting Wayfarer
Having free will do not necessarily give them the ability to do this. Birds probably have more free will than humans and they have not built a bomb yet.
Quoting Wayfarer
I have never believed in any type of god.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes you are right about that. We showed not suggest that a god has human like characteristics, even though his holy book says we have his.
The Never Again movement is something that I stand in admiration of. They have allowed me to step back and put in that "stop gap" that PB taught me which is the ability to hold back the emotional connection that may or may not be helpful. If you can take the information in as neutral and STOP before allowing an emotional reaction to guide you through the neutral information, you will arrive at an informed perspective and then you can put the information up against your emotions towards it and see where you land.
I hope that makes sense because it is a difficult tactic to learn if you are lead by your emotions but one that has had lasting power.
For context: How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries
PR for NRA-TV
It apparently is going to fight media attacks against the NRA on their own channel. Listened a little to it, its like Fox on steroids.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/03/07/kennesaw-gun-law-orig.cnn
I listen to you speak of the 'gun collection/turn in' that the Australian government implemented in your country, what a popular move it was and how much safer the Australian citizen is now.
I was curious as to how your government convinced the average Aussie to turn in their firearms. How you could convince someone who had the right to purchase a product, possess it, maybe even have used it, that they are no longer in need of having it.
I was under the impression that it was a voluntary collection and the Australian citizens that owned firearms were convinced that such a theory would work. As I dug deeper into this action, I came across some ideas, some facts and some enforcement that I was not aware of, nor is it offered up when the idea of the solution to the American Gun Control Debate would be to do what Australia did.
The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated Guns
"The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate."
I had no idea that the turn in was mandatory and you would be breaking the law if you did not comply. It makes me wonder who really wanted the guns off the street, the government? the average Aussie? possibly a mix of both? Am I wrong when I suggest that there were likely Aussies on both sides of the mandatory gun turn in? Has the Australian government done this to the Australian citizen with any other product or just guns?
For me, there has to be a willingness on both the governments position and the citizens, to work towards a solution and that just doesn't come across in what happened in Australia. Willingness on both parts comes across in the sound bites and the suggestion that if America were really wanting to solve the school shootings that America would do what Australia did.
What Australia did was not voluntary it was coercion and although that part is buried deep within the "Australian gun control fallacy" it appears in the art of the lead up to the confiscation.
[url=https://postimg.org/image/7xxcqr96d/]
By Christmas of 1996, the Australian citizen had to give up their personal firearm(s) to the government or be prosecuted and serve 12 months in jail for not complying. I understand the logic that if a government is going to impose a law, there is a consequence for those that break that law, it is pretty simple to understand. What I don't understand is why there is a shower scene of naked men in jail, on a poster promoting this movement that both the Australian government and the Australian citizen are supposedly in support of. Why not just a standard mug shot of the average Aussie that didn't comply? What do you think the choice of picture was meant to imply?
The quote below explains so much of how 2nd amendment is viewed by gun owners and the possible/probable scenario that would have to happen for America to do what Australia did.
"Let there be no doubt.Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that those who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naïve that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naïve."
I think what he is expressing is a fair reality of how things might work out but he doesn't go far enough into what would happen after word spread through the first "confiscation" community and how the government would be received from there on.
As I said a few days ago, I feel movement in my position but coercion is not the way to go about it here in the United States, under the Constitution we agree to. I feel like Australia took a mallet to something as delicate as a Starfish and we can do better, I just haven't figured out the way. But I am looking...
No, a murderer took a gun to 35 of our citizens who were shot dead in real life. It was brutal and viscous, and there was nothing delicate about it. It wasn't a metaphor. The kind of thing that happens on the regular in the US. We stopped that.
Again, not a metaphor.
Isn't that how all contraband is seized (when the owner won't cooperate with the law)? I'm sure you don't have a problem with a force of arms being used to confiscate illegally owned drugs.
I understand what you are saying StreetlightX and the passion behind it.
What I am actively trying to do, is what I expressed above in putting in a stop gap to look at the facts, ideas and trying to look at this from a different perspective, one that does not allow my emotion to lead me as is my nature.
Yes that is how contraband is seized, I am not arguing that is not how illegal drugs are seized. What I am trying to show is where the rub is between the two opposing sides. The fact that government guns would be used to confiscate citizens guns is a non starter.
Why? If I'd illegally obtain a tank are they supposed to take it with sticks and stones?
The condemnation proceedings the WGLLD has been involved in have related to real property, that is to say real estate ("real property" has some potentially amusing philosophical implications). The power of condemnation isn't contingent on the consent of the property owner. Some common examples of the exercise of the power: acquiring property for transportation purposes, to install utilities and infrastructure, sites for public buildings. Here, the entity exercising the power must obtain an appraisal of the property, offer to pay for an appraisal obtained by the property owner, provide relocation assistance if needed (which sometimes means buying equivalent property for the property owner). There are rights of appeal regarding the legitimacy of the public purpose and the sufficiency of the compensation.
So, even here in God's favorite country there are instances where the government may "confiscate" property regardless of whether the property owner is agreeable, for a public purpose. It need only fairly compensate the owner for the value of the property.
As far as I know, that hasn't been applied to guns in the U.S. Perhaps that's how the Aussie government got them, though.
If you legally obtain a tank, why would anyone be trying to take it from you?
A massacre (which by definition is an illegal act) which was carried out by how many law abiding citizens?
I am in no way making light of any loss of life, I am looking to follow the logic of taking away other citizens rights because of how one person behaved. That is what I mean by taking a mallet to a starfish.
I fear the day they try to apply "eminent domain" to forcefully confiscate a law abiding Americans' firearm.
They won't be law abiding if the law requires they turn them in and they refuse.
I fear the result would literally be a civil war.
Holy crap! I really did read it as I wrote it "legally". If you illegally obtain a tank then you are a criminal and should be charged. But. BUT if you obtained the tank legally they shouldn't be able to take it from you. Now why you would want such a piece of metal is a bit extreme but if having a tank makes you sleep better at night? Then go for it. Protect your property and your right to own it.
I am not sure you realize how attached people are to their guns.
But, it has for many, many years been applied to lawfully acquire the property of law-abiding Americans. Generally, the law does not say that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government. What it does say is that a law-abiding citizen cannot be deprived of his/her property by the government without compensation.
So, it's undoubtedly true that government may lawfully acquire privately-owned property by condemnation. That's simply the case. One can claim it shouldn't be able to do so, but one can just as successfully claim it shouldn't be able to tax.
Guns are property. If they're property, why can't they be legally obtained by condemnation like other property? What would make their condemnation unlawful?
It's an interesting question. As the right to own property seems to be a fundamental right, it isn't clear to me that the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" is a greater right and so less subject to the power of eminent domain, but I've never researched the issue. Maybe its been addressed by some court somewhere. If it isn't a greater right, then opposing condemnation in the case of guns would have to be on some other basis. It would have to be maintained, for example, that there is no legitimate public purpose which would be satisfied in condemning guns. Or perhaps it would be argued that guns are a special kind of property, a kind for which no compensation is adequate. That would be getting rather peculiar, I think, but some may actually believe that's the case.
As I said, the States are fucked.
Yes, the buy back was compulsory; yes, people went to gaol rather than hand back their guns There are also plenty of gun stashes out in the bush. Organised bad guys still get illegal guns and bring them in. People are allowed hunting rifles and pistols for legitimate use.
We do not give guns to teenagers and children.
We even have a Shooter's party in politics. Our equivalent of the NRA. They get 2.8% of the national vote.
We have problems with family violence that end tragically with bashings or stabbings. We have home invasions and aggravated robbery, more often with a machete than a machine gun.
We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy.
We even have a health system that we can all use.
Just as interesting (and candidly absurd) would be if citizens were to seek inverse condemnation of their guns by arguing usage restrictions have grown so severe they have been devalued and they then use the jury buy back program in the reddest of districts.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Doesn't seem to be saying that property can only be taken for public use. Just seems to say that if it's taken for public use then it must be compensated.
Don't forget to mention your dancing unicorns.
Presumably a restriction on buying guns will be part of the law that includes taking existing ones.
Do you interpret that to mean that if for public use, it must be compensated, but if taken arbitrarily, it's free?
Yes. Although the part that comes before that – "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" – suggests that "arbitrary" is the wrong word to use.
The distrust of government (which you equate with "community") is an inherent principle of American ideology, thematic throughout the Constitution's checks and balances?
So "public use" is broader than I originally thought.
Well, looking into it more, it seems that the government/Congress can't take possessions "just cuz".
Your argument here differs. You're arguing takings can be made for non-public use.
I just misunderstood what was meant by "public use". I'll blame that on you for saying "the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public". ;)
But if it just means that the appropriation is in the public interest (and can include disposal, as per the previous reference), then I suppose that takings can't be made for non-public use, and so compensation is always required.
Although I wonder why the courts interpret "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" as "nor shall private property be taken except for public use, [and not] without just compensation". Seems contrary to the rule of original meaning when interpreting the constitution ("What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?").
I know that is how you feel which is why I looked into the Aussie way of solving the gun problem, knowing it wouldn't be a perfect templet but looking for a better way than what we in the USA are doing.
Quoting Banno
Just so we are clear, I never allowed my children to play with toy guns, they were never allowed to receive them as gifts, to the extreme of not allowing water guns to play with in the blazing summers. I never wanted to own a gun, I never wanted to have a gun in my home, nor did I want my children to be around any home that had a firearm. It was my first question when my children were invited to a play date. Do you have any firearms in the home? and if you do, are they secured out of the children's reach?
When a legal firearm did come into my home, both of my children were enrolled classes at Ben Avery Firing Range where they were professionally trained by a certified marksman how to safely approach, responsibly handle, understand the applicable laws and finally how to fire a firearm. The instructors take no shit and people who want to be responsible gun owners are not signing up for classes at a range where the local Sheriffs and police train.
Quoting Banno
It sounds like our countries share violence in common, just a different choice of weapon.
Quoting Banno
I think it is fair to say that both of our countries have our own challenges in being a better society.
Quoting Banno
And we take in refugees that have sought political asylum in Australia because the Australian government does not believe in the humane treatment of illegal immigrants. But what has that got to do with the gun control debate?
No, I didn't, but if it's your government you're afraid of, then next time you go to the polls, I suggest you vote one in you don't think is going to kill you.
Well, yes. As I said, I've handled a few of these proceedings. That a public use/purpose is needed doesn't surprise me, and I haven't said guns can be taken by condemnation for any reason at all.
Blighted property may be taken, property posing a danger due to its condition, drug houses and such, may be taken for reasons of public health, welfare and safety. Perhaps a similar argument can be made regarding guns. I don't know; I don't expect the issue will arise, here in what Hunter S. Thompson called the Kingdom of Fear. Old Hunter was very much a gun man himself, even to the point of ending his own life with one.
As for costs, I know that this can be a factor. I defended a county against a claim for litigation expenses in an inverse condemnation proceeding. 2.6 acres of pasture land was said to have been taken; worth about $3,550. Litigation expenses claimed were in excess of $119,000. But, litigation expenses must be reasonable, and one of the factors taken into consideration in determining reasonableness, though not determinative in itself, is the value of the property at issue. Another is whether the matter has been over-litigated by the condemnee. The award was about $90,000 less than the amount claimed.
Certain guns can be expensive, certainly. But their worth is generally far less than that of real property. I wouldn't expect large awards of litigation expenses, relatively speaking.
Indeed, our dealings with immigrants have been appalling. But it does appear that Australians are more willing than Yanks to share their taxes with each other. More generally, while other nations focus on building a safe society, Americans seem set only on securing their own individual wellbeing. So "I need a gun, even if that makes the nation overall less safe".
That's the relation to health care. "I'm going to pay more for my own health care rather than put in to a common bucket that will reduce health costs across the board".
http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html
Actually what caught my eye was the numbers, not the percentages. As I said I have no idea how accurate they are, and I did not have any time to check them.
After looking for further information today it turns out that this is one of many copies of the article, some published by famous people on very popular social media sites. And it does seem that someone's math sucks, I wonder why no one has called the author out on it yet?
I think that he got something else wrong as well though. According to the FBI there were 16,470 murders where gun are stated as the weapon in the USA. His numbers only add up to about 12,000.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11
As you say, the part about suicide seems about right depending on the source. They tend to vary a bit.
The numbers for the cities also appear to be near enough to accurate, again depending on the source.
One of the parts that interested me though was the mention of these cities having the strictest gun laws. Is this true? After looking for more information I have found no really conclusive evidence of it one way or the other. Trump got hammered for a statement about Chicago, but how reliable is the other sides information?
His statement about California and Alabama also appears to be true, but what are their laws really like?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12
Quoting tim wood
Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently.
[i]Violent Crime:
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force.[/i]
Quoting tim wood
Err, maybe to get some intelligent conversation about it. But then maybe I am asking for too much.
If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.
And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either.
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php
I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died.
Quoting tim wood
Now this is where I agree with you 100%. But not just with suicides, with all gun deaths. The problems, as I have stated many times is not necessarily the guns but the people that use them for whatever reason.
If a person is going to kill themselves does the method make any difference? Which is easier to obtain, a gun or a piece of rope. Maybe even any one of dozens of household products under the kitchen sink are easier to get than a gun.
Quoting tim wood
I am not an advocate for either side of the argument, I really don't care if people in the US are allowed to have guns or not. I have my legally owned and registered gun, but I do not live in the US, and I am glad I have it because it has been useful on a couple of occasions.
But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. Fallacious argumentation and fuzzy thinking abound on both sides, mainly due to lack of concrete evidence. Why do some people get upset about the discussions?
I have not seen a single realistic proposal for solving the problem yet.
It's not just the errors. It's the credibility of the source. The first link was from an egregiously pro-gun site. The second is from a site campaigning against abortion.
There is never any point in sourcing statistics from such places. If you see something on such a site and want to know if it's true, go see if you can find corroboration on a credible, unbiased site like BBC, Australian ABC, or some government agency that is not involved in propaganda.
When people link to such sites to support their argument, the natural inference is that they were unable to find the information at an unbiased source, and hence to disregard any argument containing such links immediately.
This goes both ways. I would not trust statistics quoted on a SPLC site if I could not corroborate them at a neutral site.
I would not call it a violent crime if I shot myself. It might be violent, but I do not think killing myself because I want to is a crime. And I would certainly like to see anyone arresting me for killing myself.
Quoting tim wood
No. There is nothing confusing at all about it. At least from my point of view.
Quoting tim wood
Jimmy, four years old, bumps into Tommy, age three, while laying at the top of the stairs and Tommy falls to his death.
Very unfortunately Tommy is dead either way. But both were accidents caused by;
1. Ignorance on the part of the participants
2. Stupidity on the part of the parents for not taking adequate safety precautions.
Does it really matter how Tommy died?
Quoting tim wood
No I am not, and have never said that. But read your own words, "part of the problem". Does it really make sense to place the blame on an inanimate object? Would that not be like blaming the pen for the bad accounting?
Quoting tim wood
Don't registration and controls already exist? I am sure I read somewhere that most states have at least some of these.
Quoting tim wood
I have no objection at all to most forms of control. But when someone tells me I cannot retain my legal gun while they are doing little to control illegal weapons I will not be very happy.
Most of the weapons that are used in crimes are not legally owned and registered, so why should anyone be allowed to fuck around with the ones that are.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12
Did you go to the pages to see? Because it says FBI.gov there somewhere.
Quoting andrewk
So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? Actually I got the links to the FBI from the BBC.
Or not. I think you missed the point.
It is not about anybody's indifference to the cause of death, that has little effect on the fact that they are dead. I would be just as pissed of if a water mains had bust and flooded the neighborhood to death.
But I would not be pissed off at the water mains or the bomb, that would be stupid. I would be pissed at the stupid fucking parents that let there kids play with a bomb and the idiots that fail to give proper maintenance to the water pipes. And the same goes for the gun
Quoting tim wood
Have I disagreed with this anywhere?
Quoting tim wood
I have said as much on several occasions.
Quoting tim wood
I think like you, probably could never happen. But if it was going to happen it would have to start with all of the illegal arms used by criminals. No idea how that could happen.
Quoting tim wood
Control and training would I agree help. But it still leaves the biggest problem unsolved.
WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO TRAIN THE CRIMINALS?
Are you asking for a reason why? Or are you asking what lines I'd draw in going about it? With regard to the first question, I've said quite a lot already on that. Maybe I could muster up the energy to link to an earlier comment or reiterate my reasons, but I'm reluctant to do so. And with regard to the second question, obviously I'd draw some lines, and you can probably imagine some of the lines I wouldn't want to cross, but I can tell you that they're not the stuff of this complaint in relation to the confiscation of guns in Australia.
And what sense does it make to dwell on different classes of guns? I don't see that as being of any overarching significance, since the main conclusion that one should draw ought to be the same, whether we're talking about machine guns or pistols.
If this is what you're getting at in relation to different classes of guns, then I agree. But that doesn't change the bottom line, which is the general point that guns ought to be tightly controlled, much more so than in America at present.
Quoting tim wood
Oh yes it can be. There's nothing wrong with that solution in principle. That certain privileges would be stripped away is a price worth paying for the end goal. It's been done before - [i]slavery, anyone?[/I] - and if the circumstances are right, and the costs not too high, then it should be done again. Problems only arise in terms of implementation.
Quoting tim wood
That could only ever be a partial solution, and one which wouldn't go as far, though it's certainly better than doing nothing, or worse, going backwards. Would we still hear about school shootings and the like in the news? Yes. Less often than we do now, I would predict, which would be good; but more often than under an outright banishment, which would be bad. Wouldn't you - or [i]shouldn't[/I] you - feel like you have blood on your hands for every case that would inevitably slip through the net? Just think, these would be actual people, with actual lives. What's more important here? Would you settle for tighter controls on the slave trade, rather than outright banishment? I know they're not quite the same, but in either case, it's a system with inherent flaws which can result in ruined lives.
I have made no comment about your FBI links. For most statistics I would generally regard FBI as a reliable source.
The Second Amendment, not the Two-Dimensional Amendment. And yes, I don't need to be reminded of the unfortunate fact that it forms a part of the Constitution.
As for what you call a justification, it isn't one, since there are other means of protection against tyranny, and the best means of protection against tyranny is certainly not a citizenry armed with guns, but rather having the checks and balances in place to maintain democracy.
An armed citizenry versus the armed forces would be a David versus Goliath scenario.
Quoting tim wood
Oh god, don't go all Kantian on me. :wink:
Quoting tim wood
It has been done elsewhere to a large extent, so that provides a template. The example of Australia has been raised recently, and the example of the United Kingdom has also been raised in this discussion. This isn't a problem in which a resolution must be obtained by starting from scratch with no precedent to relate to. Of course, you'd have to use force to some extent, and certainly the threat of force. Laws don't enforce themselves. We don't live in a utopia.
Quoting tim wood
Yeah: targets, cans, squirrels, and occasionally children. :roll:
No one's saying that there are no differences, but it would be just as mistaken, if not more so, to deny the obvious similarities. I also didn't say that they should be treated in the exact same way. I actually made the point that, in spite of there being some differences in design and capacity, as well as how they're considered or treated, this doesn't change the bottom line or general point being argued. That means, for example, that whether Gun A has a greater potential for killing more people over a set period of time than Gun B; or whether possessing Gun A, rather than Gun B, carries a greater sentence; either way, they're a risk to society and ought to be tightly controlled, if not banned outright, which would be the ideal solution.
I agree that maybe the links did not lead to verified data, but how do you know that it is not true? Are you judging the book by the cover?
In England maybe it has been so, until recently they are seeing an increase in gun killings. But the main conversation here is about the USA.
As you say there are tough penalties in place for gun crimes, but they have not stopped them from happening. Maybe tougher laws are needed, who knows. An eye for an eye might work out better that prison, and a lot cheaper too. The price of a bullet or two against a life of relative ease in jail might be worth considering.
Such a blasé attitude to a deadly serious issue. There's no "maybe" about it. There's no "who knows". A metaphorical shrugging of the shoulders simply isn't good enough. The United States needs tighter gun controls, which means tougher laws, and it needs it now, or it risks yet more preventable tragedies taking place.
Why should I get serious about it, I don't live there and neither do you for that matter. It makes absolutely no difference to my life what ever happens there. But what do you think would be good enough? Should I start campaigning to have guns outlawed in the USA. Should I write letters to everyone I know begging them to join the campaign? Or should I mouth useless blathering on an internet forum hoping someone will stop the killings?
Stop being pompous and join reality.
Quoting Sapientia
So I ask again, what laws are needed, how are they going to be enforced.
What would be good enough would be to simply keep quiet about it, and let others that take the massacres seriously, and those who live there and have to deal with the threat of ubiquitous guns daily, get on with trying to reduce the problem.
I don't think that's much to ask.
Do you think I should not be allowed to join in the discussion? Do you think that me being quiet will change anything. If you don't agree with me being allowed to say what I think, maybe you should stop reading my posts.
Quoting andrewk
So their taking things seriously and making serious posts will make a difference?
Quoting andrewk
Is that not what I just said? Does not seem like they are doing such a good job of it so far though does it.
Quoting andrewk
You can ask all you want, you might not get what you asked for though. In case you have not noticed this is a discussion about the gun problems in the USA, not a congressional committee meeting to decide on the future of people's lives in the USA. Whatever is said here makes no difference to what happens there, unless you have some brilliant plan to save the day obviously.
I think you too should take a reality pill and go lie down till it starts to take effect.
What is said here may not make an enormous difference, but it will not make no difference as long as there are Americans that participate on this forum. For one thing, they vote. Secondly, they talk to others who vote, and who are in a position to protest on the streets, lobby etc.
So now it is indecent to say what you think?
Quoting andrewk
I never said that I did not take it seriously, I asked simply why I should do so. I got no answer. Nothing implied that I was not doing so except
Quoting Sapientia
You left out pride in being gun-toting bad-asses.
It's not a fallacy to condemn a bad attitude towards an issue indicated by a statement made in the context of an ethical discussion about that very issue. It's entirely appropriate.
You can suggest that I'm reading too much into it, but I don't think that my interpretation was way off the mark. Apparently I wasn't the only one who took it that way, and his subsequent reply seems to align with such an interpretation. A remark like that in the context of a discussion like this is going to come across in the way that I described: unmoved, casual, indifferent...
It's not all about risk. It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and, in my assessment, the costs significantly outweigh the benefits. Some risks are tolerable, others are not.
Quoting tim wood
Hardly a pressing matter, it seems to me. What good would it do to dwell on this abstract philosophical dilemma stemming back to the time of Plato?
Quoting tim wood
What makes you think that an armed citizenry is a potent deterrent?
Quoting tim wood
Not quite sure what that's getting at. What do you consider to be "rational implementation"?
In an ideal world, we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. In a world that is further from the ideal, but closer to it than ours, all gun owners would come to their senses and give up their guns without a fight. Those worlds are obviously not our world, and our world doesn't seem to stand any real chance of becoming such a world. However, we can, with enough effort, move in that direction. And I think that some costs towards reaching the goal are a price worth paying, so we don't need to hopelessly await a perfect solution. I'd settle for an imperfect one.
Are you talking about me behind my back? :cool:
Quoting Sapientia
Birds of a feather and all that I suppose could explain it maybe.
Quoting Sapientia
A person that discusses from emotional points of view rarely make any real sense.
No, I have the gall to talk about you in plain sight. :grin:
Quoting Sir2u
In the context of ethics, it's the opposite.
That is nice to know.
Quoting Sapientia
Ethics based on emotions are not ethics. Emotions are mostly irrational and very subjective that would render any system based on then as mostly useless when really needed.
What an absurd thing to say.
So maybe you could explain how that would work them. Educate me.
Almost completely absurd except to say that whilst all morals are responses to the emotional states of human interaction; ethics is the analysis of morality, and therefore an attempt to rationalise moral statements.
What need could I possibly have to save face? It is not like I am going to run into you or anyone else from here on the street and get embarrassed.
Quoting Sapientia
Honestly speaking, I am. I have the idea in my head that emotions are sort of internal, innate feelings that people have. They come into play when certain things happen to people. But I can see no relation other than through morality that they could be linked.
I suppose that ethics could study and analyze the relationships between emotions and moral behavior, it would seem counter productive to do so emotionally.
Please explain it to me. Maybe some of those that have little experience with ethics can learn something as well.
Of course through morality; or rather, through moral judgement. Emotions are essential, and diminished emotional processing or reactivity, as in, for example, psychopaths, has been shown to have an adverse - or anomalous, at least - effect on moral judgement.
The key words here are emotions and morality. I still don't understand how ethics comes into the deal.
would it be to much to ask for an example? Thank you in advance.
Ethics deals with morality and moral judgement, yes? If we can agree on that, then what's your problem, exactly? Or do you go by a different conception?
You want an example? Pick any moral dilemma featuring ‘personal’ (i.e. involving direct physical harm) or ‘impersonal’ (i.e. involving indirect or remote harm) actions.
I don't know why I'm even humouring you. The role of emotions ought to be obvious to anyone who has given it the slightest thought. Empathy? Guilt? Shame? Approval? Disapproval? Outrage? The feeling of justice or injustice? These don't strike you as relevant?
No, ethics is the philosophical study of morality and moral judgement. Tiny difference but not the same as dealing with.
Quoting Sapientia
OK. My dog cannot move to my new house with me. I have only 2 options.
Leave it with the guy next door who just lost his dog to starvation or have it put down because there is no pet sanctuary to leave him in.
How does ethics come into the situation?
Quoting Sapientia
Oh dear, have I done something to upset you. My most sincere apologizes.
Quoting Sapientia
No. In ethics it would be useless.
:roll:
Quoting Sir2u
Any moral dilemma comes under the umbrella of ethics. Your question doesn't really make sense, or the answer is obvious, or you're making some pedantic point based on wording which I'm not interested in pursuing. Not entirely sure which it is, but I don't really care, as none of those options seem productive.
Quoting Sir2u
And we're back to square one: absurdity and denial. The very foundation of moral judgement is useless now, is it? Okie dokie.
Quoting Sapientia
I asked a simple question, how does ethics come into the situation.
I am not being pedantic, I am truly interested in what you think.
Like you do, only my definition is more broad. We've literally just been over this. I think a more encompassing definition works better than one such as yours which only takes into consideration academic study. Ethics is more than that. It deals with matters relating to ethics: morality, moral judgement, moral agency, moral dilemmas, right, wrong, actions, intentions, consequences, and all the rest.
Quoting Sir2u
Too simple. I addressed your question, as worded. Repeating it isn't very helpful. Clarify your meaning, instead. What exactly are you asking me? Are you asking me something silly, like, at what point does a student enter the scenario and begin to take notes? It's an ethical situation to begin with - all moral dilemmas are. So I don't understand your question. How does ethics come into an ethical situation??? :confused:
I think I see the problem here.
Ethics can also be counted in everyday use as a guiding principle as to decide what is good or bad. They are the standards which govern the life of a person such as a doctor or lawyer.
Quoting Sapientia
The situation I described is a moral dilemma, not an ethical situation.
A moral dilemma [i]is[/I] an ethical situation. At least in accordance with my use of those terms. And I doubt that I'm alone in using them that way. In fact, as I've just verified, googling "ethical" brings up definitions in line with my interpretation, so I know that I'm not just being idiosyncratic here. Language is more flexible than the dictates of your Chambers English Dictionary (1998 edition).
In everyday use, I would quite agree with you. But on a philosophy forum, I don't. And it is not my dictionary by the way, I have no idea who owns it either.
The study of ethics is about what is good and what is evil, it is a rational not an emotional activity.
People react to moral situations emotional most of the time.
People react to ethical dilemmas by analyzing it in the light of good or bad.
Not the same thing.
No, it's both. You can't truly understand or learn about what is good and what is bad without that vital emotional connection. It would be like trying to learn about taste without ever having experienced it.
Quoting Sir2u
And no proper analysis can exclude emotion. Ethics is not like algebra. Not the same thing.
The slippery slope has taken another slide down in regards to the 2nd ammendment right by Deerfield, IL banning assult rifles. It will lay out for all who have suggested the USA simply do what Austrailia has done and witness the utopia that will ensue for our society at large.
No, they won't be taken by force but rather the government will bleed you dry financially instead. So law abiding gun owners, will be mandated to turn in their legally registered firearm by June 13th, 2018 or face a finacnial penalty. Seems fair right?
Maybe I will be proven wrong. Maybe the retired folks of Naperville wil be standing next to the MS13 members, in line at the city court, turning in their unregistered, never to be traced firearms. Time will tell. Time will also show the drastic reduction in the homicide rate in Chicago by confiscating the good guys guns.
First of all, it's only assault weapons, which are a bloody menace and should all be put in a pile and burnt anyway seeing as you are incapable of keeping them in the hands of people who are going to use them responsible. Second of all, it's one town. Kudos to them for standing up for common sense and decency.
I said assault rifles and hey it's only a slight infringement on our 2nd right.
Quoting Baden
Following that reason then it would be okay for one town to slightly infringe upon our 1st Right to say the word "God" in public.
It's your perverse interpretation of the right that's the issue. You don't have the right to bear any arms you want otherwise you would have the right to bear machine guns and bazookas etc. Are you complaining about not having the right to a machine gun. Is that an infringement on your 2nd amendment right?
Can you acknowledge that it is an infringement?
No, it's not at all for the reasons I gave above. Now answer my question. Is it an infringement that you cannot own a machine gun or a bazooka? Would you like those in the hands of the general public too?
The firearm was and will continue to be legally registered with private citizens in the state of IL until June 13, 2018. How is possessing the same firearm on June 14th suddenly illegal?
Because there is a change to a law, which is an infringment on the persons rights that existed on June 13th, 2018.
Why is that so hard to acknowledge?
Quoting Baden
Is it a diagnosed "lunatic"? Because if it is, then there are laws in place that says they cannot legally own a firearm, though I am not sure what the clinical definition of a "lunatic" is.
What I would "like" and what the reality is are two very different things. If you are legally able to own a machine gun or a bazooka, who am I to make it illegal? I am a registered voter and it would be there that I would have to make my feelings on that known.
American's are pretty logical people as a whole and as citizens, we would rather our Peace Officers be able to meet a "lunatic" with eqaul or overwhelming force in an altercation.
Just answer the question, please. Is it an infringment on your 2nd amendment right that you can't?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
How do I answer this? My 2nd amendment right was taken away from me, on a Federal Level, as a private citizen, remember?
Oh common, dude...Is it an infringement of 2nd amendment rights in general?
(That you Americans, not just you personally, cannot legally purchase a machine gun, bazooka etc. You know what I mean, Tiff. It's a simple question.)
On it's face, no.
But you have to understand that I never saw my 2nd amendment right being taken away the first time.
Why?
(I'm not going to try to debate your personal situation. I would trust you with a gun. That's not what this is about.)
Because I believe that we should be able to protect our citizens with equal force.
I asked you why it's not an infringement to ban machine guns and bazookas etc. and to take them away from those who are in possession of them.
Why? I am THE LAST one to trust with a gun. I had one used domestically against a loved one and would never, ever, pick up a firearm, loaded or not.
OK, Tiff, just my impression, but I really don't want to talk about you personally. We can do that by PM. :kiss:
And I am trying to answer your question but as you can see, I don't have a lot of faith in the answer you are looking for.
I'm not presuming an answer. I want to know what you think. Just tell me your reason. Why can we confiscate these weapons without infringing the 2nd amendment?
For me? It is because it makes it an unfair fight with anyone, law or lawless.
How is it unfair if both sides have the same weapon? E.g. a machine gun or bazooka?
I got turned around. It isn't unfair for both sides to have the same weapon.
So what's your answer if not that?
It's fair for both sides to have the same weapon as long as they are being used legally.
Tiff, my question is: Please answer it.
Quoting Baden
I guess if the Peace Officers are showing up on peoples doorsteps with bazookas then I would have to say, yes it would be an infringement on our 2nd amendment right.
I recognize the absurdity of my answer but it was an absurd question.
So, you are changing your answer now and think Americans have the right to bear bazookas? (According to the 2nd amendment.)
OMG this is exactly what FREAKS out legal gun owners!! :gasp:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/london-murders-t-halted-york-141410483.html
Please don't rephrase the question so it 'fits' into our ammendments. The question was absurd in nature and I tried to answer it with a logically.
Do Americans have the right to bear bazookas or not ? Please just answer the question. It's a yes or no. And why is it more absurd than asking if they have the right to bear any other kind of weapon?
The right to bear bazookas? No, I don't think it is a right to be infringed on to begin with.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180406/uk-struggles-to-combat-gun-and-knife-crime-as-london-murder-rate-tops-new-york-city
I have been reading the same around the net.
I really am trying to be as honest and genuine as I can possibly be. I think at the very least the issue is complicated which is why it is necessary to define if the firearm or bazooka is legal to have to begin with. If bazookas were legal to own under the 2nd amendment then it would be an infringement on our right to confiscate them.
Now, you are saying it's legality that matters. So, if assault weapons are illegal in illinois now, then it's not a 2nd amendment infringement just as with bazookas being illegal it's not a 2nd amendment infringement.
Yes legality matters which is why it makes no sense to have the citizens of IL be forced into surrendering their legal firearms. That is an infringement on our 2nd amendment right. Bazookas as far as I know, have never been legal for a citizen to own, so it wouldn't fall under the protection of our 2nd amendment right.
So, every weapon that has ever been legal is protected under the 2nd amendment? And every weapon that has never been legal is not protected? That's your position??
I won't say "every" because I know there are always exceptions but yes, if the firearm was legal to own under our 2nd amendment right, I think banning that firearm would be considered an infringement on our 2nd amendment right.
A current example is an armed drone. Has it ever been legal for a private citizen to own and register an armed drone? Not to my knowledge. Would a law making it illegal for a private citizen to own an armed drone be an infringement on our 2nd ammendment right? No, because it was never legal to own.
OK, by that logic no new weapons in development are covered under the 2nd amendment right if they are not yet legal. So, if we decide to ban all new weapons (never make them legal) it would not infringe on the 2nd amendment. And applying the principle retroactively, nothing but the weapons originally extant at the time of the 2nd amendment were covered by the 2nd amendment. Ergo, nothing but muskets and the like need be covered.
Who needs guns to scare the shit out of people and maybe kill a few off at the same time?
I know, right? That's crazy. And does she even realise that her slippery slope argument is a fallacy?
Wow. :monkey:
Who the heck, or what the heck, are "Peace Officers"? That's just a made up term, isn't it? What you have are [i]police[/I] officers, and they keep coming up in the news for shooting unarmed black people.
It bears repeating tho, that since bullet wounds are statistically a lot more damaging than blade wounds, even if all gun crimes were translated into knife attacks, violent crime would be about 1/3 to 2/3 less deadly, depending on the organ wounded.
Yes, and what an AR-15 bullet, for example, can do to the body in terms of damage is not comparable at all to an average stab wound just like sticking a pin in someone is not comparable to sticking a knife in them. That's been demonstrated earlier in the discussion. And these are the types of weapons that most gun control advocates want banned. Why so many Americans insist on having guns that can create holes the size of pineapples in each other is just beyond me.
Quoting Baden
Yeah, it did indeed come up earlier. I was one of the people who posted links to statistical evidence, not that that should be necessary. And yet, this misleading point keeps being made, as it has been repeatedly throughout the preceding discussion.
And yet, somehow, it's me who's being unreasonable, because I won't craft a piece of extensive legislation detailing the changes I would like to see upon request.
(And yes, that's right. I am indeed referring to you once again, indirectly. Does that make you mad?)