TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 As I said, most people own guns legally for sport (hunting or target practice) or for self-defense in the event of a home invasion or attempted rape or murder (when the police would never make it in time). The vast majority of these people (99.99%) are not the problem, but they would be the ones affected by the laws. The people who want guns illegally are still going to want them and probably won't care if a new law is passed or not. As with drugs, passing a law won't make guns stop existing. They'll still be a problem. Ask Chicago. Why, then, are gun laws so successful in other countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 1. Make him settle for the pair of Glocks, then. It's a good first step. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to have an assault rifle. 2. Home invasion: Shotgun is fine. Someone carrying for self defense: Tasers and mace are fine. Concealment is the primary reason for the design of a handgun. 1. I don't care if we do make him settle for Glock. My point is that it wouldn't solve the problem. What if he "settled" for a truck bomb? 2. I'm not going to go door to door and tell people how they should be allowed to defend themselves in an emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 1. I don't care if we do make him settle for Glock. My point is that it wouldn't solve the problem. What if he "settled" for a truck bomb? 2. I'm not going to go door to door and tell people how they should be allowed to defend themselves in an emergency. That's fine, but you still haven't explained why assault rifles and handguns are necessary. But I've explained why they're not. (I'll concede some sporting purpose for target pistols, but I can't imagine any sporting purpose for an assault rifle.) EDIT: re truck bombs: Those are illegal, and as a result, law enforcement can figure out when someone is up to something. That was one of Alexander's points. There have been a few bombings thwarted since McVeigh, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Why, then, are gun laws so successful in other countries? Probably because we aren't other countries. Like it or not, guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture going back to the Bill of Rights and the ratification of our Constitution. If you really think you can undo hundreds of years of history and tradition for 350 million Americans with a sentence that begins with "But in Europe..." then good luck to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 1. I don't care if we do make him settle for Glock. My point is that it wouldn't solve the problem. What if he "settled" for a truck bomb? 2. I'm not going to go door to door and tell people how they should be allowed to defend themselves in an emergency. Good luck, mang. I haven't got the energy for what you are trying to undertake. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Probably because we aren't other countries. Like it or not, guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture going back to the Bill of Rights and the ratification of our Constitution. If you really think you can undo hundreds of years of history and tradition for 350 million Americans with a sentence that begins with "But in Europe..." then good luck to you. And nobody (well, there's a few, but most..) aren't trying to take away guns. They're trying to take away certain types of guns. Like it or not, the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and have never been absolute. Why are gun rights the one untouchable where people freak out if the idea of gun control is even mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Probably because we aren't other countries. Like it or not, guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture going back to the Bill of Rights and the ratification of our Constitution. If you really think you can undo hundreds of years of history and tradition for 350 million Americans with a sentence that begins with "But in Europe..." then good luck to you. This actually sums up a few things very nicely. First, obviously, some of us do not like it, but you're right that guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture. Second, because I favor an expansive rather than restrictive view of Constitutional freedoms, I do believe that you have the right to possess an assault rifle (Alexander and I diverge there). I'd like to take Article V to the Second Amendment, but until that happens, yeah, I think you've got that right. I don't like it, but it's there. But just because something is American doesn't mean that it's ideal (nor does it make anyone less patriotic for saying so). We should do all we can to make this country better. And if that means following someone else's model and amending things, maybe we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 That's fine, but you still haven't explained why assault rifles and handguns are necessary. But I've explained why they're not. (I'll concede some sporting purpose for target pistols, but I can't imagine any sporting purpose for an assault rifle.) EDIT: re truck bombs: Those are illegal, and as a result, law enforcement can figure out when someone is up to something. There have been a few bombings thwarted since McVeigh, you know. For the most part, assault rifles aren't necessary. Then again, almost all hobbies are unnecessary. We would live in a very different world if the government only let us own what they decided was "necessary." The people I know who own a vast array of guns that would horrify you use them for target practice in the middle of nowhere. Necessary? Of course not. But that's their business. And I still don't think that's the point. A determined person can find a way to kill a lot of people. It starts with the person and not the weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 We average about 33,000 gun deaths per year overall (homicides, suicides, etc.). The rate is systematically higher in the states that have higher rates of ownership (which generally have lax gun laws) and lower in the states that have lower rates of ownership (which generally have tougher gun laws). The correlation is shockingly strong. Please read: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/ ... personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that ~10,000 murders per year is somehow acceptable. While the rate is ~8x that of the rest of the industrialized world. And, the 10,000+ kids a year who grab a gun (often Daddy's gun) and commit suicide... is that acceptable too? Is it just our part of our "American culture?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Good luck, mang. I haven't got the energy for what you are trying to undertake. Seriously. I'm exhausted already and I really need to get off the internet and get some stuff done this afternoon. (Although it's been a civil discussion with people I respect so that's been nice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 And I still don't think that's the point. A determined person can find a way to kill a lot of people. It starts with the person and not the weapon. I completely agree that a determined person will find a way, but I disagree that that's a reason to do nothing. For example, if a terrorist really wanted to strap himself with C4 and blow himself up in the middle of the mall, there's nothing that the FBI, NSA, or local police can do to stop him if the C4 is legal to own and readily available. But if it's illegal? Then maybe police can intercept the shipments, or get a tip that so-and-so is acquiring these things, and prevent the bombing from happening (and yes, I'm aware I'm grossly oversimplifying how this stuff happens). Will they stop everything? Nope, that's not possible, and I don't think anybody is really asserting it is. But having enforceable laws can prevent some things, and isn't some prevention better than none? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 This actually sums up a few things very nicely. First, obviously, some of us do not like it, but you're right that guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture. Second, because I favor an expansive rather than restrictive view of Constitutional freedoms, I do believe that you have the right to possess an assault rifle (Alexander and I diverge there). I'd like to take Article V to the Second Amendment, but until that happens, yeah, I think you've got that right. I don't like it, but it's there. But just because something is American doesn't mean that it's ideal (nor does it make anyone less patriotic for saying so). We should do all we can to make this country better. And if that means following someone else's model and amending things, maybe we should. I agree with all of this. There's always room for improvement, though any cultural change will take a long time. I certainly don't think the guns laws in this country are optimal. But I'm also aware that it's 2012 -- the mayor of NYC is fighting to limit how much Pepsi citizens can drink and Chicago is having one of its bloodiest years ever right after doing everything it could to keep guns away from people who would have them legally. I'm skeptical about our elected leaders doing anything intelligent. I completely agree that a determined person will find a way, but I disagree that that's a reason to do nothing. For example, if a terrorist really wanted to strap himself with C4 and blow himself up in the middle of the mall, there's nothing that the FBI, NSA, or local police can do to stop him if the C4 is legal to own and readily available. But if it's illegal? Then maybe police can intercept the shipments, or get a tip that so-and-so is acquiring these things, and prevent the bombing from happening (and yes, I'm aware I'm grossly oversimplifying how this stuff happens). Will they stop everything? Nope, that's not possible, and I don't think anybody is really asserting it is. But having enforceable laws can prevent some things, and isn't some prevention better than none? Yes. As I just said, I absolutely do not think we have optimal gun laws in this country. But I'm skeptical about the changes that some people propose and I already know proposals coming just three days after the latest Breaking News story aren't going to be the best. Activity and Productivity aren't the same thing. I live in a city learning this the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 The US could tighten up the laws - e.g. one handgun per person and no assult rifles. That way anyone who wants them for 'sport' or 'self-defence' can but it means you can't walk into a movie theatre dressed like the shootout scene in Hot Fuzz. Personally, i don't know why anyone needs a gun for self-defence - i would accept a shotgun in a house. But on the streets mace and a stunner seems plenty. Especially as people who want them for self-defence, probably don't practice on them, which very much limits their usefulness. Also, I want doesn't get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I agree with all of this. There's always room for improvement, though any cultural change will take a long time. I certainly don't think the guns laws in this country are optimal. But I'm also aware that it's 2012 -- the mayor of NYC is fighting to limit how much Pepsi citizens can drink and Chicago is having one of its bloodiest years ever right after doing everything it could to keep guns away from people who would have them legally. I'm skeptical about our elected leaders doing anything intelligent. Yes. As I just said, I absolutely do not think we have optimal gun laws in this country. But I'm skeptical about the changes that some people propose and I already know proposals coming just three days after the latest Breaking News story aren't going to be the best. Activity and Productivity aren't the same thing. I live in a city learning this the hard way. What, you don't support Bloomberg's crusade against sugary drinks? :P I absolutely agree that knee-jerk policy is about the worst thing that can come from something like this (see, for example, the PATRIOT ACT before it was renewed and amended). Luckily with the current makeup of our federal government, that's not going to happen. But I believe there needs to be a conversation about this stuff that doesn't get automatically shut down because of culture or a draconian adherence to a one-sided interpretation of the Second Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 This actually sums up a few things very nicely. First, obviously, some of us do not like it, but you're right that guns and gun ownership are a part of American culture. Second, because I favor an expansive rather than restrictive view of Constitutional freedoms, I do believe that you have the right to possess an assault rifle (Alexander and I diverge there). I'd like to take Article V to the Second Amendment, but until that happens, yeah, I think you've got that right. I don't like it, but it's there. But just because something is American doesn't mean that it's ideal (nor does it make anyone less patriotic for saying so). We should do all we can to make this country better. And if that means following someone else's model and amending things, maybe we should. True, but a lot of things have been part of American culture for quite a long time, even existing at the time the founding documents were ratified. However, we do not accept those as part of a modern culture - see: slavery, women's suffrage, land reqs, house picking senators etc. The worst defense for a position is that "we've always done it that way". America typically lags behind the rest of the modernized world in almost every social issue. Eventually we catch up but not always - see any social issue of the past 75 years. The BoR does not grant you an unfettered right to stock an arsenal, and really home invasions ? are they so prevalent that you need an arsenal? The rate of robbery (under which the term falls) has been at its lowest rate in forever. You dont need an AR15 to protect yourself. In fact most of these occur randomly and with surprise so you wouldnt be able to run and get your machine gun, take off the trigger lock and "defend" yourself in time anyway. That being said, no one is trying to completely take away the ability to own a firearm, and while most people's interpretation of the 2nd Amend. is far far far too broad, gun ownership is here to stay. The ability to regulate that right, just like free speech, needs to be expanded. Or we can sit back as we have and continute to watch this country have the highest rate of death by firearms in the Western World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 What, you don't support Bloomberg's crusade against sugary drinks? :P I absolutely agree that knee-jerk policy is about the worst thing that can come from something like this (see, for example, the PATRIOT ACT before it was renewed and amended). Luckily with the current makeup of our federal government, that's not going to happen. But I believe there needs to be a conversation about this stuff that doesn't get automatically shut down because of culture or a draconian adherence to a one-sided interpretation of the Second Amendment. The people whose minds you need to change are the ones you just called "draconian." I'm pretty sure it's not going to go well for you if you make this a part of your attempt at persuasion. The conversation is not spoiled because of one side. ABC News went on national television and immediately reported a potential Tea Party connection with the shooter on Friday morning (the connection was just as quickly debunked by anyone willing to work Google for 15 minutes). The rush to erroneously blame every tragedy on "crazy right wingers" or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh doesn't exactly make the conservative half of the country open to listening when the 2nd Amendment is brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Good luck, mang. I haven't got the energy for what you are trying to undertake. Seriously. I got out while the getin' was good. I wonder how many of the 100,000(±) happened with guns that would even fall under the assault catagory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 The people whose minds you need to change are the ones you just called "draconian." I'm pretty sure it's not going to go well for you if you make this a part of your attempt at persuasion. The conversation is not spoiled because of one side. ABC News went on national television and immediately reported a potential Tea Party connection with the shooter on Friday morning (the connection was just as quickly debunked by anyone willing to work Google for 15 minutes). The rush to erroneously blame every tragedy on "crazy right wingers" or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh doesn't exactly make the conservative half of the country open to listening when the 2nd Amendment is brought up. I called it a draconian position because it is. Just as if some loony lefty took the position that the press should be able to broadcast National Security Council meetings because of the First Amendment, I'd call that a draconian position. I'm an equal opportunity position basher :P That's the nature of the political times, and it's part of the problem. The extreme right, no matter how approached, won't have anything to do with gun regulation (especially if it's proposed by that socialist Obama!). The extreme left, no matter how approached, will want to ban every weapon beyond a butter knife (because, you know, the NRA is the functional equivalent of Hitler). People that are at the ends of the ideological spectrum are so set in their ways as to be unreachable. Unfortunately, those are the people who drive the conversation because those closer to the middle don't care enough to be so vocal about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 regulating what guns you can own is dumb. regulating who can own guns would be a better step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 regulating what guns you can own is dumb. regulating who can own guns would be a better step. This is not an unreasonable idea. Probably impossible to implement with the way the Second Amendment currently reads and is interpreted, but I was advocating for change there anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnkirishone Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 This is not an unreasonable idea. Probably impossible to implement with the way the Second Amendment currently reads and is interpreted, but I was advocating for change there anyway not really. felons and in many cases mentaly disabled are barred from firearm ownership. Also it is what I have been advocating for awhile. We need to tighten the rules and close loopholes that allow people most at risk of doing violent crimes to own guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 not really. felons and in many cases mentaly disabled are barred from firearm ownership. Also it is what I have been advocating for awhile. We need to tighten the rules and close loopholes that allow people most at risk of doing violent crimes to own guns. I agree with the position, the problem however is implementation. If somebody is a normal citizen with no record of anything, but is mentally ill, no background check will be sufficient. Something like mandated psychological exams may help somewhat, but there's roughly a zero percent chance something like that would ever even come close to passage. Edit: Basically what I'm saying is any policy not only has to have a good chance of working, but be politically feasible so it actually becomes law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 regulating what guns you can own is dumb. regulating who can own guns would be a better step. Great idea! Limit ownership of guns to law enforcement and the military. I knew we could some sort of accord. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 not really. felons and in many cases mentaly disabled are barred from firearm ownership. Also it is what I have been advocating for awhile. We need to tighten the rules and close loopholes that allow people most at risk of doing violent crimes to own guns. I'm down with that. A whopping 7 states require background checks on all handgun sales (store bought, gun shows, resale, etc.): California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. The gun show loophole remains in many states (my own - Tennessee - being as slack as any). If I go to a store here, I fill out a form, they take my thumb print, and they do a background check. But anyone can sell a used gun to anyone else here with virtual no laws governing the re-sale. Seems pretty slack to me. And, this is the case in most states as far as I know. Something like mandated psychological exams may help somewhat, but there's roughly a zero percent chance something like that would ever even come close to passage. My wife was saying just that - a psychological exam is what we need - she is a LCSW. She was saying about 1.5% of the population is psychotic and a test could help figure out who these guys/girls are and keep them from buying guns... but like you said, such a test ain't happening... (Note: I guess that means that 1 of every 100 Sabrespacers is psychotic? :P ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I think the Constitution should be used less as a shield for the guilty And more of a sword for their innocent victims. -Sam Waterston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.