Rob's 2nd Amendment Thread

[Hippie]

Hi, all, I wanted to start a thread just dedicated to all the gun control stuff in the media (again) lately, without using any particular crime as the an emotional thread-starter. This is where the urbanized liberals, which are probably a majority on the forum, get to call me a reactionary. Yay!

This is where I get to discuss this with no particular end in mind...that is, I know that positions and voting are most generally based upon emotion, narrow or wishful thinking, and/or misinformation. It has always been this way through the long history of human suffering...and therefore one cannot change most, or at least many, peoples' established views by debate nor evidence.

I am of the position that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infriged upon enough. This doesn't mean I think Walmart should sell rocket launchers to teenagers, and I think background check are a fine thing, as long as the reasons for denial of a legal firearm purchase are fair and reasonable...and I mean thou shalt not deny without damn good reason.

Flame away!

[skin daddio]

urbanized what? i thought the forum was a loaded with people that thought it was a big news story write up if they went 100 miles from home with a can of beans, hot dogs, cell phone and AAA. enlightened by the topic i swear to fuck to be more political and violent today.

[Hippie]

Coastal, urbanized, media indoctrinated liberals.
Yeah, I didn't think there'd be much interest here. Well, I tried.

I am myself a liberal in some ways. I just don't buy all the party lines--from either party. Hence my signature line.

[JLT]

Yeah, I didn't think there'd be much interest here. Well, I tried.

Before you throw in the towel, let's give it at least a day. There are those who only get to this site once a day, even once every few days.

Hi, all, I wanted to start a thread just dedicated to all the gun control stuff in the media (again) lately, without using any particular crime as the an emotional thread-starter.

After our somewhat heated exchange on the other thread (which I suspect got more heated than either of us wanted), I've been doing a lot of thinking about what it's going to take for the various sides of the issue to come to some sort of understanding. If you'll have me on this thread, maybe I can help shed a little light on what my take of the issues is. If not, just say the word, and I'll be gone.

This is where I get to discuss this with no particular end in mind...that is, I know that positions and voting are most generally based upon emotion, narrow or wishful thinking, and/or misinformation. It has always been this way through the long history of human suffering...and therefore one cannot change most, or at least many, peoples' established views by debate nor evidence.

Maybe not. I think that people's attitudes can change, though, over time. Nobody is arguing much in favor of slavery, or massacring Jews, or executing witches, even though all these things has been a fixture of our culture for the last couple of thousand years. I agree that "emotion, narrow or wishful thinking, and/or misinformation" is almost never a way out of our troubles. So it behooves us, on both sides of the issue, to keep away from that sort of thinking.

I am of the position that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infriged upon enough. This doesn't mean I think Walmart should sell rocket launchers to teenagers, and I think background check are a fine thing, as long as the reasons for denial of a legal firearm purchase are fair and reasonable...and I mean thou shalt not deny without damn good reason.

Believe it or not, I agree the substance of what you've said in the last paragraph. And I agree with the NRA that the ultimate goal is to identify and treat those people who are so mentally ill that they see mass shootings as a Good Thing to do. The questions are:

• Is is really possible to do this?
  If it is possible, how do we do this, and how do we pay for it?
  In the meantime, before this goal is met, what can we do right now to prevent or minimize these attacks, without severely compromising the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens?

You may have seen a couple of shows on NOVA about how future mass murderers might be identified and treated, and how rudimentary our understanding is of the actual mechanisms that cause such a mind-set. From what I could tell, there a lot of people working on the problems, but we are decades away from any practical application. I would hate to think that in the meantime, we have to soldier through a mass shooting of innocent people every few months or so, along with the hundreds of people whose deaths at the hands of friends or family don't make the national headlines.

Other questions need to be addressed:

Mass shootings, and homicides in general, have risen steadily in the past couple of decades. In many (but certainly not all) cases, these shootings are highest in areas which have the strictest gun laws. Does this mean that gun laws don't work there, or that these laws are on the books specifically because the problem is greatest there? Or is the problem that the laws aren't being enforced? And if that's so, why not? And who is trying to weaken the effects of those gun laws through their influence on lawmakers?

Other countries have gun deaths that a a fraction (per capita) of ours. Is it because they have stricter gun laws? Or far, far fewer guns? Or better mental health screening? Or better policing and public safety precautions?

If we on this forum can talk dispassionately about the issue, maybe others can, too. If we can understand each other's positions even while not agreeing with them, then we can look past those disagreements and find common cause.

Or maybe not. Let's find out.

[Bleyseng]

My take is other countries have less gun related deaths due to a much smaller percentage of guns in the population.
I still don't get why gun people are always talking about needing protection. Protection from what? roving bands of zombies that have assault weapons? I have had a gun pulled on me once in 60 yrs. I have been robbed 3 times but I wasn't home at the time. For 3 years now I live part time in a country on the CIA traveler's alert list that its unsafe and dangerous (they're kidding me right?) I feel safer here than in Seattle going out at night to events or dinner late at night.
So what is there to be so afraid of that you must arm yourself to the teeth and hide in your house waiting for an attack?
I think the gun crowd is completely hoodwinked by the gun manufacturers to buy guns just like Apple does with their electronic goodies. As soon as a new model comes out every flocks to buy it and stock up on ammo...

Sheesh..

[BellePlaine]

Emotion sells and action get you re-elected. So, why the heck not make more laws. Have at it. It feels good and tigher restrictions will work THIS time, I'm sure.

[BellePlaine]

I am myself a liberal in some ways. I just don't buy all the party lines--from either party. Hence my signature line.

Rob, that's code for libertarian. Sorry, don't mean to call you names!

[Randy in Maine]

OK I will throw in my 2 cents here...

In my opinion, the problem is really gun violence. Every year in this country about 30,000 people are killed due to gun violence (including accidents, suicides, and crimes) and about 10-12,000 of those are killed in real crimes, including domestic violence acts.

Here in Maine we have a large percentage of people that own guns primarily from our long culture of hunting. We also have a very low rate of guns used in crimes, but that is not the case everywhere in this country.

I have no issues with people owning weapons to hunt or target shoot or any other legit use. None.

I am also in favor of universal background checks (including restraining orders for people involved in domestic violence) with no exemptions for private sales or guns shows which exempts roughly 40% of those buying guns. I think stiffer federal laws for someone "staw buying" of guns for re-sale to people who could not pass the background checks and for trafficing in guns to other states where local laws are stricter than where they were bought.

I am not sure about how to deal with people having handguns since those are the ones frequently used in acts of domestic violence, crime, and suicide. It would be nice if gun owners would be a little more responsible in securing their guns at home to keep kids from playing with them and getting stolen. Most of my friends here actually have and use gun safes. It would also be nice if the owners would actually write down the serial numbers of their guns so that when stolen they could be tracked as they get sold and re-sold.

I am not so sure about assault weapons (whatever those are defined as) but perhaps to own a military weapon with no legitimate civilian purpose other than target shooting, those should be treated as machine guns (and similar weapons) are now where you would need to pass the checks for a federal firearms dealer's license.

I am just getting very tired of all of the killing of innocent people for really no reason.

For the record, I grew up with guns and used to hunt pheasants with 20 gauge shotguns and rats at the dump with our .22 caliber under the strict guidance of my father. Recently I got the oppportunity to shoot a BAR which was Clyde Barrow's weapon of choice. Pretty interesting, but I own no guns now.

I am done now.

[Bleyseng]

I have two friends that are "collectors" and I argue with them about the "collection" thing. They have machine guns that work and they think its fine, I don't think anyone should be able to own a machine gun even a assault weapon. Collect stamps, coins, cars or girlfriends not deadly military type guns.
I just heard of 2 armed robberies in my old neighborhood that is upscale in Seattle, nothing in my current "bad" neighborhood.

Well said Randy.

[Amskeptic]

Hi, all, I wanted to start a thread just dedicated to all the gun control stuff in the media (again) lately, without using any particular crime as the an emotional thread-starter. This is where the urbanized liberals, which are probably a majority on the forum, get to call me a reactionary. Yay!

This is where I get to discuss this with no particular end in mind...that is, I know that positions and voting are most generally based upon emotion, narrow or wishful thinking, and/or misinformation. It has always been this way through the long history of human suffering...and therefore one cannot change most, or at least many, peoples' established views by debate nor evidence.

I am of the position that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infriged upon enough. This doesn't mean I think Walmart should sell rocket launchers to teenagers, and I think background check are a fine thing, as long as the reasons for denial of a legal firearm purchase are fair and reasonable...and I mean thou shalt not deny without damn good reason.

Flame away!

Hippie Rules For An Itinerant Air-Cooled Flame War:

1) You Are Not Allowed To Leave In A Pout
2) If You Do Not Like A Response, Re-State Yours And Invite A New Response
3) Default Perspective Is That Your Debate Partners Are Friends.

In response to your post, Hippie, can you give me examples for:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infriged upon enough"

and

"positions and voting are most generally based upon emotion, narrow or wishful thinking, and/or misinformation"

I may not be able to respond all that quickly, but I will try.
Colin

[Hippie]

JLT: You're right, it's a small forum, and often slow. I forget because I'm on lots of forums. Sorry I was an asshole to you before. I probably largely agree with you on stuff, but when I post, it isn't always directed solely at the OP, but there for anyone to read. Sometimes, therefore, I jump on a posted comment not realizing the OP takes it as a direct attack on only their position. I'm not sure I wrote this so it makes any sense?

JLT: "Is is really possible to do this?
If it is possible, how do we do this, and how do we pay for it?
In the meantime, before this goal is met, what can we do right now to prevent or minimize these attacks, without severely compromising the rights of sane, law-abiding citizens?"

I don't know what is possible in the new third world of the USA where even the airlines are a joke, but I know we seriously dropped the ball somewhere when we cut funding for most mental health care. There isn't much profit in it, unfortunately. I do know the NRA raises a good (although obvious) point about this, and that it isn't their job.

The kid that shot up Sandy Hook was pretty obviously obsessed with Breivic, and with violent shooting-war video games. I wouldn’t mind seeing some standards come back to the USA about the shit that kids are exposed to on TV and video games 27/7. I would also like to see the media quit milking these stories for every penny's worth of ratings. It very likely will lead to other copycat crimes, in my estimation.

JLT: "Mass shootings, and homicides in general, have risen steadily in the past couple of decades. In many (but certainly not all) cases, these shootings are highest in areas which have the strictest gun laws. Does this mean that gun laws don't work there, or that these laws are on the books specifically because the problem is greatest there? Or is the problem that the laws aren't being enforced? And if that's so, why not? And who is trying to weaken the effects of those gun laws through their influence on lawmakers?

Other countries have gun deaths that a a fraction (per capita) of ours. Is it because they have stricter gun laws? Or far, far fewer guns? Or better mental health screening? Or better policing and public safety precautions?

I have to ask what the source of your data is here, about the general US homicide rates? Mass killings, I haven't looked into, as far as rates, but you sure hear more about them, at least. I do know that they (mass killings) are nothing new, nor are they an exclusively American phenomenon.

It is a given that countries with fewer guns will have fewer shooting deaths, as much as there are probably fewer traffic fatalities in central African countries with fewer roads and automobiles. That doesn't mean that you are safer or that your life expectancy is higher in one of those countries. Remember the murder rate in in most of these countries is far higher than in the United States, and much lower in Switzerland where they are swimming in guns.

Anders Breivic commited the most deaths in any mass shooting to date, in a country with far stricter gun laws than the USA.
Nor has the homicide rate fallen in Australia (Time Magazine, for one) or the UK since the inception of rather draconian gun restrictions some considerable time ago. I have never seen credible evidence of homicide or other violent crime rates having been reduced through increased gun legislation anywhere in the world.

It seems, instead, that excessive restrictions on any saleable item does indeed create more crime and death, including innocent bystanders than it prevents. Personally I think Portugal is on the right track with decriminalization of drugs. There crime rate is apparently down since. Remember our own drug laws and our prohibition of the '20s and early '30s and the regrettable results. There is an old saying, worn but true, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." This is unfortunately quite true in many countries today.

[Hippie]

My take is other countries have less gun related deaths due to a much smaller percentage of guns in the population.
I still don't get why gun people are always talking about needing protection. Protection from what? roving bands of zombies that have assault weapons? I have had a gun pulled on me once in 60 yrs. I have been robbed 3 times but I wasn't home at the time. For 3 years now I live part time in a country on the CIA traveler's alert list that its unsafe and dangerous (they're kidding me right?) I feel safer here than in Seattle going out at night to events or dinner late at night.
So what is there to be so afraid of that you must arm yourself to the teeth and hide in your house waiting for an attack?
I think the gun crowd is completely hoodwinked by the gun manufacturers to buy guns just like Apple does with their electronic goodies. As soon as a new model comes out every flocks to buy it and stock up on ammo...

Sheesh..

The way I see it, is protection while the police arrive. I have used a gun in this capacity, myself, twice. Never had to discharget it. Deterrence is a good thing...You are more likely to be burglarized while you are home, in the UK than the US. But also protection, deterrence again if you will, from a run amock government, which is what the Second Amendment was, and still is, about. I'm glad you feel safer in South America, but all evidence suggests you are, in reality, not.

[Hippie]

Emotion sells and action get you re-elected. So, why the heck not make more laws. Have at it. It feels good and tigher restrictions will work THIS time, I'm sure.

I couldn't agree more. If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got. Simple. Prohibitions of any kind are an incredible boost to crime.

[Hippie]

In my opinion, the problem is really gun violence. Every year in this country about 30,000 people are killed due to gun violence (including accidents, suicides, and crimes) and about 10-12,000 of those are killed in real crimes, including domestic violence acts.

Are these FBI statistics? Suicide...well I don't think you can escape yourself once you decide to die. Accidents do happen, and more training is probably needed there since parents probably no longer teach these thing as much as they used to. Accidents are still a part of living in a free society. Any violence, gun or otherwise, is as dangerous. I don't like the term gun violence, because it is misleading. The "crooks" will always use what is convenient. The slippery slope can be seen in the UK and Australia where the criminals substitute other means, and so the governent bans that. Then the cycle repeats. At the end of the day, the government knows it will have no effect, but they do it anyway in either a power rush, or to make it look to the electorate that they are doing something.

Here in Maine we have a large percentage of people that own guns primarily from our long culture of hunting. We also have a very low rate of guns used in crimes, but that is not the case everywhere in this country.

I have no issues with people owning weapons to hunt or target shoot or any other legit use. None.

Well again, the Second Amendment is not about hunting. The word never appears in the US Constitution. An armed population constitutes citizens. A disarmed polulation constitutes subjects...and that is what is most important. Self defence, for one, is a legitimate use. Note the government, the police, would not be subject to any laws so-called against assault weapons. No one has mentioned that. If bans worked, they would not need them either, would they? I don't believe in being treated by my government as a criminal. It really isn't any of their business what I need or want a gun for.

I am also in favor of universal background checks (including restraining orders for people involved in domestic violence) with no exemptions for private sales or guns shows which exempts roughly 40% of those buying guns. I think stiffer federal laws for someone "staw buying" of guns for re-sale to people who could not pass the background checks and for trafficing in guns to other states where local laws are stricter than where they were bought.

If not from another state, then from Mexico, I suppose, or from workshops. We did drop the ball on background checks, however, there was one police officer in the news some years ago, with a good service record, fired because he could no longer carry a gun, and therefore do his duty, because 12 years before, he had slapped his wife of the time after she hit him with a skillet. That's ridiculous. There should be a standard, national review system to prove that the person is currently at risk for violence, before a background check comes up for denial. You won't catch them all, but most of these felons seem to get guns anyway.

I am not sure about how to deal with people having handguns since those are the ones frequently used in acts of domestic violence, crime, and suicide.

Again, convenience. The suicide part is ridiculous, and another media program I've heard since the '70s. You can't look at the item...a metal box that shoots bits of metal out the end, as an evil in itself. You have to look at the overall crime rate and the ineffectiveness of gun controls where private citizens are guilty until proven innocent.

It would be nice if gun owners would be a little more responsible in securing their guns at home to keep kids from playing with them and getting stolen. Most of my friends here actually have and use gun safes. It would also be nice if the owners would actually write down the serial numbers of their guns so that when stolen they could be tracked as they get sold and re-sold.

I agree completely.

I am just getting very tired of all of the killing of innocent people for really no reason.

Me too, but I don't want to make things worse.
The same statement can be said about making unecessary trips in automobiles, but we do not prove need for a license. We can but as much fuel as we need. We don't need to register our routes with the government, nor get a travel permit at vacation time. Freedom can be hazardous to your health and the health of your children. No one mentions what could be done about the travel bit, because it affects them. Taking away the freedom of another, because what they know, what is important to them, is not important to you, (not you, literally, Randy, "you" as in "one" or "anyone") it is easier to overlook all the things we could do to save lives. Some people hate guns. I hate traffic.

[Hippie]

I have two friends that are "collectors" and I argue with them about the "collection" thing. They have machine guns that work and they think its fine, I don't think anyone should be able to own a machine gun even a assault weapon.

No one can really define an assault weapon, but if your friends are criminals, I would agree. I think the police and all domestically stationed military, not on active guard duty, should also have their "assault" weapons confiscated. I'm not kidding.
Why do you think your friends are at risk for violence?