Gun Control and your stance

[Sigfried]

RE: SQUATCH

9-Mills
The argument between assault weapons and 9-mils and all that jazz is something of a dead end for gun rights folks. Consider who you are arguing against. Their goal is to decrease gun violence by restricting access to especially dangerous weapons. Its a principle most people can sympathise with. We don't want civilians to have serin gass or nuclear weapons etc... In principle, we mostly agree.

So it comes down to an evaluation of what weapons are dangerous and what weapons can be controlled. If they look at a weapon and it seems very dangerous, and you say, well this other less dangerous looking weapon is possibly more dangerous. Their natural reaction is, "Oh well we'd better get rid of those too!" So it really does no good for yoru possition to argue the merits of 9-mil pistols as tools for mass murder unless you want to see them banned.

We could go round in circles forever on the merits of the weapons. I happen to think an AR-15 is a great weapon for mass murder, you may disagree and say a 9-mil is superior (in whatever situation you might imagine). I could then say, well, killers are more attracted to the AR-15 for whatever reason so that's worse. Or I could point out the latest attempt using an 9-mil didn't kill anyone, and you could come back saying that shooter was unskilled etc... etc... But none of it really gets to the root motivation. People want to limit access to potential tools of mass murder so they are trying to identify which tools are most effective. Any tool you argue is effective, can get lumped into the legislation if you try hard enough.

Australian Suicide Statistics

NSW gun ban was 1945 (ish) through 1956 Then the current legislation in 1996

We had a peak in 1930s (reason unknown) and a steady decline into the post war period, indeed around 1945
And yes, suiside started on the upward trend during the gun ban, and after it is lifted, it keeps going up until 1963 or so.
Then it starts to decline again and levels out in the 1980s, then wggling around in the 12-14 zone on the chart
Then after the 1996 legislation it takes a step down and flattens out around 11 or so which is below average for the chart, with only the WWII period being lower.
(Looking for other charts, it appears to be about holding steady there in the 11 range with very slight continuing declines)

While one period shows an increase during a gun ban, the other shows a decrease (the most recent and wider ban). We see both increases and decreases during times of open firearms laws. Honestly, it mostly argues that other trends are a stronger impact.

Suicides in general
The evidence is, and its pretty intuitive to boot, that suicide with a gun is more effective. If you own a gun, and you use it to kill yourself, you are more likely to succeed that if you don't own a gun and use another method. One of the reasons I don't have a gun is because my wife is prone to clinical depression, and she knows for a fact if she had owned a gun she would be dead by now. That's what she told me, not my evaluation of her. The statsitics bare that out. Gun sucides have a much higher success rate. Luckily, she's wise enough to understand that access to a quick and effective means of suicide means she'd be more likely to have commited suicide and succeded at it.

Gun Survays
My point was to say they are self-reported, and I backed that up. They are self-reported.

My issue with that is that people will over-report how often and how necessary the use of the gun was and in what situation. If you came to me and said... "Owning a gun it makes it more likely I won't have my wallet stolen." Id agrees that is probably true, though only to a small degree. If you said, "Owning a gun better lets me defend my home against burglars." I'd probably agree with that too. But if you say "Owning a gun makes me and my family safer from being killed." I'd tell you you are wrong. The risk of suicide and fratricide offsets the protection agsint murder by someone outside the home.

The issue of using a gun in defense of a crime, only speaks to that last statement a small bit, because most crimes are not homicide. Most of them are property crimes. Most gun deaths are suicides. It's a numbers game here. The more prone you are to suicide, the more likely the gun is going to be your own demise rather than to kill someone else. And the less cautious you are about gun safety, the more likely it will kill a family member on accident rather than be used to defend them.

So if your goal is to have a gun to intimidate burglars, it might make some sense. If it is there to keep you and your family from harm, you are quite possibly making an error in judgement.

Will a gun help you in a fight?
Yes, I think it probably would. You are better off trying to avoid a fight, but if you are in one, having a gun may well be helpful. For me, the extra help (which I don't much need both because I am both freindly and intimidating) is far less important than my wife not shooting herself or me being a doofus with a gun and putting a hole in something important by accident.

The NRA
They are not all bad, not even mostly bad, but they do get flack any time they do anything even remotely in support of restrictions on gun ownership and gun types from their more radical base. So if they want to keep their membership, they mostly have to tow a line of hard core anti-gun legislation. The Cruiz Ammendment isn't a restriction on gun ownership, so of course the NRA is fine with it.

As for French's proposal, the NRA has pretty consistently opposed GVRO legislation in nearly all the states where it was proposed. They say they are for the policy, but they have a long laundry list of requirements for then to support it so they almost alwyas come up with an excuse to oppose them. The states that have enacted these laws are, not shockingly, the left coast of WA OR and CA. (Also FL, recently) So to say that liberals don't embrase this kind of legislation is wrong, and to say the NRA supports it is rather IFFY since they've opposed them on far more occasions than they supported them.

The NRA has a goal, protect gun rights and they pursue that doggedly. I wouldn't expect different. But I think their suggestion that we can work together for legislation is mostly a dodge. They are only interested in legislation that targets established criminals and leaves other gun owners alone. Understandable, but not at all what the left is after.

Two Worlds
At the core here there are two competing views of how you deal with violence and crime.

The right wing vision is that good individual citizens are armed and ready to shoot down evil doers who threaten them, or anyone else.

The left wing vision is that we hire trained professionals to come and deal with the evil dooers for us so we can live a peaceful life.

We all wish we could just live in a world without criminals and violence. Sadly, that isn't happening.

King for a day
Always harder to construct than critique!
Note: I'm king, so to hell with the limits of federal powers for me!

I'm going to order all law enforcement agencies in the country to use a common database for crime and incident reporting. I want top computer science and law enforcemnt people working on this so it is both good helpful data, but not an excessive burden to maintain. Also, flexible enough to adapt to changing data and law enforcement needs over time. All the data is accessible to the public, except perp/suspect personal identification of non-convicted persons.

National citisen registration and identification for everybody. Sorry kids, you are all going into the database! Deaths, births, name changes, state of residence etc... all need to get reported by local officials to keep the database up to date.

Weapons get classificiations, much like drugs do now.
A: Military only weapons
B: Restricted weapons - Require special processes and restrictions to own. These are weapons not ideal for self defense, hunting, or sport shooting and intended for combat situations and scenarios. Full auto rifles, armor penetrting ammunition etc... A panel, including crime, public safety, weapons, and military experts are tasked with the classifications.
C: Registered weapons - Weapons that are considered deadly and designed for self defense, hunting, target shooting, etc...
D: unregistered weapons - Weapons that pose a low risk of lethality and are unregulated as a result.

A and B are pretty much already around today, though B is likely broadened somewhat. These weapons require a legitimate purpose be established, are unlawful outside of that purpose, and have specialized storage and management requirements to ensure they stay in legal hands (so probably a yearly report that said weapon is still stored in said location by said owner).

C would cover all handguns and other firearms not included in B, provided they are realistically lethal. (so most pellet guns would probably be in the D category for instance). All C class weapons need a unique serial number. They must be registered in a federal database. Any change of ownership must be reported. They require a license to own, and another license to carry in public. These licenses have training requirements. That training includes legal instruction, safety instruction, storage instruction, warnings about suicide risks, and a competency exam that includes safe opperation of the weapon. Basically, very close to what we do with cars, but with a bit more emphasis on training in law and safety. Knives beyond a certain size, including swords would probably also be covered in this law thogh with different training. Background checks would also be part of this licensing. Kids can get a training permit that allows them to use firearms in the presense of someone who has a license but not to own one themselves or have it unsupervised. Licenses can be revoked or suspended for various reasons including violent criminal history, mental illness knownt to be a risk of violence, violation of firearms laws, known membership in a criminal orginization, domestic violence, stalking, violent threats, and the like as appropriate. Taxes on such weapons pay for the registration programs. The training is paid for by those purchasing the weapons, though subsidies are available for low income people.

Also, I'm going to do something about police unions and the current state of police training that seems to have created police prone to a "when in doubt, shoot" mentality. Unarmed or responsible armed citizens should not be afraid of being gunned down by the police. Only police that can show a calm demeanor and a willingness to self sacrifice for the public should be entrusted to wield deadly force against civilians.

[Squatch347]

The argument between assault weapons and 9-mils and all that jazz is something of a dead end for gun rights folks.

I think it is somewhat the opposite, it is a lot like the budget debate. Decreasing the size of the budget polls really well in the US. But when you offer a specific cut, those cuts poll really, really poorly. As a commentator recently said, polling for gun control is a mile wide and an inch deep. Specific bans on actual weapons don't usually poll very well. Vague terms about "the most dangerous weapons" do generally poll well, very specific policies a la the semi-automatic bans not quite so well. Even more so if you limit that pool to likely voters I think.

But none of it really gets to the root motivation. People want to limit access to potential tools of mass murder so they are trying to identify which tools are most effective.

I don't think you meant it this way, but this is exactly the counter point I think. Gun control advocates are often (not always) positioning themselves on a platform of fear of an object. The Google shooter lived in a ridiculously controlled state, and she chose the weapon available to her. That tends to be the response to the "scary weapon" concern is that you can ban AR-15s sure, our murder rate was higher when they were banned than it is now.

The underlying psychology of the murderer is what matters, not the mechanism. AR15s are somewhat popular with mass shooters (not as much as I think people commonly think) because mass shooters intentionally emulate earlier mass shooters. This is another good reason for the European style ethics change in media imo. If mass killers started using cars, you would see an uptick of that in mass killings (and I think we did). If it was bombs, then that would be the primary weapon.

If we really want to address these incidents from a systematic point of view, we need to understand the underlying motivation of the killer rather than ignoring it and focusing on what frightens people who have almost exclusively chosen not to kill a lot of people.

Honestly, it mostly argues that other trends are a stronger impact.

100% agree, I think if there is an effect related to guns and suicide it is drown out in more relevant social and personal factors. I honestly don't have a strong grasp of what those factors are (assuming someone does), but they seem like the relevant ones to pursue if these deaths are something we are aiming at reducing.

The statsitics bare that out. Gun sucides have a much higher success rate.

Like most statistics we need to be careful to note what we are actually measuring. We are measuring, almost exclusively: "those who choose to use a firearm are more often successful than those who choose to use another method."

There is a lot of good evidence showing that other methods of suicide (non-firearm) are chosen when the individual isn't attempting it with fatal attempt (I'm trying to be sensitive with the wording here). IE people who are conducting the act for other psychological reasons, including calls for help or "dry runs" are far more likely to pick a non-firearm method.

If we look at places where firearm access, ie that choice of which weapon can be used has been severly curtailed, like the UK and Australia (though I'm somewhat skeptical of the last one), we see that the actual rate of people dying doesn't really change. Let's stick with the UK since their program was far more expansive. In the UK we see that actual deaths are on a downward path until the 97 gun ban, then in 98 more people die from suicide (I would assume this is unrelated), and then it continues on decreasing at roughly the same rate as before.

I think it is hard to argue that the gun really makes you more likely to be "successful" committing suicide given that data, but rather that disparity is a form of selection bias and we see that when removed from the equation people are generally just as successful with other means.

My issue with that is that people will over-report how often and how necessary the use of the gun was and in what situation...But if you say "Owning a gun makes me and my family safer from being killed." I'd tell you you are wrong. The risk of suicide and fratricide offsets the protection agsint murder by someone outside the home.

But this isn't just some random pew survey. It is a survey conducted and then validated against. It isn't as if the half dozen or so PhDs involved, and the peers reviewing it just took raw data, they account for over-reporting in the estimates and bounce that against independent data and questioning.

The use of suicide also seems a bit of a red herring. Those who commit suicide weren't driven to it by the fact they had a gun, they were affected by whatever underlying psychological issue actually caused the suicide. We can argue about success rates, but even if a gun causes you to be more successful, it is a tiny percentage of actual suicides. If you were to magically remove guns from every American we wouldn't see suicides drop by 22,000, we would (at most) see a drop of about 200. The disparate rates of success in the US just aren't that big to really affect the final results.

Same thing with fratricide, it really isn't that large of an issue. We are talking something like 450 people a year.

So the number you are comparing defensive gun use with is about 600-1000 by any reasonable estimate.

The best estimates for just justifiable homicides are in the 1500-3000 range.

And, of course, that doesn't include the deaths that didn't happen because a firearm was invoked. We know that criminals specifically discriminate which houses to enter to avoid running across an armed resident, for example.

The data just doesn't bear out that the number of lives lost specifically because a firearm was involved is anything near the number of lives saved because a firearm was involved.

For me, the extra help (which I don't much need both because I am both freindly and intimidating) is far less important than my wife not shooting herself

I think you raise a valid point about your situation. I definitely am not meaning to argue that everyone should have a gun by any stretch. There are absolutely circumstances where someone shouldn't have one. Yours is a great example of that, and I'm really glad you are aware of that risk and able to manage it.

or me being a doofus with a gun and putting a hole in something important by accident.

I'm curious, have you seen this happen? I wonder if this is somewhat of a familiarity issue. I've been around guns for decades, I go shooting about once a month, I spent two years carrying a loaded weapon every day including the relatively high risk "unloading" process the military stupidly uses. Overall, I would probably put my experience in the top 1-3% of Americans with how often and how much I've been around people holding guns. I've seen, maybe, three accidental discharges. I've never had one, none of my soldiers has ever had one, none of my friends has ever had one.

This isn't to say that they don't ever happen of course, but I think they are incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that I know that CID units in police departments treat a claim of AD as cover up until proven otherwise.

The Cruiz Ammendment isn't a restriction on gun ownership, so of course the NRA is fine with it...They are only interested in legislation that targets established criminals and leaves other gun owners alone. Understandable, but not at all what the left is after.

This is a very interesting distinction. You are correct that it doesn't limit legal gun ownership (well really, it actually does a bit) by making a class or group of people/weapons illegal. It does directly affect whether someone can get a hold of a firearm, which would seem to be the more important goal.

I think your last two quoted sentences are the real block behind any discussion of changes in law. Those who support gun ownership rights simply don't trust those in the gun control movement. They, I think justifiably, think that it is all part of a slipery slope move to remove all firearms.

It really is hard to have a reasonable conversation when one side thinks the other has disengenous motives. This level of fear is hightened when initial proposals are blocked by liberals.

Look at it from the gun owner's point of view. The Cruz Amendment is put forward. Regarldess of what we all think should be the final state of gun rights in the US (full confiscate to full ownership), this Amendment should be, in theory, supported. Liberals consistently fillibuster it.

From our point of view, even if liberals want more, why fillibuster a legitimate fix we know will save lives? It becomes too easy to caricature the left after that as being callaously after legal gun owners for no reason.

It also makes gun owners reluctant to listen to anything that is put forward because trust is gone.

I'm sure the process works the same way in reverse. I'm sure they saw gun owners' concerns about Pelosi's bill as overwrought and paranoid (though it was a spectacularly poorly written bill), leading them not to trust gun rights advocates.

Regardless, we aren't going to have conversation if both sides are for sure, going for broke every single time. Especially if either side (or both) is going for broke on issues unrelated to the underlying tragedy.

I'm going to order all law enforcement agencies in the country to use a common database for crime and incident reporting.

It was the first attempts at this that led to the real understanding that serial killers exist. I like the idea.

National citisen registration and identification for everybody.

Can we use it for voting? ;-)

A and B are pretty much already around today, though B is likely broadened somewhat.

Yeah, I think we have essentially this system now as you point out (we call B Class III firearms for example). The biggest difference I think is your reasoning for B. And I think that that just comes down to our very different views of why the 2A exists. Well, more accurately, I think our different views on what it should be about, I think we are more or less on the same page about what it is meant to do.

Registered weapons - Weapons that are considered deadly and designed for self defense, hunting, target shooting, etc...

I'm curious, how would you respond to people, like me, who are concerned that any national registration system has been, historically, step 1 of confiscation? [Aside of course, from the royal dictat of letting us eat cake ;-)]

Basically, very close to what we do with cars,

Though we don't license car ownership, just operation on public property.

Background checks would also be part of this licensing. Kids can get a training permit that allows them to use firearms in the presense of someone who has a license but not to own one themselves or have it unsupervised. Licenses can be revoked or suspended for various reasons including violent criminal history, mental illness knownt to be a risk of violence, violation of firearms laws, known membership in a criminal orginization, domestic violence, stalking, violent threats, and the like as appropriate.

I think it is interesting just how much of this already exists. That is my, annecdotal, experience on a lot of these that a lot of what is proposed is generally already on the books. There are, of course, some small differences, but gun ownership already involves a background check in essentially all cases (every firearm I have minus an inherited one, which is hard to really enforce legally involved a background check, I've also never met someone who legally purchased a weapon without a background check and for good reason, who wants the cops showing up because you were the last person to get checked on it?)

Kids can't own guns now, though they are allowed obviously to shoot them, and the parental license would be new. I'm not sure what real level of difference it would make, these kinds of deaths are ridiculously rare and generally involve someone who probably would pass the checks described.

Removal of the right to own a firearm also currently covers essentially every one of the categories you mentioned. The Lautenberg Amendment covers domestic violence, stalking, violation of firearm laws, etc. Obviously felonies and violent threats can be prosecuted now and result in a suspension of firearm ownership.

The mental illness thing is slightly different. Obviously if a licensed professional currently signs an afadavit saying you are a danger to yourself and others police can detain you and confiscate your weapons until you are legally adjudicated. This change makes me the most nervous as I think you see it as a bit more expansive. When I see papers written arguing that being a libertarian is a mental disorder (seriously not kidding, there are not a small amount of papers on the topic) I get nervous entrusting my rights to someone who could be acting out of their own world view rather than professional knowledge.

This could be included, but how conditions get added would need to have some significant oversite and be hard to change. We would also need ridiculously high liability on those who are entrusted with making those calls.

---

I don't think I saw anything in there that really dealt with the vast bulk of homicides. How would your proposal handle the large number of innercity killings each year?

[SharmaK]

I am curious to know where people on this forum stand on the current controversy of guns. As far as I can see, there is a large group of people who are trying to ban the ownership of a specific gun: The AR-15.

I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings. They will still occur because the people who are intent on killing others will find other ways to do so. Making laws for people who don't follow laws is idiotic. It makes no sense at all. I believe if you ban the AR-15, these disturbed individuals will find other methods to commit mass murder because they are disturbed and they wish to take life (for whatever the reason). I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I do worry about what will be banned after the AR-15. What is to stop the rest of the firearms from being banned for "safety reasons"? After that, how many other constitutional rights will we revoke?

I mention this slippery slope argument not to pick a fight with anyone but because I am genuinely worried about it. How does everyone feel about this?

You've answered your own question though: the killers will find other ways and we restrict those too. Just because we can't prevent all deaths we shouldn't even try is not a good way to view things. With background checks, age limits, and removing certain weapons from circulation, then it will be that much harder to kill en masse. Perhaps if the potential killer reloads more often or has to carry additional weapons, clips or ammo, it'll be harder for them to kill as quickly; perhaps that pause in killing might allow someone to overcome the killer.

You're right about the constitutional rights but since when does the constitutional right to do something overcome everyone else's constitutional rights to live a good life? And if it comes to the 2nd amendment being revoked then so be it - perhaps that's what we need. It's not as if the original intent of the 2nd amendment makes sense any more: what person or group of people can fight a bomb dropped on them (if it came to that)? Should people also be allowed to own tanks and have their own air force and anti-air missiles?

[evensaul]

You've answered your own question though: the killers will find other ways and we restrict those too.

So I'm curious how far you'd take that.

In London, murders by knife have increased so dramatically that London has a higher murder rate than New York. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/525126...deaths-latest/

The mayor of London has called for a crackdown on the carrying of knives (illegal above 3" in length), saying "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rol/500328002/

Would you make carrying knives illegal in the US also?

What about pointed sticks?

[SharmaK]

So I'm curious how far you'd take that.

In London, murders by knife have increased so dramatically that London has a higher murder rate than New York. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/525126...deaths-latest/

The mayor of London has called for a crackdown on the carrying of knives (illegal above 3" in length), saying "No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife," Khan tweeted. "Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rol/500328002/

Would you make carrying knives illegal in the US also?

What about pointed sticks?

It is already illegal to carry certain knives in the US: http://www.knifeup.com/knife-laws/. And when pointed sticks become a problem then they too will be made illegal. There are very few real reasons why anyone needs to carry any kind of weapon.

Even if they do, and let's say everyone does, then that just escalates the weaponry or tactics that a determined killer will use. Look at what happened in Vegas - the killer found the perfect location and a lot of people to kill in a short period of time.

We should be glad that in London that knives were used and not guns right? Isn't the counterargument that determined people will find guns anyway? Well, these people didn't - so that's an argument that gun control actually worked, right?

[mican333]

And when pointed sticks become a problem then they too will be made illegal. There are very few real reasons why anyone needs to carry any kind of weapon.

I'd say defending oneself is a good reason to carry a weapon. I personally never carry a weapon for self-defense because I live in an area that I feel very safe in. But if I lived in a dangerous area, I absolutely think I would have a good reason to be armed to defend myself.

And if someone tells me that I can't defend myself, then are they going to take responsibility for defending me and pay some kind of penalty if I do get harmed by an attacker because they failed to protect me? If not, then they have no moral basis to deny me the right to defend myself.

Even if they do, and let's say everyone does, then that just escalates the weaponry or tactics that a determined killer will use. Look at what happened in Vegas - the killer found the perfect location and a lot of people to kill in a short period of time.

But that doesn't change the fact that people should be able to defend themselves if they are in danger. A unique scenario where a psycho was able to situate himself in a position where he's well protected and kills a bunch of people doesn't change that.

We should be glad that in London that knives were used and not guns right? Isn't the counterargument that determined people will find guns anyway? Well, these people didn't - so that's an argument that gun control actually worked, right?

Not really. In a place where guns have always been outlawed and the population generally accepts it, it's feasible to keep people from illegally buying guns. Such a thing cannot happen in the US.

[SharmaK]

I'd say defending oneself is a good reason to carry a weapon. I personally never carry a weapon for self-defense because I live in an area that I feel very safe in. But if I lived in a dangerous area, I absolutely think I would have a good reason to be armed to defend myself.

And if someone tells me that I can't defend myself, then are they going to take responsibility for defending me and pay some kind of penalty if I do get harmed by an attacker because they failed to protect me? If not, then they have no moral basis to deny me the right to defend myself.

Yes, there are penalties when people are attacked. And you can defend yourself, just do so with weapons that are permitted. There’s no reason why you need to carry around machete or a AR-15 in order to do so.

But that doesn't change the fact that people should be able to defend themselves if they are in danger. A unique scenario where a psycho was able to situate himself in a position where he's well protected and kills a bunch of people doesn't change that.

The situation where you really need to do so are so rare and far between that I doubt you’d really be walking around with weaponry. Besides, if you were really worried then you’re fully allowed to wear armor and totally allowed to avoid high crime areas.

Not really. In a place where guns have always been outlawed and the population generally accepts it, it's feasible to keep people from illegally buying guns. Such a thing cannot happen in the US.

Sure it can happen. The 2nd amendment can be overturned and should be considering how irrelevant it is to modern life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[mican333]

Yes, there are penalties when people are attacked. And you can defend yourself, just do so with weapons that are permitted. There’s no reason why you need to carry around machete or a AR-15 in order to do so.

Since one can defend themselves with either of those weapons, there would be a reason to carry them around for self-defense. If you mean that there are more effective options for self-defense, I would say a pistol is probably better than an AR-15 since it's more maneuverable.

So if the goal is self-defense while out on the street in a dangerous area, there is a reason to carry a pistol.

The situation where you really need to do so are so rare and far between that I doubt you’d really be walking around with weaponry. Besides, if you were really worried then you’re fully allowed to wear armor and totally allowed to avoid high crime areas.

But "allowed" is not the same as "able to". Many people live in high crime areas and since they are almost certainly very poor, they are not able to move away from the area and therefore cannot avoid it. Such people should be allowed and ABLE to defend themselves which means that if they want to carry a gun, they should be allowed to, especially when there are bad guys out there who carry guns (they wouldn't obey laws against carry guns).

Sure it can happen. The 2nd amendment can be overturned and should be considering how irrelevant it is to modern life.

That would not stop illegal gun sales in a state where guns are already plentiful and many people would not accept their right to bear arms being voided.

And I don't see how the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to modern life. We certainly have not entered an era where it's no longer theoretically necessary to defend our nation's liberty.

And setting the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment aside, don't you think that individuals have the right to own a gun to defend their own lives and the lives of their families? If someone breaks into someone's house with the intent of killing the occupant, doesn't the occupant have the right to own an effective weapon (like a pistol) to defend himself?

[SharmaK]

Since one can defend themselves with either of those weapons, there would be a reason to carry them around for self-defense. If you mean that there are more effective options for self-defense, I would say a pistol is probably better than an AR-15 since it's more maneuverable.

So if the goal is self-defense while out on the street in a dangerous area, there is a reason to carry a pistol.

Sure, but then you’re escalating the available weaponry to society. In the US, it would be reasonable to carry a pistol if one is trained and licensed. I just don’t see the point of having a gun fight even in those situations given what else could go wrong. If you’re being robbed then give them your stuff and move on.

But "allowed" is not the same as "able to". Many people live in high crime areas and since they are almost certainly very poor, they are not able to move away from the area and therefore cannot avoid it. Such people should be allowed and ABLE to defend themselves which means that if they want to carry a gun, they should be allowed to, especially when there are bad guys out there who carry guns (they wouldn't obey laws against carry guns).

In the US, they are already allowed but you still see crime. Besides, in those situations you are referring to, I doubt they can afford a gun anyway so your point is moot.

That would not stop illegal gun sales in a state where guns are already plentiful and many people would not accept their right to bear arms being voided.

And I don't see how the 2nd amendment is irrelevant to modern life. We certainly have not entered an era where it's no longer theoretically necessary to defend our nation's liberty.

The 2nd amendment has to first be eroded to the point it is irrelevant. Then we can dispense with it. I certainly think an actual army is better for defending the nation’s liberty than a bunch of untrained civilians.

And setting the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment aside, don't you think that individuals have the right to own a gun to defend their own lives and the lives of their families? If someone breaks into someone's house with the intent of killing the occupant, doesn't the occupant have the right to own an effective weapon (like a pistol) to defend himself?

If the killer knew or suspected a gun then they’ll figure out some other way or even just shoot through the door or window.
It’s hardly worth all the troubles we have now for a tiny minority of home break ins.

[MindTrap028]

@Mican and Sharmak..
A lot of talk about "allowing" and what not. I just want to point out that, that is not how this country is built. The gov is not in a position to pass out rights, as it sees fit to "allow".
In regards to gun rights, even if they were not specifically protected by the const, it would still be the case that the gov must offer a compelling reason to the people for which to REMOVE existing rights.

The assumption is that you have a right to anything and everything until it is removed by the gov(short of directly violating another persons rights). Not that it doesn't exist and you can't do anything until the gov decides to "allow" it.

[SharmaK]

@Mican and Sharmak..
A lot of talk about "allowing" and what not. I just want to point out that, that is not how this country is built. The gov is not in a position to pass out rights, as it sees fit to "allow".
In regards to gun rights, even if they were not specifically protected by the const, it would still be the case that the gov must offer a compelling reason to the people for which to REMOVE existing rights.

The assumption is that you have a right to anything and everything until it is removed by the gov(short of directly violating another persons rights). Not that it doesn't exist and you can't do anything until the gov decides to "allow" it.

The Constitution doesn’t talk about gun rights at all. It talks about arms, which could mean anything from a gun to a bomb. And you agree that having bombs are a bad idea, right? Or tanks or fighter planes, right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[mican333]

Sure, but then you’re escalating the available weaponry to society. In the US, it would be reasonable to carry a pistol if one is trained and licensed. I just don’t see the point of having a gun fight even in those situations given what else could go wrong. If you’re being robbed then give them your stuff and move on.

I'm referring to defending one's life, not defending one's wallet. I'm saying that person has the right to protect his own life and in many situations, having a weapon will be of help - especially if you have a better weapon than the person who is trying to harm you. If he comes at your with a knife and you pull a gun, odds are you aren't getting stabbed. You don't even have to shoot the guy because he's probably going to change him mind about trying to stab you when he sees your gun.

So again, if one wants to protect himself in a dangerous area, then he has a good reason to carry a gun.

In the US, they are already allowed but you still see crime.

I didn't say otherwise so you have not rebutted my argument.

Besides, in those situations you are referring to, I doubt they can afford a gun anyway so your point is moot.

And I doubt that you are correct about that so you will need to support that statement before I will accept it.

The 2nd amendment has to first be eroded to the point it is irrelevant. Then we can dispense with it. I certainly think an actual army is better for defending the nation’s liberty than a bunch of untrained civilians.

It's not an either-or situation. And if you are going to argue that 100s of millions of armed civilians fighting to preserve their own land and liberty is completely irrelevant to any potential armed conflict, you will need to support that.

If the killer knew or suspected a gun then they’ll figure out some other way or even just shoot through the door or window.

Or maybe they don't know the occupant is armed. Maybe they can't get a shot through the window. Maybe they don't want to be seen shooting at a house from the outside and therefore decide they need to get in the house first. Maybe they miss with their first shot. There are many, many ways that such a scenario can play out so the notion that attempting to defend oneself in such a situation is a futile effort does not hold up. But you haven't really answered the question.

If someone breaks into one's house with the intent of killing them, does the occupant have the right to own an effective weapon to defend himself?

I say he does and if you are going to argue otherwise, then you have to take the position that the occupant does not have the right to defend himself in such a manner.

---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 PM ----------

@Mican and Sharmak..
A lot of talk about "allowing" and what not. I just want to point out that, that is not how this country is built. The gov is not in a position to pass out rights, as it sees fit to "allow".
In regards to gun rights, even if they were not specifically protected by the const, it would still be the case that the gov must offer a compelling reason to the people for which to REMOVE existing rights.

Pretty much correct. The 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms. It recognizes that such a thing exists and says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon. It doesn't tell the people what they can do. It tells the government what it can't do. The same goes for the rest of the bill of rights.

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:38 PM ----------

The Constitution doesn’t talk about gun rights at all. It talks about arms, which could mean anything from a gun to a bomb. And you agree that having bombs are a bad idea, right? Or tanks or fighter planes, right?

The second amendment clearly refers to the "right to bear arms" so it does talk about gun rights. And there is a definition of "arms" and a bomb does not qualify (it's ordnance).

[SharmaK]

I'm referring to defending one's life, not defending one's wallet. I'm saying that person has the right to protect his own life and in many situations, having a weapon will be of help - especially if you have a better weapon than the person who is trying to harm you. If he comes at your with a knife and you pull a gun, odds are you aren't getting stabbed. You don't even have to shoot the guy because he's probably going to change him mind about trying to stab you when he sees your gun.

So again, if one wants to protect himself in a dangerous area, then he has a good reason to carry a gun.

And then you are sure that you’re OK with potentially killing someone? Or are you trained well enough that someone wouldn’t be able to take the gun from you and turn it on you? Or are you trained in shooting under stress that you won’t miss?

Seems to me that having a gun isn’t really worth the extra trouble in order to protect yourself from some corner case scenario.

I didn't say otherwise so you have not rebutted my argument.

I’m just pointing out that guns don’t help prevent crime. It certainly isn’t a deterrent and it doesn’t help anyone other than for the fictional scenarios that you’re pointing out.

And I doubt that you are correct about that so you will need to support that statement before I will accept it.

You pointed out poor people that can’t afford to move. Yet somehow they can afford a gun, bullets, licensing and training? Doesn’t seem realistic to me.

It's not an either-or situation. And if you are going to argue that 100s of millions of armed civilians fighting to preserve their own land and liberty is completely irrelevant to any potential armed conflict, you will need to support that.

From which fictional country would this attack be coming from? And an army that would somehow be able to bypass our own army? I don’t think your scenario makes any sense at all. You’re the one that needs to support that it’s a realistic one.

I say he does and if you are going to argue otherwise, then you have to take the position that the occupant does not have the right to defend himself in such a manner.

I would argue my escalation point. If someone broke in you can stab him with a knife. No need for guns

Pretty much correct. The 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms. It recognizes that such a thing exists and says that the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon. It doesn't tell the people what they can do. It tells the government what it can't do. The same goes for the rest of the bill of rights.

So you’re OK with bombs and sarin gas or tanks or mines? Or do you understand that there has to be limits as to what weaponry should be available to the general public? And if so, then you already agree that the government can indeed limit what they can do. In which case, they can ban guns.

The second amendment clearly refers to the "right to bear arms" so it does talk about gun rights. And there is a definition of "arms" and a bomb does not qualify (it's ordnance).

Please show this definition.

[mican333]

And then you are sure that you’re OK with potentially killing someone? Or are you trained well enough that someone wouldn’t be able to take the gun from you and turn it on you? Or are you trained in shooting under stress that you won’t miss?

Seems to me that having a gun isn’t really worth the extra trouble in order to protect yourself from some corner case scenario.

"Seems to me" is not a valid basis for an argument.

If you are going to argue that a gun is not useful for self-defense, you will need to support that with more than just asking me if I'm sure I could effectively defend myself if I needed to.

I’m just pointing out that guns don’t help prevent crime. It certainly isn’t a deterrent and it doesn’t help anyone other than for the fictional scenarios that you’re pointing out.

When you support this assertion, I will concern myself with rebutting it. Until the, it is ignored as unsupported.

And I guarantee you that I can forward numerous instances of people defending themselves with guns. The internet has lots of these stories. But again, I'm not going to bother to counter your argument until it is supported.

You pointed out poor people that can’t afford to move. Yet somehow they can afford a gun, bullets, licensing and training? Doesn’t seem realistic to me.

One does not need licensing and training to own a gun.

And I guarantee you that buying a gun and ammo is cheaper than moving to a better neighborhood. I'm pretty sure one can get a gun for a few hundred dollars.

From which fictional country would this attack be coming from? And an army that would somehow be able to bypass our own army? I don’t think your scenario makes any sense at all. You’re the one that needs to support that it’s a realistic one.

No, it's your argument that the second amendment is outdated so it's your burden to support that there is no way that we will ever have a situation when the citizenry will need to be armed to defend their life and liberty.

Asking me to support that such a situation could occur is shifting the burden.

I would argue my escalation point. If someone broke in you can stab him with a knife. No need for guns

That argument seems to assume that knife is just as effective as a gun. You will need to support that assertion if you are going to argue that I wouldn't need a gun if I have a knife.

So you’re OK with bombs and sarin gas or tanks or mines? Or do you understand that there has to be limits as to what weaponry should be available to the general public? And if so, then you already agree that the government can indeed limit what they can do. In which case, they can ban guns.

A no-compromise interpretation of the second amendment would would hold that there can be no limits, although it's debatable if bombs and gas are technically arms (they definitely are not firearms). But even if one agrees to "reasonable compromise" on the right to keep and bear arms, the notion that the government can ban any and all arms that they want without adequate rationale flies directly in the face of the bill of rights. Again, the bill of rights does not tell the citizens what it can do but tells the government what it can't do so assuming we agree with keeping the bill of rights as it is, we cannot be for the government's unilateral ability to ban whatever arm it wants just like we can agree that the government can ban yelling fire in the crowded theater but must in general respect a citizen's right to free speech.

So if you want argue for the government being able to ban whatever weapon it wants, including one of the most basic and ubiquitous weapons that people currently have, you should be arguing for rescinding the second amendment, not arguing that the 2nd amendment allows the government to ban whatever arms it wants.

[evensaul]

And when pointed sticks become a problem then they too will be made illegal. There are very few real reasons why anyone needs to carry any kind of weapon.

Okay, I infer that you believe there is not, or should not be, any right to carry something that could be used as a weapon. Is that correct?

Others would argue that if citizens are completely disarmed, then they have zero ability to resist a government that becomes extremely oppressive. If a group in power decides to suspend all personal liberties and shoots any protesters, what chance would the people have to regain their rights without arms? Isn't that a valid concern?

Even if they do, and let's say everyone does, then that just escalates the weaponry or tactics that a determined killer will use. Look at what happened in Vegas - the killer found the perfect location and a lot of people to kill in a short period of time.

So if gun control (or knife control) is not going to stop murderers from killing people, then what good is it to pass laws limiting the use of certain guns or knives?

We should be glad that in London that knives were used and not guns right? Isn't the counterargument that determined people will find guns anyway? Well, these people didn't - so that's an argument that gun control actually worked, right?

We should be glad that people were murdered with knives instead of handguns? How so? Is it somehow better to be killed by knife instead of by handgun? Murdered is murdered, regardless of the weapon, so your statement seems irrational.

Taking the elimination of guns -> knives -> pointed sticks one step further, should training in martial arts be illegal, so that no one can use such training to attack others?

[SharmaK]

"Seems to me" is not a valid basis for an argument.

If you are going to argue that a gun is not useful for self-defense, you will need to support that with more than just asking me if I'm sure I could effectively defend myself if I needed to.

That's not my argument - my argument is that a gun is overkill for 99.999% of your life.

I’m not arguing it’s not “useful” so long as you’re calm and trained and don’t drop the gun or have it taken from your or have it jam or otherwise get in a worse situation *because* you have a gun.

When you support this assertion, I will concern myself with rebutting it. Until the, it is ignored as unsupported.

And I guarantee you that I can forward numerous instances of people defending themselves with guns. The internet has lots of these stories. But again, I'm not going to bother to counter your argument until it is supported.

Sure, out of the millions of different interactions in the world daily, there are a relative handful where people find having a gun is a useful thing. But these are such rare occurrences that I question as to whether it is worth the trouble.

There are stories because it is so extremely rare and that’s why they are out there. But even there, how many of those stories cover the situation you have been describing where you’re walking in a “bad” neighborhood you could easily avoid going to.

One does not need licensing and training to own a gun.

And I guarantee you that buying a gun and ammo is cheaper than moving to a better neighborhood. I'm pretty sure one can get a gun for a few hundred dollars.

I would think that if you're too poor to move out then you're not really going to have much to steal in the first place. So what's the point?

No, it's your argument that the second amendment is outdated so it's your burden to support that there is no way that we will ever have a situation when the citizenry will need to be armed to defend their life and liberty.

Asking me to support that such a situation could occur is shifting the burden.

Actually, it on the burden on whoever supports an armed citizenry per the constitution to justify it.

That argument seems to assume that knife is just as effective as a gun. You will need to support that assertion if you are going to argue that I wouldn't need a gun if I have a knife.

You missed my point that if there were no guns then knives would be the main weapon - e.g. in the UK.

A no-compromise interpretation of the second amendment would would hold that there can be no limits, although it's debatable if bombs and gas are technically arms (they definitely are not firearms). But even if one agrees to "reasonable compromise" on the right to keep and bear arms, the notion that the government can ban any and all arms that they want without adequate rationale flies directly in the face of the bill of rights. Again, the bill of rights does not tell the citizens what it can do but tells the government what it can't do so assuming we agree with keeping the bill of rights as it is, we cannot be for the government's unilateral ability to ban whatever arm it wants just like we can agree that the government can ban yelling fire in the crowded theater but must in general respect a citizen's right to free speech.

So if you want argue for the government being able to ban whatever weapon it wants, including one of the most basic and ubiquitous weapons that people currently have, you should be arguing for rescinding the second amendment, not arguing that the 2nd amendment allows the government to ban whatever arms it wants.

I think both are valid paths:

1. While we still have the 2nd amendment, the government (i.e. those elected by the people), can ban whatever arms it wants.
2. Meanwhile, work should be done to repeal the 2nd amendment, since it's pretty clear that a well regulated militia isn't what you have been arguing: you're talking about having weapons for personal self-defense (in bad neighborhoods, or whatever). Either way, it is up to the people to repeal whatever they want so long as we can get a majority of the country to decide to do so.

---------- Post added at 10:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Okay, I infer that you believe there is not, or should not be, any right to carry something that could be used as a weapon. Is that correct?

No, I don't see that there needs to be the right to carry firearms or machine guns, or bombs or sarin gas. Or even certain knives.

Others would argue that if citizens are completely disarmed, then they have zero ability to resist a government that becomes extremely oppressive. If a group in power decides to suspend all personal liberties and shoots any protesters, what chance would the people have to regain their rights without arms? Isn't that a valid concern?

I don't think this is a valid concern for two reasons. Firstly, it will be impossible to pull off such an oppressive government because we can just vote out the people we don't like. And secondly, if the government somehow wanted to oppress people, a few armed citizens aren't going to be able to do much against bombs and tanks that they'd have to deploy.

So if gun control (or knife control) is not going to stop murderers from killing people, then what good is it to pass laws limiting the use of certain guns or knives?

Gun control doesn't stop murderers but it does limit the weaponry they'd have access to. Otherwise why ban anything? Just allow anyone to make any kind of bomb or poison they wish? That's not realistic - we already know that Americans in the past, with easy access to bomb ingredients can and will make them. And now we have potential terrorists doing the same. So limiting weaponry and controlling access to raw materials is a very good thing.

We should be glad that people were murdered with knives instead of handguns? How so? Is it somehow better to be killed by knife instead of by handgun? Murdered is murdered, regardless of the weapon, so your statement seems irrational.

With a knife there's more of a chance of someone being able to fend them off or better still run away. Surely you agree that a gun can kill more people than a knife, right?

Taking the elimination of guns -> knives -> pointed sticks one step further, should training in martial arts be illegal, so that no one can use such training to attack others?

I'd argue that martial arts should be mandatory - at least people are trained to avoid fights as much as possible and to only fight when absolutely necessary.

[mican333]

That's not my argument - my argument is that a gun is overkill for 99.999% of your life.

If you mean that for most, if not all, of your life you will have no need to defend your life, I agree.

But that does not rebut my argument that one should be able to defend one's life if it becomes necessary and therefore one should be allowed to own a gun for that purpose.

I’m not arguing it’s not “useful” so long as you’re calm and trained and don’t drop the gun or have it taken from your or have it jam or otherwise get in a worse situation *because* you have a gun.

And you likewise have not shown that if one is put in a situation where one has to defend his/her life with a gun, they are more likely to experience one of those negative outcomes than they are to effectively defend themselves.

And I should point out that defending oneself with a gun does not necessarily include killing someone else. The only defense story that I have from people that I know is a friend who had some drunk guy trying to enter his house and having a confrontation at his door. My friend showed the drunk his gun and the drunk left on his own accord. He didn't even point the gun at the guy. Without the gun, my friend might have had to physically confront the guy and fight him which could have resulted in one or both of them being injured.

Of course that's one anecdotal story but regardless, I know that a gun can effectively be used in self-defense.

Sure, out of the millions of different interactions in the world daily, there are a relative handful where people find having a gun is a useful thing. But these are such rare occurrences that I question as to whether it is worth the trouble.

Question what you want. But that's not a rebuttal to my argument that a person should be allowed to defend himself with a gun.

There are stories because it is so extremely rare and that’s why they are out there. But even there, how many of those stories cover the situation you have been describing where you’re walking in a “bad” neighborhood you could easily avoid going to.

If you live in the bad neighborhood, you can't avoid it.

I'm not referring just to walking down the street. There are plenty of other scenarios where self-defense might be required.

And however rare it is that one will be in a situation where one will have the need to defend themselves, I argue that if someone is in such a situation they should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. If you agree with me one that, then I don't think we have anything to debate. If you disagree, then you need to argue that one should not be allowed to defend himself with a gun.

I would think that if you're too poor to move out then you're not really going to have much to steal in the first place. So what's the point?

What's the point of what? Defending one's life?

Actually, it on the burden on whoever supports an armed citizenry per the constitution to justify it.

The burden of any argument is one the one who makes it.

So if you aren't going to support your argument that the second amendment is no longer necessary, I will consider that argument dropped.

You missed my point that if there were no guns then knives would be the main weapon - e.g. in the UK.

Then you need to make you point a bit clearer. And I agree that in a world where guns don't exist, blades would be the main weapon. But I'm referring to the world that we do live in and in the US you can't make all guns disappear. You can create laws banning guns in the US but then that only removes guns from those who will obey such a law - others, particularly those who aren't inclined to follow the law (criminals), will still have guns. Illegally owned guns are still guns.

I think both are valid paths:

1. While we still have the 2nd amendment, the government (i.e. those elected by the people), can ban whatever arms it wants.

That's akin to arguing "While we still have the 1st amendment, the government (i.e. those elected by the people), can ban whatever speech it wants." From all appearances that argument is flat-out wrong. We can't just elect people to repeal our constitutional rights (short of having the kind of majority required to convene a constitutional convention to amend the constitution but the requires a lot more than a simple majority).

2. Meanwhile, work should be done to repeal the 2nd amendment, since it's pretty clear that a well regulated militia isn't what you have been arguing: you're talking about having weapons for personal self-defense (in bad neighborhoods, or whatever).

And I'm not using the second amendment as the basis of my argument but just the general right of self-defense.

Either way, it is up to the people to repeal whatever they want so long as we can get a majority of the country to decide to do so.

It will take a lot more than a simple majority. Repealing an amendment will require a constitutional convention and then a 2/3 majority of those elected. So for that to realistically happen, there would have to be a HUGE majority of the citizenry for repealing the second amendment. And I'm not hearing a whole lot of people advocating for the removal of the second amendment. The gun control arguments I'm hearing the most center around "reasonable" compromises to the right to bear arms, not the wholesale removal of the the right to bear arms.

Your viewpoint seems to be clearly in the minority so I'm not expecting the 2nd amendment to be rescinded in the near future.

[SharmaK]

If you mean that for most, if not all, of your life you will have no need to defend your life, I agree.

But that does not rebut my argument that one should be able to defend one's life if it becomes necessary and therefore one should be allowed to own a gun for that purpose.

So if you were a criminal or terrorist you should be able to have enough weaponry to kill many people since it “becomes necessary” to do so in the course of your activities?

I don’t see how defending one’s life automatically leads to being allowed to have a gun. And what kind of “gun” do you really mean? And why stop at guns?

And you likewise have not shown that if one is put in a situation where one has to defend his/her life with a gun, they are more likely to experience one of those negative outcomes than they are to effectively defend themselves.

Prove it! I don’t see any real correlation between having a gun and necessarily getting the outcome you want. Otherwise, gangs wouldn’t need to do drive by shootings.

And I should point out that defending oneself with a gun does not necessarily include killing someone else. The only defense story that I have from people that I know is a friend who had some drunk guy trying to enter his house and having a confrontation at his door. My friend showed the drunk his gun and the drunk left on his own accord. He didn't even point the gun at the guy. Without the gun, my friend might have had to physically confront the guy and fight him which could have resulted in one or both of them being injured.

Of course that's one anecdotal story but regardless, I know that a gun can effectively be used in self-defense.

Or a big knife would have been just as good. I just don’t see how, in a disarmed society, why this is a good thing. The stories may seem numerous but there are plenty of stories where it wouldn’t have helped at all: eg Vegas and the gay night club.

Question what you want. But that's not a rebuttal to my argument that a person should be allowed to defend himself with a gun.

Should according to who or what?

If you live in the bad neighborhood, you can't avoid it.

I'm not referring just to walking down the street. There are plenty of other scenarios where self-defense might be required.

And however rare it is that one will be in a situation where one will have the need to defend themselves, I argue that if someone is in such a situation they should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. If you agree with me one that, then I don't think we have anything to debate. If you disagree, then you need to argue that one should not be allowed to defend himself with a gun.

Why stop at guns? Why not have other weapons or body guards or go around in gangs? Your scenarios seem very rare and minor and not at all worth arming the whole country for?

What's the point of what? Defending one's life?

Or potentially killing others.

The burden of any argument is one the one who makes it.

So if you aren't going to support your argument that the second amendment is no longer necessary, I will consider that argument dropped.

It’s no longer necessary because we have an army to take the place of the “malitia”. Your scenarios of an oppressive government is laughable conspiratorial as well as ending a situation where guns won’t help anyway. And the notion that you’re going to carry a gun everywhere on the slimmest chance that you’d need it is frankly implausible.

I understand the history that led to the 2nd amendment but that was a long time ago. I don’t see any relevance in today’s world. None of your scenarios make any sense and we see in the UK that knives are used so the argument that criminals will be the ones that have guns is also implausible.

Then you need to make you point a bit clearer. And I agree that in a world where guns don't exist, blades would be the main weapon. But I'm referring to the world that we do live in and in the US you can't make all guns disappear. You can create laws banning guns in the US but then that only removes guns from those who will obey such a law - others, particularly those who aren't inclined to follow the law (criminals), will still have guns. Illegally owned guns are still guns.

It’s not going to get fixed overnight. We have to make guns illegal first. Then institute a buy back program and then make owning existing guns illegal. Then institute social and media programs to make guns seem bad and the people that want them crazy and the ones that own them criminals then after a few generations it will be fixed.

And even if they have guns they’re going to run out of bullets or repair shops. The whole industry would be highly regulated and monitored.

So I dismiss your argument as also having unrealistic expectations.

That's akin to arguing "While we still have the 1st amendment, the government (i.e. those elected by the people), can ban whatever speech it wants." From all appearances that argument is flat-out wrong. We can't just elect people to repeal our constitutional rights (short of having the kind of majority required to convene a constitutional convention to amend the constitution but the requires a lot more than a simple majority).

Sure. I don’t disagree with that. It’s not going to be easy and it will require a huge amount of political will and political power to pull off. That’s no reason to stop trying and certainly no reason to say we shouldn’t do it.

And I'm not using the second amendment as the basis of my argument but just the general right of self-defense.

Whose scenarios are extremely rare and incredibly hard to pull off without potentially harming other people while you do so.

It will take a lot more than a simple majority. Repealing an amendment will require a constitutional convention and then a 2/3 majority of those elected. So for that to realistically happen, there would have to be a HUGE majority of the citizenry for repealing the second amendment. And I'm not hearing a whole lot of people advocating for the removal of the second amendment. The gun control arguments I'm hearing the most center around "reasonable" compromises to the right to bear arms, not the wholesale removal of the the right to bear arms.

Your viewpoint seems to be clearly in the minority so I'm not expecting the 2nd amendment to be rescinded in the near future.

It certainly won’t happen in the near future. But it has to be a constant drum beat and we have to take whatever measures we can to limit the production and sales of guns. We must also start licensing them properly and begin work to make guns less harmful on a mass scale.

It’s just going to take time. And when the best arguments you make are so weak and unrealistic then I think it’s more of a matter of when and not if.

[mican333]

So if you were a criminal or terrorist you should be able to have enough weaponry to kill many people since it “becomes necessary” to do so in the course of your activities?

Of course not and that is in no way my argument nor something that one can reasonably derive from my argument. So this is pretty much an irrelevant statement.

I don’t see how defending one’s life automatically leads to being allowed to have a gun. And what kind of “gun” do you really mean? And why stop at guns?

The kind of gun I mean is the kind of gun that people currently own for self-defense. I believe pistols and shotguns are the most common firearm for self-defense so I'm referring to those kinds of weapons (shotguns are for home defense, not something one carries when walking around).

And the question "why stop there" does not offer a rebuttal to my position. I am in no way arguing against what is known as "common sense" restrictions such as universal background checks or banning "assault rifles" (which is not to say that I support those things but the argument I'm presenting here does not challenge such things).

Prove it! I don’t see any real correlation between having a gun and necessarily getting the outcome you want. Otherwise, gangs wouldn’t need to do drive by shootings.

Again, I said that you have not shown that if one is put in a situation where one has to defend his/her life with a gun, they are more likely to experience one of those negative outcomes than they are to effectively defend themselves.

The proof of this is shown by you not supporting that argument. You've provided no evidence that if one does attempt to defend oneself with a gun, that they are more likely to experience a bad outcome than effectively defending themselves.

And drive-by shootings are not acts of self-defense and therefore irrelevant to my argument. I am not arguing for the right to commit drive-by shootings. Just self-defense.

Or a big knife would have been just as good.

Since a knife is less dangerous than a gun, how do you know that he would have chased the drunk away if he brandished a knife instead of a gun? The answer is - you don't know.

I just don’t see how, in a disarmed society, why this is a good thing. The stories may seem numerous but there are plenty of stories where it wouldn’t have helped at all: eg Vegas and the gay night club.

But we aren't a disarmed society. And again, people do defend themselves with guns. I provided an example of that.

And you don't know that some of the victims having guns in the Orlando shooting wouldn't have helped. Do you know for a fact that if, say, five of the patrons were armed, one of them might not have shot the killer before he killed as many as he had? Of course not.

Should according to who or what?

Logic. Just questioning someone's argument does not count as a rebuttal. You need to show that the argument is wrong on some level.

Why stop at guns? Why not have other weapons or body guards or go around in gangs? Your scenarios seem very rare and minor and not at all worth arming the whole country for?

I did not advocate arming the whole country. I personally don't have a gun for self-defense so my position is that it's up to the individual if they want to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense. But I do hold that I have the right to defend my life and if I want access to one of the most common and ubiquitous weapons that exist in my society and likewise is owned by millions of my fellow citizens, then I should be allowed to have such a weapon.

If you disagree with that, then tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to defend my life or have access to the kind of weapon that might be used against me to defend myself.

It’s no longer necessary because we have an army to take the place of the “malitia”.

We had an army when the constitution as well so you have not identified what's different between now and then.

Your scenarios of an oppressive government is laughable conspiratorial as well as ending a situation where guns won’t help anyway.

I didn't provide any scenarios of an oppressive government so you are apparently laughing at a strawman. But now that it's been brought up, I will lay out a couple of scenarios for you.

200 years from now (so I am in no way talking about our current political leadership) the government turns tyrannical. Half of the army supports the tyrant and half of the army opposes the tyrant. And the citizenry, hundreds of millions of armed people, join the side of those who oppose the tyrant. Because of the support of the armed citizenry, the tyrant is overthrown.

Or here's another scenario that might take place in the future.

200 years from now, there's a war and the US military can't effectively defend the homeland because it's too committed to fighting in other countries and/or is much weaker than it is now. So a foreign enemy invades the homeland and it's mostly up to the citizens to defend the homeland.

If either of these scenarios could possibly happen in the future, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. If you are going to argue that they could not possible happen in the future, you will need to support that they could never happen.

And just calling them "unrealistic" or "laughable" or whatever is not support that they are indeed unrealistic. If you want to say that they are unrealistic, you will need to support that.

I understand the history that led to the 2nd amendment but that was a long time ago. I don’t see any relevance in today’s world.

I don't see any relevant difference in today's world from the world where the 2nd amendment was written. The only thing you mentioned is that now we have an army but we had an army back then as well. So you've identified no relevant difference.

None of your scenarios make any sense and we see in the UK that knives are used so the argument that criminals will be the ones that have guns is also implausible.

The difference is in the UK, no one had guns to begin with. In the US there are lots of guns so you can only try to take them away from those who already have them and prevent people from illegally buying them. Since there is no way that we can be 100% successful on doing that, some people will still have guns and those will be the people who don't follow the law demanding that they turn in their guns.

It’s not going to get fixed overnight. We have to make guns illegal first. Then institute a buy back program and then make owning existing guns illegal. Then institute social and media programs to make guns seem bad and the people that want them crazy and the ones that own them criminals then after a few generations it will be fixed.

And even if they have guns they’re going to run out of bullets or repair shops. The whole industry would be highly regulated and monitored.

So I dismiss your argument as also having unrealistic expectations.

I reject your argument as having unrealistic expectations. History CLEARLY show that if people want something, making it illegal does not actually prevent them from getting it. It only makes it more expensive. Cocaine and Heroine are illegal and yet the only real reason that I don't buy them is because I don't care to use them. But if I did want to use them, I would definitely be able to find a drug dealer in my city who will sell me some. The strategies you forwarded for getting rid of guns have already been tried for illegal drugs and have shown little success. The history of alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s likewise showed the futility of outlawing what people commonly want.

Sure. I don’t disagree with that. It’s not going to be easy and it will require a huge amount of political will and political power to pull off. That’s no reason to stop trying and certainly no reason to say we shouldn’t do it.

Actually there is a reason and it's one you have yet to rebut.

I have the right to self-defense and should be allowed to use one of the most common weapons that exist within our society for the purpose of self-defense.

And you didn't really address my rebuttal to the point so let's settle this. The second amendment clearly does not allow the government to ban whatever arms it chooses to ban just like the first amendment does not allow the government to ban whatever speech it wants to ban.

The ONLY way to legally the government to get to decide what arms it will ban is to repeal the second amendment.

Whose scenarios are extremely rare and incredibly hard to pull off without potentially harming other people while you do so.

When you support this position I will respond to it. In the meantime, I will ignore it as a baseless claim.

It certainly won’t happen in the near future. But it has to be a constant drum beat and we have to take whatever measures we can to limit the production and sales of guns. We must also start licensing them properly and begin work to make guns less harmful on a mass scale.

It’s just going to take time. And when the best arguments you make are so weak and unrealistic then I think it’s more of a matter of when and not if.

Well, I could play that game and tell you that your arguments are so bad/weak/whatever that....

But just saying "your argument is bad/weak/whatever" is a really a poor debating technique that I don't care to use and I ask that likewise refrain from doing that.

If we're going to show that the other person's argument is weak, we should do it with good counter-arguments, not just saying, in effect, "your arguments suck".

[SharmaK]

Well, I could play that game and tell you that your arguments are so bad/weak/whatever that....

But just saying "your argument is bad/weak/whatever" is a really a poor debating technique that I don't care to use and I ask that likewise refrain from doing that.

If we're going to show that the other person's argument is weak, we should do it with good counter-arguments, not just saying, in effect, "your arguments suck".

No, I won’t stop. It’s not poor debating technique to point our the general flaws in ALL of your arguments. I am explaining WHY they are poor, weak and flawed. They’re not just bare statements - I offered and continue to offer counter-scenarios that are more realistic, less one-sided, and better evidenced.

What IS poor debating for is chucking out bad ideas without thinking them through properly. For the age old gun debate, there is no excuse for it. I feel I’m doing all the work pointing out obvious flaws and consequences of your arguments.

Throughout my current response I noticed you have exhibited a lack of deep thinking and I have taken a lot of trouble to go into more detail about why your arguments are so poor. I ended up moving your final statement to the top because of I have done a lot of work to fully explain why your arguments fail from multiple perspectives and, spoiler alert, they are weak because:

1. You’re arguing a tiny unrealistic scenarios whose consequences are producing actual harm to society.
2. You constantly forget that arming good guys also arms the bad guys, so your argument that you need to be equally or better armed just escalates things. Contradictorily you also support common sense arms control.
3. When you bring up counter arguments, you again, forget to change the scenario on the other side. For example, drug laws don’t work so we should have drug laws; completely forgetting that things would be much worse without them! Hence you end up supporting gun laws and restrictions!

Anyway, read through but try and summarize a bit - this thread is getting too long.

Of course not and that is in no way my argument nor something that one can reasonably derive from my argument. So this is pretty much an irrelevant statement.

I know that’s not you ARGUMENT, but it’s the consequences of your ARGUMENT that you haven’t thought about. Your fantasy position of the unlikelihood that you’d need to defend yourself (which you admit) forgets that there’s another side to the whole story: that criminals will have guns and criminals also feel that they should be able to defend themselves too. Whatever arguments you put up also applies to criminals, from their perspective.

The kind of gun I mean is the kind of gun that people currently own for self-defense. I believe pistols and shotguns are the most common firearm for self-defense so I'm referring to those kinds of weapons (shotguns are for home defense, not something one carries when walking around).

Why such an arbitrary limitation though? Since now everyone has this common firearm, surely, in order to be MORE EFFECTIVE fighter, you should be better defended and have better weapons. It’s your own argument that a gun is better than a knife, so a machine gun is better than a gun, right?

And the question "why stop there" does not offer a rebuttal to my position. I am in no way arguing against what is known as "common sense" restrictions such as universal background checks or banning "assault rifles" (which is not to say that I support those things but the argument I'm presenting here does not challenge such things).

It’s a complete rebuttal because whatever arguments you have for common sense restrictions also apply to guns. Also, the question was to clarify your position so please answer.

Again, I said that you have not shown that if one is put in a situation where one has to defend his/her life with a gun, they are more likely to experience one of those negative outcomes than they are to effectively defend themselves.

We’re not talking about “likelihood” - that’s your straw man. We’re talking about possibilities. If it is possible that you can get attacked and in that scenario, you’re arguing having a gun is better than not, then you also have to consider all the other possibilities where your gun might make things worse. It is totally in line with the approach you are taking.

And drive-by shootings are not acts of self-defense and therefore irrelevant to my argument. I am not arguing for the right to commit drive-by shootings. Just self-defense.

To those doing the drive by shooting, it IS self-defense. You’re arguing ONLY from your own perspective and that’s where all of your arguments fail. You forget that your right to own guns gives criminals a right to them too.

Since a knife is less dangerous than a gun, how do you know that he would have chased the drunk away if he brandished a knife instead of a gun? The answer is - you don't know.

The same way the drunk probably realized this wasn’t going to be an easy burglary. And you don’t know either. The drunk could have just changed his mind with seeing any minimal resistance.

But we aren't a disarmed society. And again, people do defend themselves with guns. I provided an example of that.

But there are disarmed societies and people are fine. More importantly gun crimes are much less rare. I think that’s a good trade off from the rare occurrence that you’d be able to defend yourself successfully with a gun without harming others.

[Quote]
And you don't know that some of the victims having guns in the Orlando shooting wouldn't have helped. Do you know for a fact that if, say, five of the patrons were armed, one of them might not have shot the killer before he killed as many as he had? Of course not.
[Quote]
Um, you forget, it was in a night club. Not only was it dark, thus increasing the chance you’d kill an innocent, but they were also dancing. Where exactly are they supposed to carry their weapon? And are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of drunk people with guns is a great idea?

Logic. Just questioning someone's argument does not count as a rebuttal. You need to show that the argument is wrong on some level.

I think all your arguments have been wrong on every level except the tiny cases where you might have a successful outcome. To support your tiny cases, we have to have an armed society and therefore armed criminals, we increase the risk of accidents in the home (google stories where children have killed their siblings or parents), increase the suicides by guns, increase domestic violence through guns and so on. Your tiny corner case hardly justifies the other side of the coin that you clearly haven’t thought about.

I did not advocate arming the whole country. I personally don't have a gun for self-defense so my position is that it's up to the individual if they want to arm themselves for the purpose of self-defense. But I do hold that I have the right to defend my life and if I want access to one of the most common and ubiquitous weapons that exist in my society and likewise is owned by millions of my fellow citizens, then I should be allowed to have such a weapon.


If you disagree with that, then tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to defend my life or have access to the kind of weapon that might be used against me to defend myself.

Sure, and my argument is that if we make those weapons less dangerous and risky with fewer side effects, as is seen in Europe, then that’s what we should strive for.

You have also failed to support that you need to have that kind of defense in the first place. The odd story around the internet is hardly a strong argument.

We had an army when the constitution as well so you have not identified what's different between now and then.

The army we have now are several ordered of magnitude better trained and better armed and better organized than your average citizen who just needs a gun to defend themselves from their neighbor. Your argument that such citizens could defend themselves against an army of global caliber is laughable.

I didn't provide any scenarios of an oppressive government so you are apparently laughing at a strawman. But now that it's been brought up, I will lay out a couple of scenarios for you.

200 years from now (so I am in no way talking about our current political leadership) the government turns tyrannical. Half of the army supports the tyrant and half of the army opposes the tyrant. And the citizenry, hundreds of millions of armed people, join the side of those who oppose the tyrant. Because of the support of the armed citizenry, the tyrant is overthrown.

Or here's another scenario that might take place in the future.

200 years from now, there's a war and the US military can't effectively defend the homeland because it's too committed to fighting in other countries and/or is much weaker than it is now. So a foreign enemy invades the homeland and it's mostly up to the citizens to defend the homeland.

If either of these scenarios could possibly happen in the future, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. If you are going to argue that they could not possible happen in the future, you will need to support that they could never happen.

And just calling them "unrealistic" or "laughable" or whatever is not support that they are indeed unrealistic. If you want to say that they are unrealistic, you will need to support that.

It is science fiction and you know it.

In your first scenario, you have to support that it is possible for the government to turn tyrannical - as if these things happen overnight. There are checks and balances and strong institutions to prevent such an occurrence. And again, your one sided argument forgets the flip side, that the tyrant’s supporters are so well armed, that they could easily take over the country with a massive coordinated secret attack.

In your second scenario, the US will not give up being able to defend itself against another foreign enemy - we have nuclear bombs as a final resort. And this foreign army, will probably bomb first and ask questions later if it knew it was going to be in a gun fight.

So I stand by that your scenarios are unrealistic - you’re not considering from the perspective of the an enemy that already knows you have guns and they will adjust their plans to be more lethal more quickly. And your scenarios are laughably since they forget about every other protection or mitigation at your opposing side’s disposal. And I have to also add poorly thought out to the mix.

I can match every imaginary scenario you come up with with a better one. So this is a dead end.

Every scenario you have put forward thus far, from your self-defense to tyrannical governments and invading foreigners are so terribly constructed that they do not support guns at all. In fact, they argue that the guns would make things much worse than they otherwise would have been.

I don't see any relevant difference in today's world from the world where the 2nd amendment was written. The only thing you mentioned is that now we have an army but we had an army back then as well. So you've identified no relevant difference.

In addition to the enormous disparity for your fantasy tyrannical government scenario, you also forget that such an army would have much better weapons. So by your own logic, we should have access to same said weapons too, which flies against your common sense restrictions. You’re contradicting yourself as to what you’re really supporting.

The difference is in the UK, no one had guns to begin with. In the US there are lots of guns so you can only try to take them away from those who already have them and prevent people from illegally buying them. Since there is no way that we can be 100% successful on doing that, some people will still have guns and those will be the people who don't follow the law demanding that they turn in their guns.

We don’t need to be 100% successful and we don’t have to do it overnight. On top of your unrealistic scenarios in support of guns, you have unrealistic expectations as to how long this will take and unrealistic understanding of what a successful outcome is.

I reject your argument as having unrealistic expectations. History CLEARLY show that if people want something, making it illegal does not actually prevent them from getting it. It only makes it more expensive. Cocaine and Heroine are illegal and yet the only real reason that I don't buy them is because I don't care to use them. But if I did want to use them, I would definitely be able to find a drug dealer in my city who will sell me some. The strategies you forwarded for getting rid of guns have already been tried for illegal drugs and have shown little success. The history of alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s likewise showed the futility of outlawing what people commonly want.

Reject all you want. I have pointed out that all your scenarios are unrealistic and your understanding of my position is unrealistic. Now, even your own understanding of history and the current is unrealistic!

Given your own counter argument then we should make class A drugs legal and acceptable. And what happens when we do that? Do we have fewer drug instances or more? Do we have more kids dying through drugs or fewer? Do we have more or less incidents of accidental overdose? Replace guns with drugs and you’ll see why banning guns is a good idea.

Pro-tip: before making a gun argument, consider two things:

1. That arming the good guys also arms the bad guys.
2. Consider how successful having drug laws are and the consequences if we don’t have them.

Actually there is a reason and it's one you have yet to rebut.

I have the right to self-defense and should be allowed to use one of the most common weapons that exist within our society for the purpose of self-defense.

I have already rebutted that. If the most common weapon is NOT a gun then everyone will be better off.

And you didn't really address my rebuttal to the point so let's settle this. The second amendment clearly does not allow the government to ban whatever arms it chooses to ban just like the first amendment does not allow the government to ban whatever speech it wants to ban.

The ONLY way to legally the government to get to decide what arms it will ban is to repeal the second amendment.

And that is what I am arguing for!

When you support this position I will respond to it. In the meantime, I will ignore it as a baseless claim.

Go ahead and ignore it: all your arguments are fantastical and flawed and simply unrealistic and one sided and not thought through.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro