Guns & Gun Violence

[cannabineer]

That'd be a headline: Man rides chariot with wheel spikes through crowded mall while yelling, "Rome is an affront to God."

Might we pursue this logic to its inevitable conclusion and ask:
Shoud a dangerous thing, being dangerous, be made illegal?

 

[Fogdog]

I say this calls for science.

Let's indeed pass out some guns. (Me! Me! Me!)

Let's actually evaluate the outcome.

THEN let's pontificate.

The pro-gun lobby has fought and practically stopped exactly what you are asking for. Same sort of thing that the tobacco lobby did, not too long ago. Deny science and deny funding. Anti-control freaks oppose anything that has the whiff of gun control. The hard line taken by the anti control freaks is part of the problem.

That said, I don't know how an unobtrusive screening process would have stopped some of the recent mass murders by people that are fucked up (Charleston and Roseburg come to mind). In order to get to that level, we would need a screening system that would look too much like big brother. So, no thanks to going down that road. Fund the current background checking system and close loopholes that enable convicted felons, people with clear psychological problems and wife beaters from owning guns. However, let's not try to set up a bureaucracy and database chartered to decide whether or not an individual living a quiet life is "crazy" and shouldn't own a gun.

I would like to see the end of opposition to funding research for understanding gun violence and how to bring it in line with other first world countries.

The trend is towards fewer households with guns in the US. It seems that the majority in US hasn't exactly bought into the idea that more guns make people safer. People continue to die in mass murders in the US at wildly high rates compared to other 1st world countries. People that don't own a gun -- and they are a majority -- are asking why they have to put up excessive gun violence in the US. So, prepare for this argument to get sharper.

I don't agree that your door number two will do anything to reduce gun violence in the US, violence will go up if this happens. I don't agree that deeper background checks is an answer either. I do agree that we need to know more and could do with some good studies.

 

[cannabineer]

I do think. So just because I see it different, I don't think? Come on canna...

Show it then. Bring facts and logic that submit to the process of reason.

Until then

 

[see4]

The only way to disempower the crazies is to refuse to let them drive the agenda. Stop pointing at mass shootings like they are possessed of special enormity. They are ordinary human ugliness taken to a logical limit. Take the hit, risk the crazies and don't be held their hostage.

Where I live I cannot get many good ordinary guns. I resent the crazies' publicists for arranging this state of affairs. So I am not at peace with your premise there. It is un-Constitutionally difficult for me to get and keep ordinary guns. e.g. a SIG p210. (I want one. With the target package.) Until that is rectified I think the "making it easier to get guns" implies that it is already easy. This I hold up for mutual inspection.

I agree, the yellow press has certainly made a mess of things of late. But I'm not convinced that simply not sensationalizing their failed attempts at disrupting humanity will solve the problem. The problem will be solved by not allow "them" to legally own them.

Constitutionally, was something you could argue 200 years ago when it took you 5 minutes to load a round and ask the person you were shooting at, to kindly hold still.

I must confess, I am playing devils advocate in this thread, my personal take is people kill with or without guns, people will get a hold of guns regardless of legality, if that is their intent. A bullet is a bullet, unless its a boolit. (A little reload humor) It kills either way.
Which brings up a good topic, what about ammo? Should we limit ammo?

 

[ZaraBeth420]

Show it then. Bring facts and logic that submit to the process of reason.

Until then

I brought reason. We just disagree. Happens.

 

[undercovergrow]

Constitutionally, was something you could argue 200 years ago

how is that when the 2nd Amendment was for the People to remain in power instead of the government?

 

[cannabineer]

The pro-gun lobby has fought and practically stopped exactly what you are asking for. Same sort of thing that the tobacco lobby did, not too long ago. Deny science and deny funding. Anti-control freaks oppose anything that has the whiff of gun control. The hard line taken by the anti control freaks is part of the problem.

That said, I don't know how an unobtrusive screening process would have stopped some of the recent mass murders by people that are fucked up (Charleston and Roseburg come to mind). In order to get to that level, we would need a screening system that would look too much like big brother. So, no thanks to going down that road. Fund the current background checking system and close loopholes that enable convicted felons, people with clear psychological problems and wife beaters from owning guns. However, let's not try to set up a bureaucracy and database chartered to decide whether or not an individual living a quiet life is "crazy" and shouldn't own a gun.

I would like to see the opposition to funding research end for understanding gun violence and how to bring it in line with other first world countries.

The trend is towards fewer households with guns in the US. It seems that the majority in US hasn't exactly bought into the idea that more guns make people safer.

Talk science to me. How do we separate out the various encroachments of legislation from this trend? In my lifetime gun laws have tightened like an anaconda with a strychnine habit.

People continue to die in mass murders in the US at wildly high rates compared to other 1st world countries.

i will need peer-reviewed data saying so before I agree. Science? Let's use scientific criteria. Not peer reviewed = not data.

People that don't want to own a gun -- and they are a majority -- are asking why they have to put up excessive gun violence in the US.

The great fallacy is right there. Gun ownership and gun violence are not the same or interchangeable. This is an example of the modern demagoguery; check for hooks before striking the tidbit.

So, prepare for this argument to get sharper.

I don't agree that your door number two will do anything to reduce gun violence in the US, violence will go up if this happens. I don't agree that deeper background checks is an answer either. I do agree that we need to know more and could do with some good studies.

Deeper background checks I can live with ... but with the proviso that they do not infringe on civil rights. No other civil right is dependent on not having been convicted or adjudicated or or.

So, as long as the background checks do not interfere with one single gun purchase or trade ... I'm in.[/quote][/quote]

 

[cannabineer]

I do think. So just because I see it different, I don't think? Come on canna...

Did you actually assert that your FEELING is on the same rational and moral footing as an ARGUMENT?

Thinking is something that can be defined, parsed, falsified. Argued. All we can do with feelings is emote at each other. That is not the application of reason, and I do not accept it as a substitute.

 

[budlover13]

I agree, the yellow press has certainly made a mess of things of late. But I'm not convinced that simply not sensationalizing their failed attempts at disrupting humanity will solve the problem. The problem will be solved by not allow "them" to legally own them.

Constitutionally, was something you could argue 200 years ago when it took you 5 minutes to load a round and ask the person you were shooting at, to kindly hold still.

I must confess, I am playing devils advocate in this thread, my personal take is people kill with or without guns, people will get a hold of guns regardless of legality, if that is their intent. A bullet is a bullet, unless its a boolit. (A little reload humor) It kills either way.
Which brings up a good topic, what about ammo? Should we limit ammo?

It's already on it's way here in Kali. Ammo limits and bans. Non-tox alloy bullets that can defeat soft body armor being required to hunt within the state. Still waiting for that shoe to fall.

Talk among the legislature about having to have a permit to buy ammo and tracking and limits on how much you can possess.

I've heard more than one person suggest going after ammo as a means of skirting the 2nd amendment.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

So, what do we do about guns?

It's very simple, pass a Constitutional Amendment or fuck off. And I don't say that to be facetious, I say it because this is one issue that won't be resolved with anything less. As long as the 2nd stands, liberals will piss and moan and maybe even pass useless legislation that doesn't amount to shit, but they don't have a prayer of slowing, let alone reversing the number of firearms among the citizenry.

 

[Not GOP]

It's already on it's way here in Kali. Ammo limits and bans. Non-tox alloy bullets that can defeat soft body armor being required to hunt within the state. Still waiting for that shoe to fall.

Talk among the legislature about having to have a permit to buy ammo and tracking and limits on how much you can possess.

I've heard more than one person suggest going after ammo as a means of skirting the 2nd amendment.

... And if your AR-15 holds more than ten rounds is a felony

 

[see4]

What the chart shows, unambiguously, is that more guns DOES NOT lead to more gun violence. Wasn't that your original point?

"Gun violence" is down by about 50% since 1992, while gun ownership in the US is up by quite a lot, hence it is either ignorant or malicious to claim that "more guns equals more violence".

I suppose you might claim that violence committed by people using guns would be down even more if only we had "common sense gun laws". That would be a proposition that would be more difficult to argue against, except from a civil rights perspective. In places that have outlawed guns, violence by other means has increased. To me, it makes little difference if a guy kills me by sticking a knife through my liver, or shoots a hole through it. In the UK, you are much more likely to violently assaulted than you are in the US, for example. To point to the UK as something to emulate seems a self defeating argument.

Final point, let's not forget that we live in a constitutional republic, at least that is my naive fantasy, and the government is constrained from treading on civil rights. Two A is a fundamental right in the US.

I disagree, what about other contributing factors like: increase in law enforcement, better education, wars (distraction)? Are you to say that has no bearing on decline in crime?

As I explained to dr polar bear, the Constitutional argument could have been made 200 years ago, when it took 5 minutes to reload your firearm. Not today. I highly doubt the George Washington would have wanted people carrying fully automatic assault rifles capable of churning out 100 rounds in less than 8 seconds.

 

[pnwmystery]

Might we pursue this logic to its inevitable conclusion and ask:
Shoud a dangerous thing, being dangerous, be made illegal?

Well it was more of a tongue in cheek response and I was imaging Ben Hur. I'd hope that riding a chariot through a mall is illegal. Don't we do this anyways? Driving without a seat belt, no to big explosives (that's more regulated) for example.

 

[see4]

It's already on it's way here in Kali. Ammo limits and bans. Non-tox alloy bullets that can defeat soft body armor being required to hunt within the state. Still waiting for that shoe to fall.

Talk among the legislature about having to have a permit to buy ammo and tracking and limits on how much you can possess.

I've heard more than one person suggest going after ammo as a means of skirting the 2nd amendment.

That's a scary thought. Thank god I have my reloader and more than enough powder and bullets to last me years of shooting.

 

[see4]

It's very simple, pass a Constitutional Amendment or fuck off. And I don't say that to be facetious, I say it because this is one issue that won't be resolved with anything less. As long as the 2nd stands, liberals will piss and moan and maybe even pass useless legislation that doesn't amount to shit, but they don't have a prayer of slowing, let alone reversing the number of firearms among the citizenry.

I wouldn't label it just as "liberals" -- let's label them as people who don't know any better. There are Republican's who also see a need for stricter gun laws. Not many, but they are out there.

 

[see4]

... And if your AR-15 holds more than ten rounds is a felony

If you can't kill a buck [or a gangster] in less than 10 shots, you don't deserve an AR.

 

[see4]

how is that when the 2nd Amendment was for the People to remain in power instead of the government?

Can you please reword that for me, my dyslexia is having a hard time keeping up.

 

[whitebb2727]

You're wrong because you're hanging on to a dated view of gun rights, at least in the view of the young generation. They don't get why people want guns that can kill lots of people in a short time. They may be wrong, but they are not in doubt. And they vote. And they raise children who vote. So the gun loving crowd has to contend with them, and they want tighter restrictions on guns getting into the hands of crazy people. Not to keep good people from getting guns.

And the nra openly fights that. And it makes an impression.

Who are these young? The young include gun owners. I know a lot of young people that own guns. Including young people that own ar15's and ak47's.

 

[cannabineer]

I disagree, what about other contributing factors like: increase in law enforcement, better education, wars (distraction)? Are you to say that has no bearing on decline in crime?

As I explained to dr polar bear, the Constitutional argument could have been made 200 years ago, when it took 5 minutes to reload your firearm. Not today. I highly doubt [that] George Washington would have wanted people carrying fully automatic assault rifles capable of churning out 100 rounds in less than 8 seconds.

Me, otoh ...
I believe that the Founders intended the citizens to have full access to the most modern weapons. It is the only way the Amendment can be construed sensibly in my view. These days a belt-fed .308 is the equivalent of that 18th-century Brown Bess. And the equivalent of a horse soldier ... take your pick. CVN? Missile sub? B-52 squad?

I foresee a new factor that will boost violent crime; crowding. There was a classical experiment where they bred rats in cages of finite size. The populations stabilized. Think about what that implies, and how. It's a bad thing to be a rat at equilibrium.

I wanna make sure I have the exact same weapons access as the jerks in the black vans, y'know, our peace officers.

I'm OK with disarming citizens, fully or fractionally, with a strict proviso: that all civilians, including the uniformed ones, be subjected to the same level of law.

 

[undercovergrow]

Can you please reword that for me, my dyslexia is having a hard time keeping up.

sure, i'll try.

the second amendment was designed so that the People would have the power against a future tyrannical government. you had made a statement regarding the amendment being more appropriate for 200 years ago when it took a minute to reload, and i was trying to understand your reasoning to that statement.