Why gun control isn't the answer

[bilby]

In the UK, guns are not hard to come by. A criminal can buy a gun from the traditional dodgy bloke in a pub for about the same price that it would cost a licensed gun owner at a gun shop. But criminals in the UK rarely carry guns, because of the law.

So UK gun laws restrict ownership, but not sale/purchase. And US gun laws restrict sale/purchase, but not ownership. Interesting.

No actual point or argument being made, just finding the difference between UK and US interesting.

Neither set of laws restrict either sale/purchase or ownership.

Laws restrict the actions of the police, not the actions of the criminals.

The law doesn't stop you from robbing a bank. The vault door might, and so might the police, or even fear of the police. The law allows the police to be an effective source of fear for potential bank robbers.

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Of course, it infringes freedom that I expect to be arrested if I forget to remove my motorcycle helmet before walking into a bank to deposit my day's takings.

If you were a lunatic extremist, you might say that no loss of freedom is worthwhile in order to obtain security; but all of human civilisation indicates otherwise. Equally, no amount of security is worth the loss of all freedom - sane and effective societies balance the two.

 

[sharon45]

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

Zackly. It was to preserve military parity between the government and its citizens. That's why we all need to have nukes.

Let's be real: The government will always have the upper hand in any confrontation against its citizens.
Whether or not private citizens are permitted to have automatic assault rifles makes no difference to that equation. So the remaining issue is whether it's a good thing for citizens in general to allow other citizens such armaments.
The track record is not favorable.

Since government is completely made up of fellow citizens, it amounts to how bad said citizens want to maintain and dish out that upper hand in any confrontation.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So UK gun laws restrict ownership, but not sale/purchase. And US gun laws restrict sale/purchase, but not ownership. Interesting.

No actual point or argument being made, just finding the difference between UK and US interesting.

Neither set of laws restrict either sale/purchase or ownership.

Laws restrict the actions of the police, not the actions of the criminals.

The law doesn't stop you from robbing a bank. The vault door might, and so might the police, or even fear of the police. The law allows the police to be an effective source of fear for potential bank robbers.

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Of course, it infringes freedom that I expect to be arrested if I forget to remove my motorcycle helmet before walking into a bank to deposit my day's takings.

If you were a lunatic extremist, you might say that no loss of freedom is worthwhile in order to obtain security; but all of human civilisation indicates otherwise. Equally, no amount of security is worth the loss of all freedom - sane and effective societies balance the two.

Laws also restrict the action of the law abiding.

 

[bilby]

Neither set of laws restrict either sale/purchase or ownership.

Laws restrict the actions of the police, not the actions of the criminals.

The law doesn't stop you from robbing a bank. The vault door might, and so might the police, or even fear of the police. The law allows the police to be an effective source of fear for potential bank robbers.

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Of course, it infringes freedom that I expect to be arrested if I forget to remove my motorcycle helmet before walking into a bank to deposit my day's takings.

If you were a lunatic extremist, you might say that no loss of freedom is worthwhile in order to obtain security; but all of human civilisation indicates otherwise. Equally, no amount of security is worth the loss of all freedom - sane and effective societies balance the two.

Laws also restrict the action of the law abiding.

Yes, they do. However, in this case, I am particularly interested in the subset of 'the law abiding' who are also police. Is this a problem for you? Do you feel that this focus is inappropriate, or somehow weakens my point?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm curious if you think a blanket ban -- or at least severe restrictions -- on semi-automatic rifles would fall into the category of "reasonable." Equally curious if you would support a ban on automatic and/or magazine-fed handguns. The combination of which would aim to limit gun ownership to weapons which are difficult to use in combat situations (e.g. homicides, mass shootings, massacres, robberies, etc) but still useful in other situations (sport shooting, hunting, self defense).

This would leave gun owners with:
Bolt, lever and pump action rifles and shotguns
Single or double action revolvers
Breach-loaded high-powered pistols (punt guns)
Concealable single-shot pistols (derringers)

Not even a ban on guns. Just severe restrictions and hard-to-meet licensing requirements on REALLY ADVANCED guns that can be used to cause a lot more damage than any one person should ever reasonably need to do.

I said my position is the reasonable one and I don't define those as reasonable.

Oh. So what you ACTUALLY mean is "Whatever I happen to agree with is the reasonable position."

Sure. If you want me to admit it I'll admit it. Not that it adds to or detracts from any conversation actually occurring.

Well, it sort of demonstrates that that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment is an absurd one that we cannot realistically hold to in the modern age.

 

[Copernicus]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with protection from robbery. It was put in place to protect the citizens against their own government.

This kind of statement betrays a complete misunderstanding of the history of the 2nd Amendment. First of all, the legal tradition of a "right to keep and bear arms" goes back to the  Bill of Rights 1689 in which the "Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". It was a collective right, not an individual right. The idea behind it was to guarantee the right of Parliamentarians to establish militias as a counterweight to troops controlled by the king.

The Bill of Rights did not include the 2nd Amendment to guarantee a right of rebellion. Rather, it was a concern of some (primarily southern) states that the federal government would seek to curtail the militias, which relied mainly on private arms for training. Hence, the "well-regulated militia" language. That was the main intent of the amendment, not to use state militias in rebellion against constitutional authority. In fact, militias came to be used in a few instances to put down rebellions against federal law. And slave rebellions were a huge concern of southern populations. So they wanted to have well-trained militias on hand.

In the modern US, there is no longer any concern about standing federal armies or supplying militias with private weapons. The only people who want to own weapons to use against the US government are criminals and terrorists. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to support rebellion against federal law. That would be an act of treason, which the Constitution expressly forbids.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How does the second amendment not guarantee a right to rebellion? It was made by a country built off of a rebellion and says that people should be able to band together and form their own little armies. The natural corollary to that is that they need these little armies to stand up to larger armies who want to tell them what to do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nonsense. Statistically having a gun in your house is not going to protect you or make you whole in the case of a robbery. If fact it's more likely to be stolen or misused by a child, since most home invaders avoid an occupied house.

Living without the 2nd Amendment is like owning a house without fire insurance. You might feel better off and even be better off today. But it will be at great risk for tomorrow.

1) The risk varies from situation to situation. Showing the averages says nothing about the specific risk. The woman fleeing an abusive partner is at high risk of needing a gun. Someone else in a safe neighborhood and no psycho after them has little chance of needing a gun. Most people don't need a self defense firearm, but some do. (And it's not always due to a bad neighborhood. I used to know someone who carried a gun while doing yardwork. The problem was an aggressive dog that wasn't well contained. He didn't want to be bit again.)

2) Your argument fails English 101. Home invaders hit occupied houses. By definition. You're mixing them up with burglars who do generally avoid occupied houses--because they fear guns. In countries without guns burglars generally don't avoid occupied houses.

A few years back we had a burglar in the neighborhood. It was almost certainly somebody local because they were very selective in the houses they hit--only houses where I would consider the chance of there being firearms or a physically capable defender to be quite low.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Many gun owners have a problem with trusting the government to preside over "extensive background checks and mental health screenings."

That's because they are delusional and probably shouldn't even be allowed to feed themselves.

Lets look at another case of government background checks and what actually happens: Global Entry. The stakes are a lot lower (it simply provides faster entry to the US, not something that can't be obtained by other means) so the harm caused by improper denials is a lot less (not to mention that the number of people who want Global Entry is a lot less than the number who want guns. If you don't frequently travel internationally it's not worth it) but there are still a fair number of denials for no apparent reason and normally nothing one can do about it. They simply say you don't meet the standards, they don't say why.

His Flatulence also messed with the system--a whole bunch of people were kicked out of the program because of their country of citizenship when he went on his Muslim rampage.

See why many of us do not trust the government to get it right without a system that enforces accountability?

And the mental health screenings are even worse--you have to be pretty far out of it before you can't pretend to be sane.

Or take another case of them being idiots: It's been a long time since we took an outbound flight at any time other than early in the morning. That means a low load at TSA, at such times if you're 50+ and have kept your nose clean you're very likely to get Pre-Check on your boarding pass and get a lesser screening at security. However, on flights to the US they feel very differently about my wife--she's liable to get extra screening at security. (SSSS for those of you who recognize it.) Am I married to Jekyll and Hyde?

 

[bilby]

How does the second amendment not guarantee a right to rebellion? It was made by a country built off of a rebellion and says that people should be able to band together and form their own little armies. The natural corollary to that is that they need these little armies to stand up to larger armies who want to tell them what to do.

Well the problem that the Americans have is that they won a war against a large army, using just a bunch of people who had banded together to form their own little armies, and they mistook that highly unusual success for normality.

Had the English not been busy fighting a war against a nearby and actually powerful enemy (France); or had they not been hamstrung by the literal insanity of the holder of executive power (George III); or had they felt that a piss-ant colony made up of religious nutters, psychopathic slavers, and transported criminals was worth hanging on to, then they would have crushed the rebels like a bug. But they were, and they were, and they didn't, and the rest is history.

Which leaves Americans with this totally crazy and unrealistic idea that a bunch of good ol' boys with modified AR-15s could defeat the US Army, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, should the US Government get out of hand. The reality is that, proverbially, 'Providence is on the side of the biggest battalions'.

AR-15s are an excellent weapon to defend ones freedom, but only as long as that freedom is threatened by unarmed schoolkids and concert-goers; Not so much when the tyrant has a $600 billion a year armed force equipped with the most advanced weaponry in the history of the world.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm curious if you think a blanket ban -- or at least severe restrictions -- on semi-automatic rifles would fall into the category of "reasonable." Equally curious if you would support a ban on automatic and/or magazine-fed handguns. The combination of which would aim to limit gun ownership to weapons which are difficult to use in combat situations (e.g. homicides, mass shootings, massacres, robberies, etc) but still useful in other situations (sport shooting, hunting, self defense).

This would leave gun owners with:
Bolt, lever and pump action rifles and shotguns
Single or double action revolvers
Breach-loaded high-powered pistols (punt guns)
Concealable single-shot pistols (derringers)

Not even a ban on guns. Just severe restrictions and hard-to-meet licensing requirements on REALLY ADVANCED guns that can be used to cause a lot more damage than any one person should ever reasonably need to do.

I said my position is the reasonable one and I don't define those as reasonable.

I'm still waiting for Libertarians to admit that their interpretation of the second amendment allows citizens to have nuclear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sure. If you want me to admit it I'll admit it. Not that it adds to or detracts from any conversation actually occurring.

And this is why the Libertarian position on how to interpret the second amendment is completely insane.

 

[bilby]

Home invaders hit occupied houses. By definition. You're mixing them up with burglars who do generally avoid occupied houses--because they fear guns. In countries without guns burglars generally don't avoid occupied houses.

...er, yes, they do. By definition. (Assuming that we accept your definition of the distinction between 'home invaders' and 'burglars').

Actually, in UK and Australian law, there is no category 'home invader'; there are 'house-breakers', who enter homes that are likely to be unoccupied; and 'burglars' who enter homes that are likely to be occupied.

Under this, very different, definition, a burglar specifically refers to a person who targets occupied dwellings; and that crime is considered more severe than mere housebreaking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm still waiting for Libertarians to admit that their interpretation of the second amendment allows citizens to have nuclear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've already addressed this. While technically it should permit it I also fee that it's reasonable for the government to impose the same storage/handling rules on civilians as it does on it's own people. It's impossible for a civilian to meet the government requirements. (And they are not set up to prohibit civilians from having them, they're just reasonable safety standards.) Thus I conclude that civilian possession of nuclear devices shouldn't be permitted.

Ownership is a separate issue. If a civilian has an acceptable use for a nuclear device then they should be able to buy one and have the military deliver it to the job site. (Now, I can think of no acceptable use on Earth but in space is another matter. I see no reason Acme Asteroid Movers should be prohibited from bringing home a rock with an Orion drive.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Big problem here: They don't amass any large quantity of ammunition. You see the reports saying how many rounds they have, you don't see that the purchases are not abnormal--ammunition is expensive, it's not unusual for a shooter to buy a bunch of they find a good deal on it. I've seen 1000-round packages advertised by a local ranch/outdoor supply store.

 

[bilby]

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Big problem here: They don't amass any large quantity of ammunition. You see the reports saying how many rounds they have, you don't see that the purchases are not abnormal--ammunition is expensive, it's not unusual for a shooter to buy a bunch of they find a good deal on it. I've seen 1000-round packages advertised by a local ranch/outdoor supply store.

That's not a problem, much less a big problem. If the law limits purchases of ammunition, such bulk deals would become illegal; or would constitute reasonable grounds for an in-depth investigation of the purchaser(s). No problem.

It amazes me, the trivial shit that suddenly becomes an insurmountable 'big problem' to people, when they don't want to do something.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I said my position is the reasonable one and I don't define those as reasonable.

Oh. So what you ACTUALLY mean is "Whatever I happen to agree with is the reasonable position."

Yeah. That's what everyone else means when they say it too. Do you think your position is unreasonable? I didn't think so. So when hoplophobes say they only want "reasonable" gun control, I respond by saying my position is the reasonable one.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How does the second amendment not guarantee a right to rebellion? It was made by a country built off of a rebellion and says that people should be able to band together and form their own little armies. The natural corollary to that is that they need these little armies to stand up to larger armies who want to tell them what to do.

The right to revolution isnt in the Constitution but instead John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Society. The Constitution is more like a balance of citizens giving up natural rights like revenge to courts and money to govt for agreed upon benefits while getting many assurances of govt not trampling on rights that the framers experienced as trampled by British kings. The Constitution in its main body actually gives the govt the right to put down rebellions. If however the govt were to act significantly unconstitutionally like neglecting and abusing many citizens for a long time and there was no redress because the govt said f off, the framers would support revolution in the same way as they supported their own.

 

[sharon45]

Oh. So what you ACTUALLY mean is "Whatever I happen to agree with is the reasonable position."

Yeah. That's what everyone else means when they say it too. Do you think your position is unreasonable? I didn't think so. So when hoplophobes say they only want "reasonable" gun control, I respond by saying my position is the reasonable one.

I don't think of my opinion or position as reasonable or even unreasonable, since I realize that the word reasonable is highly subjective.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm still waiting for Libertarians to admit that their interpretation of the second amendment allows citizens to have nuclear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've already addressed this. While technically it should permit it I also fee that it's reasonable for the government to impose the same storage/handling rules on civilians as it does on it's own people. It's impossible for a civilian to meet the government requirements. (And they are not set up to prohibit civilians from having them, they're just reasonable safety standards.) Thus I conclude that civilian possession of nuclear devices shouldn't be permitted.

Ownership is a separate issue. If a civilian has an acceptable use for a nuclear device then they should be able to buy one and have the military deliver it to the job site. (Now, I can think of no acceptable use on Earth but in space is another matter. I see no reason Acme Asteroid Movers should be prohibited from bringing home a rock with an Orion drive.)

It is NOT impossible for some civilians to meet those govt restrictions. For example, Bill Gates or Elon Musk could do it, but more importantly there is nothing in the second amendment or the originalist history of the second amendment that says citizens have to follow rules about uranium. The restrictions on govt come from citizens...the second amendment doesnt approve of the reverse-restriction on citizens by govt. Therefore your argument is arbitrary and spurious.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Neither set of laws restrict either sale/purchase or ownership.

Laws restrict the actions of the police, not the actions of the criminals.

The law doesn't stop you from robbing a bank. The vault door might, and so might the police, or even fear of the police. The law allows the police to be an effective source of fear for potential bank robbers.

US law needs to change such that people who want to commit mass shootings are able to be effectively prevented or deterred from doing the things that lead up to a mass shooting - such as amassing weapons and ammunition.

Of course, it infringes freedom that I expect to be arrested if I forget to remove my motorcycle helmet before walking into a bank to deposit my day's takings.

If you were a lunatic extremist, you might say that no loss of freedom is worthwhile in order to obtain security; but all of human civilisation indicates otherwise. Equally, no amount of security is worth the loss of all freedom - sane and effective societies balance the two.

Laws also restrict the action of the law abiding.

Wat? If they violate the restriction, they are no longer 'Law Abiding'. Preposterousness.

aa