Why gun control isn't the answer

[Copernicus]

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 Constitution itself proscribes for treason, and there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to repeal treason. It is true that a revolution brought about a new government, but the legal system that resulted completely outlaws rebellion against the government. Seriously, read Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Also, see Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government. It's a popular myth in the gun culture, but still a myth.

...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'...

Actually, the US rebels won their war with the essential help of a French army and French navy. I believe it was Rochambeau who convinced Washington to attack Cornwallis at Yorktown, and it was the French navy that blockaded the British. Popular mythology has it that we beat the British all on our own and that the militias played a significant role in defeating the British. The militias weren't considered very reliable by Washington, although they did play a role in a few battles.

Arming a lot of untrained civilians with battlefield weapons is not going to be a very effective force against any disciplined government force, but there are a lot of folks in the pro-gun movement that harbor delusions of heroic resistance to tyranny. Occasionally, one of the really loony right wingers blows up a building or shoots a lot of innocent people in the name of liberty. Most of them are harmless folks who run out to buy a new gun every time there is a new mass shooting that temporarily spurs talk of gun control. The new toy for freedom lovers is a bump stock, apparently. They've sold out in the stores.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Maybe if the entire right wing didn't distort the issue into a giant Straw Man = 'Banning guns', a conversation could ensue. It's entirely easy to point to a law or regulation that no one is suggesting and conclude that it won't work. What no one on the right seems to be able to admit is that reasonable regulation (licensing, registration, background checks, insurance requirements, taxes on ammunition) reduces the risk to the overall population - and that that end is desirable. We don't have to prevent las vegas perfectly. And maybe 'assault weapon' is difficult to define precisely. But how can anyone deny that imposing some purchasing restrictions on weapons designed to primarily kill humans would have saved some of the lives in this disaster?

aa

Calling them reasonable doesn't make it so.

Licensing: I'm fine with this but I have yet to see any proposals in this regard.

"I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist" That is no argument I've seen outside of message boards. I suppose you think it's my responsibility to hand feed you legislation examples too?

Registration: A list of guns--the current holy grail of the gun banners. It's not going to do anything about the criminals, it's just a list of the law-abiding. It will do very little for safety but it will make future confiscation a lot easier.

Because we confiscate and ban so many automobiles that are required to be registered? You are only extending your baseless paranoia. There are no "gun-grabbers" in congress.

Background checks: Be reasonable about this and it will pass in most places. The problem is that the left is no more capable of coming up with reasonable gun rules than the right is at coming up with reasonable abortion rules. However, I think the whole idea is wrong--if you have licenses you don't need background checks on purchase.

Actually, OK. You don't have to pass repeated background checks, but one at licensing. Although I do think it should be revisited - maybe at the time of re-licensing.

(How about a compromise? You can get a gun license {which involves a background check} or you can have a background check on transfer. That's close to how it worked here--there was no gun license per se, but you could show a CCW permit and avoid a background check. The ballot measure we just had on background checks would have gotten rid of this exemption had it not been a piece of crap that was impossible to actually implement.)

Sounds reasonable. Apparently not to far a bridge to gap.

Insurance: Guns are involved in very few incidents for which insurance would apply. If you're shooting at a person it's either self defense (at which point the person you shot has no basis for a claim) or it's criminal (and insurance always excludes willful criminal acts.) The requirement to have liability insurance on a gun is really just an attempt to drive up the cost and to get a backdoor list of everyone's guns.

You don't understand insurance. If it's a Gun Ownership policy, we can apply it to whatever coverage we want. It's like saying very few Homeowner's policies apply to vehicles. No Shit. They specifically started automobile insurance to carve it out of the HO policy. And the point isn't to 'drive up the cost of ownership' it's to make the risk of ownership more resilient.

Tax on ammunition: Crap. The people that use a lot of ammunition are very unlikely to be using it in a way that imposes any costs on society.

I don't need armor defeating bullets to shoot at targets or livestock.

As for a weapon primarily designed to kill humans--about all I can think of along those lines are specialty weapons for spies and special forces. No other weapon has a primary purpose of killing.

Take your "assault rifle": The primary purpose to which these are put is shooting at targets. Even in a self-defense situation a gun is unlikely to be fired--the primary purpose is deterrence. (Which is also the primary purpose of all ordinary military weapons. We don't build them to shoot them, we build them to discourage other countries from doing things that put us in a position of needing to shoot them. They're only fired if the primary mission fails.)

That's the most obtuse observation I've ever seen written. The purpose of vehicles is to drive, the purpose of knives is to cut, the purpose of target rifles is to shoot targets. What is the purpose of an AR-15? Deterrence? Bullshit.

aa

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the Constitution itself proscribes for treason, and there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to repeal treason. It is true that a revolution brought about a new government, but the legal system that resulted completely outlaws rebellion against the government. Seriously, read Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution:

Ya, the Constitution also talks about freedom and equality and then sets blacks to 2/3rds of a person. It's not the most internally consistent document ever. It's fine for it to have both things in it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

Only if you think your "gotcha" applies to anything.

 

[Ford]

This just in:

After a week of serious introspection following the mass shooting by a rich white conservative gun owner in Las Vegas, the National Rifle Association has finally come out with their long-awaited solution to the problem of gun violence.

It has taken them decades of research, surveys of their members, careful consideration of past and current gun laws, and a bit of soul-searching. As the preeminent gun rights organization in the US, they have an intimate understanding of the issues, concerns of gun owners, and Constitutional considerations that must be taken into account. They're finally ready to start working seriously on a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings, and are about to reveal their recommendations.




Aw, who are we kidding? They're not gonna do a fucking thing except tell people to buy more guns.

 

[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.

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.

Indeed, while we aren't talking about nuclear arms in the very specific case, we are talking about the more generic case of a continuum of weapons from knives to swords to pistols to semi-automatic rifles to machine guns to artillery to hydrogen bombs to nuclear arms...and other weapons of mass destruction. All of these are "arms" and most didn't exist at the time of the framers writing the bill of rights. And since this interpretation is trying to include machine guns, it also means it includes nuclear arms. I am sure most of the framers of the Constitution would rationally say anyone agreeing with Libertarians that citizens can keep and transport nuclear arms have an insane position on the 2nd amendment. And so any interpretation that goes beyond muskets in the continuum is also suspect.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

No. What everyone else means by "reasonable" is "Whatever solution can be objectively said to solve the problem specified while also causing the least amount of problems in its implementation." This is similar to the word "efficient" but implies a situation with multiple solutions, all of which have certain negative side effects for the people involved in solving it.

So no, a normal person does NOT define reasonable with "whatever I happen to agree with." Because normal people -- meaning, people who are not conservolibertarians -- are familiar with the possibility that not everything they might agree with is actually reasonable, nor would they necessarily agree with everything that is reasonable. It depends, rather, on the situation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Laws also restrict the action of the law abiding.

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

aa

Put that another way: laws ONLY restrict the actions of the law abiding. Laws do not restrict the actions of criminals (if they were not restricted by the law, they wouldn't be criminals, yes?)

Bilby's point is that the law doesn't actually constrain the actions of citizens, the citizens choose to constrain their own actions to avoid running into problems with the law. In fact, citizens can and will act in whatever way is least likely to get them into trouble, REGARDLESS of what the law says. If the law says you can't drive faster than 55mph and the police fail to make any serious effort to enforce that law, then drivers will go at whatever speed they like, knowing there are no consequences for doing so.

The law is not actually a list of rules for citizens to follow. The law is a list of rules for the police and judicial system to follow in how they deal with citizens. There are, in America, three ways to avoid trouble with the justice system:

1) Don't break their rules
2) Don't get caught breaking the rules
3) Don't be a civilian

 

[ZiprHead]

The 2nd amendment says "well regulated". So why aren't we allowed to regulate?

 

[ZiprHead]

What gun laws would look like if the majority had their way.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

Indeed, while we aren't talking about nuclear arms in the very specific case, we are talking about the more generic case of a continuum of weapons from knives to swords to pistols to semi-automatic rifles to machine guns to artillery to hydrogen bombs to nuclear arms...and other weapons of mass destruction. All of these are "arms" and most didn't exist at the time of the framers writing the bill of rights. And since this interpretation is trying to include machine guns, it also means it includes nuclear arms. I am sure most of the framers of the Constitution would rationally say anyone agreeing with Libertarians that citizens can keep and transport nuclear arms have an insane position on the 2nd amendment. And so any interpretation that goes beyond muskets in the continuum is also suspect.

Well, your "gotcha" question will only have any relevance when the richest people are going to Megrathia to have custom planets built for them. Your "gotcha" neither adds nor detracts from the content of any actual conversations, although it makes you feel good to have "accomplished" something by asking it and getting an answer that is as "relevant" as your question.

Yeah. That's what everyone else means when they say it too.

No. What everyone else means by "reasonable" is "Whatever solution can be objectively said to solve the problem specified while also causing the least amount of problems in its implementation." This is similar to the word "efficient" but implies a situation with multiple solutions, all of which have certain negative side effects for the people involved in solving it.

And the average person thinks their solution is the solution that can be objectively said to solve the problem specified while also causing the least amount of problems in its implementation.

So no, a normal person does NOT define reasonable with "whatever I happen to agree with." Because normal people -- meaning, people who are not conservoprogressives -- are familiar with the possibility that not everything they might agree with is actually reasonable, nor would they necessarily agree with everything that is reasonable. It depends, rather, on the situation.

So you think you hold unreasonable positions?

 

[sharon45]

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.

Indeed, while we aren't talking about nuclear arms in the very specific case, we are talking about the more generic case of a continuum of weapons from knives to swords to pistols to semi-automatic rifles to machine guns to artillery to hydrogen bombs to nuclear arms...and other weapons of mass destruction. All of these are "arms" and most didn't exist at the time of the framers writing the bill of rights. And since this interpretation is trying to include machine guns, it also means it includes nuclear arms. I am sure most of the framers of the Constitution would rationally say anyone agreeing with Libertarians that citizens can keep and transport nuclear arms have an insane position on the 2nd amendment. And so any interpretation that goes beyond muskets in the continuum is also suspect.

But the framers were not children either, as they easily saw improvements to weapons being made over the years.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And the average person thinks their solution is the solution that can be objectively said to solve the problem specified while also causing the least amount of problems in its implementation.

The average REASONABLE person does, for the most part. Not everyone is -- or even wants to be -- a reasonable person.

So you think you hold unreasonable positions?

On certain things, yes. There are some people I believe cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances and taking steps to avoid inconveniencing them is ultimately self-defeating (e.g. "Do not negotiate with terrorists!" is not a reasonable position, but it is often a necessary one).

There are also situations where doing the reasonable thing would put me at a huge disadvantage over relative to people I have no social or moral obligation to work to support. I COULD have agreed to work for my old boss for another year without the pay raise he promised me or the promotion to the position whose work I was already doing without the title or the rank. I COULD have been reasonable and understood that the company had fallen on hard times due in no small part to my boss' lack of competence or organization, that mistakes had been made, that he was trying to rectify those mistakes, and that correcting those mistakes would be ALOT harder to do without me there to help him out. I could have acknowledged the fact that the careers of six other full time employees depended on the company pulling itself out of the downward spiral that I spent years busting my ass trying to prevent, and that my leaving at this crucial moment was basically screwing all of them over.

But I didn't. Because fuck those guys, my new job offered me way more money AND a promotion. And I have absolutely no regrets about it, because sometimes, being reasonable is overrated.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The average REASONABLE person does, for the most part. Not everyone is -- or even wants to be -- a reasonable person.

So you think you hold unreasonable positions?

On certain things, yes. There are some people I believe cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances and taking steps to avoid inconveniencing them is ultimately self-defeating (e.g. "Do not negotiate with terrorists!" is not a reasonable position, but it is often a necessary one).

There are also situations where doing the reasonable thing would put me at a huge disadvantage over relative to people I have no social or moral obligation to work to support. I COULD have agreed to work for my old boss for another year without the pay raise he promised me or the promotion to the position whose work I was already doing without the title or the rank. I COULD have been reasonable and understood that the company had fallen on hard times due in no small part to my boss' lack of competence or organization, that mistakes had been made, that he was trying to rectify those mistakes, and that correcting those mistakes would be ALOT harder to do without me there to help him out. I could have acknowledged the fact that the careers of six other full time employees depended on the company pulling itself out of the downward spiral that I spent years busting my ass trying to prevent, and that my leaving at this crucial moment was basically screwing all of them over.

But I didn't. Because fuck those guys, my new job offered me way more money AND a promotion. And I have absolutely no regrets about it, because sometimes, being reasonable is overrated.

You make it sound like leaving that company for a better one was the reasonable position, although not the nice position. Why do you call staying the reasonable position? Reasonable doesn't necessarily mean "putting the interests of others ahead of your own."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You totally missed the point.

What I'm saying is that the supposed massive ammunition purchases by the shooters is basically reporter hype. This is the only mass shooter that used more ammo than one would likely use on a single visit to the range.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

No. While such individuals would have no problem meeting the mechanical storage requirements it's the human factors that they can't possibly meet.

1) Two man rule. You can't be in the proximity of a nuke alone, period. (Even to the extent that single-seat aircraft can never be nuclear armed.)

2) The psych requirements. You're having some sort of personal crisis, you can't be around a nuke, period. Showing any psych issues, you can't be around a nuke, period. Who is going to provide that supervision to a private owner? Keith can probably give more details here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Laws also restrict the action of the law abiding.

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

aa

Of course laws restrict the law abiding. I normally carry a small Leatherman tool with me if I'm out of the house because I find it useful so often. Pre-9/11 that included on airplanes. That is no longer permitted, now it goes in the suitcase.

I'm not going to do anything evil with it, this is clearly an example of a law restricting the actions of the law abiding.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And the average person thinks their solution is the solution that can be objectively said to solve the problem specified while also causing the least amount of problems in its implementation.

The average REASONABLE person does, for the most part. Not everyone is -- or even wants to be -- a reasonable person.

Again, even a person who thinks of himself as standing firm to some principle thinks his principle is reasonable. Reasonable doesn't mean "always gives in" or "always bends".

Like your job story. It seems like the reasonable thing was to leave, even though it wasn't the nice thing. Reasonable doesn't mean self sacrificing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The average REASONABLE person does, for the most part. Not everyone is -- or even wants to be -- a reasonable person.



On certain things, yes. There are some people I believe cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances and taking steps to avoid inconveniencing them is ultimately self-defeating (e.g. "Do not negotiate with terrorists!" is not a reasonable position, but it is often a necessary one).

There are also situations where doing the reasonable thing would put me at a huge disadvantage over relative to people I have no social or moral obligation to work to support. I COULD have agreed to work for my old boss for another year without the pay raise he promised me or the promotion to the position whose work I was already doing without the title or the rank. I COULD have been reasonable and understood that the company had fallen on hard times due in no small part to my boss' lack of competence or organization, that mistakes had been made, that he was trying to rectify those mistakes, and that correcting those mistakes would be ALOT harder to do without me there to help him out. I could have acknowledged the fact that the careers of six other full time employees depended on the company pulling itself out of the downward spiral that I spent years busting my ass trying to prevent, and that my leaving at this crucial moment was basically screwing all of them over.

But I didn't. Because fuck those guys, my new job offered me way more money AND a promotion. And I have absolutely no regrets about it, because sometimes, being reasonable is overrated.

You make it sound like leaving that company for a better one was the reasonable position

It wasn't.

Why do you call staying the reasonable position?

Because taken as a whole, by all objective measures, the cost of staying would have been far less than the cost of leaving, and it was possible that the costs would eventually be compensated. The only problem with that premise is that the cost of staying would have been paid entirely by ME, while the cost of my departure would be paid by EVERYONE ELSE.

Literally a question of "Should I stay and do 20% more work than I want to for 20% less pay than I deserve? Or should I leave and make everyone else do 20% more work than THEY want to for 20% less pay than they deserve?" Option B is the "asshole" option, not the reasonable one. And it's the one I chose. I should feel bad about it, but for some reason I don't.

Reasonable doesn't necessarily mean "putting the interests of others ahead of your own."

Reasonable means "Arriving at a solution of maximum utility for all parties involved." A reasonable person would suck it up and deal with the terrible work environment because that really IS better for all parties involved. A selfish person -- or at least, a person who is choosing to BE selfish in this case -- puts his own interests ahead of everyone else and doesn't pretend to be reasonable.

This is THE reason we do not have rational gun control in this country. There are all kinds of reasonable measures we could take that would make guns safer, harder for criminals to get, and less dangerous to the general public. We don't do these things, however, because we have these stupid dickheads who say things like "Leftists don't really want reasonable gun control, it's just baby steps towards their real objective of banning all guns everywhere."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Registration: A list of guns--the current holy grail of the gun banners. It's not going to do anything about the criminals, it's just a list of the law-abiding. It will do very little for safety but it will make future confiscation a lot easier.

Because we confiscate and ban so many automobiles that are required to be registered? You are only extending your baseless paranoia. There are no "gun-grabbers" in congress.

No substantial group is trying to rid America of automobiles. A substantial group is trying to rid it of guns and registration lists have already been used for gun seizures. And we most certainly have gun grabbers in Congress.

Actually, OK. You don't have to pass repeated background checks, but one at licensing. Although I do think it should be revisited - maybe at the time of re-licensing.

Yeah, I would have no problem with redoing it at license renewal.

Sounds reasonable. Apparently not to far a bridge to gap.

You are the first person on the left to accept my proposal.

Insurance: Guns are involved in very few incidents for which insurance would apply. If you're shooting at a person it's either self defense (at which point the person you shot has no basis for a claim) or it's criminal (and insurance always excludes willful criminal acts.) The requirement to have liability insurance on a gun is really just an attempt to drive up the cost and to get a backdoor list of everyone's guns.

You don't understand insurance. If it's a Gun Ownership policy, we can apply it to whatever coverage we want. It's like saying very few Homeowner's policies apply to vehicles. No Shit. They specifically started automobile insurance to carve it out of the HO policy. And the point isn't to 'drive up the cost of ownership' it's to make the risk of ownership more resilient.

You're not addressing my point at all. I'm saying there will be few insurable incidents.

Tax on ammunition: Crap. The people that use a lot of ammunition are very unlikely to be using it in a way that imposes any costs on society.

I don't need armor defeating bullets to shoot at targets or livestock.

1) I was talking about quantity--now you're moving the goalposts by talking about armor piercing rounds.

2) The original "cop-killer" bullets were actually developed as a safety measure. The objective was to reduce lead dust at indoor firing ranges and they ended up with a round that tended to punch through kevlar vests.

That's the most obtuse observation I've ever seen written. The purpose of vehicles is to drive, the purpose of knives is to cut, the purpose of target rifles is to shoot targets. What is the purpose of an AR-15? Deterrence? Bullshit.

The vast majority of rounds fired from AR-15s will be at targets and not in a training context. Does that not suggest that it's the primary purpose of the gun?