Jump to content
laripu

The second amendment

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, splunch said:

I know that 250 years later I can go buy a single weapon for a few hundred bucks and a pile of ammo, and I can kill dozens of people easily in a matter of seconds.  Thomas Jefferson ISN'T HERE.  We are.  This is OUR government and we need to clean this giant sink hole up.

 

Excellent point about Jefferson. 👍👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Excellent point about Jefferson. 👍👍

I just get tired of so-called "Libertarians" or whatever pretending they can channel the intent of TJ or Ben Franklin or George Washington and just hand down some divine judgement about everything.  One thing that is not at all unclear about those men is that they wrote specifically into the Constitution the means to amend it so that it would continue to work for us as we progressed.  OBVIOUSLY they did not intend for anything they did or said to be carved in granite and taken as the eternal gospel truth other than their commitment to enlightened ideals of trying to ensure a just and free society for people, which those people would determine for themselves.

 

That's us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 6:20 AM, Renegade said:

 

 

I was thinking about this...   The purpose of the 'militia' was to defend the nation/state.  Back then, the standing army wasn't large enough for a real war.  If and when England invaded we needed to be able to mobilize a larger force.   So, the whole purpose of a militia was to provide armed men to support and defend the government.

The whole purpose was a state regulated militia for a specific purpose.

Quote

 

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to preserve individual rights against government encroachment.  So, why did they see the need for a 2nd Amendment at all?  If the government needs an armed populace, why do you need a constitutional right to prevent the government from disarming the populace?   It's sort of like having an amendment that says "the right of people to pay taxes shall not be infringed".  Taxes and militias are both forms of government support and need no constitutional amendment to secure their safety from the government. 

 

The only logical reason to put the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from taking it away. 

 

Of course, we can always change our mind.  

 

 

We all start out with that right, but some crimes can cause it to be forfeited.

 

 

They have no more rights than you do.  You're free to make your own decisions.  You don't "have to get a gun" if you don't want to.

 

 

A person needs to practice with their weapon.  It's safer for everyone when the person with a gun is proficient.

 

 

I was driving down a two-lane highway last month, on my way to visit one of my daughters.   With cars going both directions at 65 miles per hour, separated only by a thin yellow stripe painted on the asphalt, I was thinking how much trust and faith I put in the drivers going the other way (and them in me).  If one of them, intentionally or otherwise, comes over into my lane...I'm a goner.  How do I know these people aren't crazy?   What if they're distracted?  Society is built on trust.  When we stop trusting each other, we start taking away each other's rights.  

 

 

I do.  Consider that the vast majority of people are sane.  If you were in a room with armed citizens, and someone shows up intent on doing harm, you should be grateful that your fellow citizens are armed and capable of defending the group.  I believe the 49 people who died at The Pulse in Orlando would have preferred that at least one of their friends was armed that night.  You might say that the best situation would be if none were armed, including the shooter.  But, that's not practical.  Those intent on doing harm will always find a way to be armed.  

You are not answering my question in a realistic way. I do not want the guy with a gun in the store where I go with my kids. He's on his own with his right to have and hold a gun is what you are saying. So I should get a gun if I feel rattled by that you suggest.

 

That's downright crazy, and wrong. It becomes one persons freedom weighing more than another's which is in essence unconstitutional. The NRA has skewed the entire approach with their nonsense. It wasn't like this at all in the 1950 and 60's - but now it is. And it's completely wrong!

Other countries don't live with this nonsense. Why the heck should we in the US?

 

Owning a gun needs to be a privilege. You would be free to register to own a gun, and then it would be on a gun registry. You mess up then, the privilege is taken away forever. Simple.

 

Peace!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 7:10 PM, TheOldBarn said:

You are not answering my question in a realistic way. I do not want the guy with a gun in the store where I go with my kids. He's on his own with his right to have and hold a gun is what you are saying. So I should get a gun if I feel rattled by that you suggest.

 

That's downright crazy, and wrong. It becomes one persons freedom weighing more than another's which is in essence unconstitutional. The NRA has skewed the entire approach with their nonsense. It wasn't like this at all in the 1950 and 60's - but now it is. And it's completely wrong!

Other countries don't live with this nonsense. Why the heck should we in the US?

 

Owning a gun needs to be a privilege. You would be free to register to own a gun, and then it would be on a gun registry. You mess up then, the privilege is taken away forever. Simple.

 

Peace!

 

 

I apologize for not answering your question properly.  I'm doing the best I can.  Maybe I don't completely understand. 

 

If this gun owner in a store is acting peacefully and lawfully, how does that weigh on your freedom?  You're still free to do whatever you would like to do.  No action of yours is impaired in any way.  

 

The only impact on you that I see is that it makes you uncomfortable. 

 

Just because other people make us uncomfortable, that doesn't give us the right to make them change their behavior.  For example, I was once very homophobic.  It made me extremely uncomfortable to see two men holding hands, or even worse...kissing.  Was their freedom weighing more than mine just because it made me uncomfortable?   I would say no.  There is no right not to be made uncomfortable by other people peacefully exercising their freedom.  This would apply to free speech as well.

 

If I'm still not understanding the question, please be patient with me.   It's harder to get ideas across when we have such different points of view on a subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2019 at 9:20 AM, Renegade said:

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to preserve individual rights against government encroachment. 

 

And that was a reasonable goal in 1776, 1876 and maybe even 1976.

 

Today? Today the freedoms of a people need to be in proportion to the responsibility of the people.

 

 

 

On 9/8/2019 at 9:20 AM, Renegade said:

You might say that the best situation would be if none were armed, including the shooter.  But, that's not practical.  Those intent on doing harm will always find a way to be armed.  

 

When guns are everywhere, and the culture is a gun culture, the last two sentences above are true.

 

Your first sentence above, is a condition that is the case in Canada, where people can own guns, and do, for hunting and target shooting. Criminals also own guns, but because Canada doesn't have a gun culture, guns are rarely used to shoot people.

 

The way to change a culture of guns into one closer to Canada's is to do this:

1. Repeal the second amendment.

2. Require significant training, with tests, to obtain a license to own a firearm. Only licensed owners are allowed to own firearms.

3. Ban importation and sale of weapons of war, and ammunition of war. Limit manufacture of weapons of war to those designed for the military.

4. Deny gun ownership permanently to felons, people with mental problems and people with intelligence too low to pass the significant testing, as required in #2 above.

5. Institute a maximum number of firearms that can be owned by anyone. Exempted are firearms with historical significance, those manufactured prior to 1850. Therefore collectors of historical guns can own a zillion of 'em.

6. Any other firearms are confiscated whenever possible without violating search and seizure laws.

7. Any firearm that is sold or given can only be sold or given if the buyer is properly licensed. If a firearms is improperly sold or given, the original owner becomes equally liable for any crimes committed. Ditto for unreported theft.

 

If the above is rigorously enforced, then in two generations, you will no longer have a gun culture. You will be similar in some ways to Canada. They're will still be hunters and target shooters. There will be almost no mass murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, laripu said:

Today? Today the freedoms of a people need to be in proportion to the responsibility of the people.

 

Why is that different "today"?  Did people not have responsibilities in the past?

 

13 hours ago, laripu said:

Criminals also own guns, but because Canada doesn't have a gun culture, guns are rarely used to shoot people.

 

There are many cultural differences between the USA and Canada.   I believe the relevant difference in this case is violence, not guns.   The USA has always had a "gun culture".  That's not what's different today.  Today, we don't respect other people.  We don't respect human life.   Many see violence as a way they can demand respect from others.    Our problems include anger, violence, division, marginalization, and dehumanization of others.   

 

I believe these problems are amplified by (and in some part created by) the press to appear 100 times worse than they really are.  It's what sells papers, eyeballs, and clicks.   Good news, friendship, cooperation, kindness...no one cares.  People want to read about racists and mass murderers.   A politician could give an uplifting and inspirational hour-long speech with one ambiguous phrase and you can guess what the headline would be. 

 

Guns are a distraction from the real issues.  Fix the underlying causes of our violent, divisive, dehumanizing culture and guns won't be a problem.  If we make guns illegal without fixing the underlying causes, the violence will continue with other tools.   Consider that there were no guns used to take out half the Saudi's oil production last week.  There's an unlimited number of lethal weapons all around us. 

 

None of your numbered actions would fix the cultural issues, in my opinion.  Prohibition didn't end the "alcohol culture".  The war on drugs didn't end the "drug culture".  Making guns illegal won't solve anything either.  If there's demand for a product, the product will be available.  You'll just turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens (like me) into criminals.  We need to address the root causes, not the symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Why is that different "today"?  Did people not have responsibilities in the past?

 

No, I meant it the other way. people were more responsible in the past. They could, mostly, responsibly own single shot guns.

In today's world, witness mass shootings, mistreated and abandoned children, and lack of engagement in our communities. This society may not have the necessary responsibility for semi-automatic firearms. Maybe not even for single shot weapons.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Today, we don't respect other people.  We don't respect human life.   Many see violence as a way they can demand respect from others.    Our problems include anger, violence, division, marginalization, and dehumanization of others. 

 

Yes, and people with those characteristics should not have the freedom of gun ownership. Freedom must be proportional to responsibility. Less responsibility should mean less freedom.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Guns are a distraction from the real issues.  Fix the underlying causes of our violent, divisive, dehumanizing culture and guns won't be a problem.

 

Fixing a culture takes decades.  How many more mass shootings will we tolerate while we fix the culture?

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

Prohibition didn't end the "alcohol culture".

 

It didn't eliminate it, but it certainly reduced it significantly.  See The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition by W.J. Rorabaugh.

You won't end gun murders by doing what I suggested.  But you will reduce them significantly within a couple of generations.  You will change the trend.

 

3 hours ago, Renegade said:

You'll just turn millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens (like me) into criminals.

 

Why?  Which law would you break? Would you refuse to register your weapons? Will you have semi-automatics? Will you exceed the maximum number, if it's, say, five? Will you sell your weapons to someone who should not be allowed to have them?

 

Most gun owners would not run afoul of those laws if they were passed. Why would you?

 

Or are you saying you'd just break them on purpose, out of a sense of duty or rebellion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, laripu said:

Most gun owners would not run afoul of those laws if they were passed. Why would you?

 

if that was true this debate would not be taking place   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rrober49 said:

if that was true this debate would not be taking place   

 

This debate is taking place because we have mass shootings in this country, at a rate that exceeds one per day. Here's the reference. (That's only mass shootings. It doesn't count most of the other incidents where maybe only one or two people were killed or injured.)

 

There are so many mass shootings that most aren't reported outside their locality. Does anyone remember that on Dec 23, 2018, a felon who wasn't even allowed to own a gun shot and killed one woman and injured 7 other people at a drug party in Missouri? Of course not: why would anyone remember one tragedy over hundreds of others?

 

As a people, on the whole, we are stupid and irresponsible. There are certainly responsible smart people among us, but on average we're a nation of antisocial idiots. And we're armed to the teeth. If we don't rein ourselves in, legislate of our own free will, we will inevitably lose our rights.

 

We're having this debate because we have too many guns, guns with too much destructive power, and a population ill-suited to the responsibility needed to own them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, laripu said:

 

On 9/17/2019 at 8:16 AM, Renegade said:

Today, we don't respect other people.  We don't respect human life.   Many see violence as a way they can demand respect from others.    Our problems include anger, violence, division, marginalization, and dehumanization of others. 

 

Yes, and people with those characteristics should not have the freedom of gun ownership. Freedom must be proportional to responsibility. Less responsibility should mean less freedom.

 

I'll agree that when a person is convicted of violent crime, they should forfeit their right to bear arms.   Is that good enough?

 

21 hours ago, laripu said:

It didn't eliminate it, but it certainly reduced it significantly. 

 

Prohibition was repealed because it didn't work.  It was repealed because it made otherwise law abiding people into criminals.  "Not to oversimplify things, but the Eighteenth Amendment (which established national prohibition) made a sizeable portion of the population criminals overnight. Even though the sale and manufacturing of alcohol was criminalized, the majority of the people who drank responsibly wanted to continue to do so. I’m not an economist but I learned that where there is a demand for something, a supply will be filled, whether it is legal or not. So Prohibition didn’t make alcohol disappear, it just allowed famous mobsters like Al Capone to step in and provide an elaborate, yet dangerous, underground market."Huffington Post

 

2 hours ago, laripu said:

This debate is taking place because we have mass shootings in this country

 

I feel like you're not seeing the forest for the trees.  These are mass murders that just happen to use guns as the tool.  If you don't affect the reason for the murder, they'll just pick a different tool. 

 

21 hours ago, laripu said:

Fixing a culture takes decades.  

 

It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 100 years or forever, it's the only thing that will work.

 

21 hours ago, laripu said:

Why?  Which law would you break? Would you refuse to register your weapons? Will you have semi-automatics? Will you exceed the maximum number, if it's, say, five?

 

The one where you you can't own more than 5 guns.  I've only bought one gun in my entire life.  That was a gift to my daughter for self defense before she was married and while I was living out of the country.  But, I have the single-shot .22 my great-grandfather gave to my grandmother.  I have my dad's 30-30 Winchester rifle and my wife's dad's...  well, anyway, I have more than 5 guns (roughly a dozen).  They're not especially valuable and they don't meet your criteria for collector's items but they have significant sentimental value to me.  In my family, there are no family jewels, no mansion, no heirlooms.  In most cases, a gun is all I have from my relatives.   I will refuse to register these weapons and there is no conceivable scenario where I give them up.   

 

No one in my family has ever committed a felony, violent or otherwise (going back to my great-grandparents and I'm 59).  Every single family member has owned and used guns from a very early age (10 for me).  And now, people want to take my guns away because civilization is breaking down.   Violent crime, people shooting each other, politicians not respecting the Constitution, democracy at risk...this is not the time to give up my guns. 

 

As repeal of the 2nd Amendment has become a more realistic possibility, I've come to realize how fragile and precious my rights and freedoms actually are.   There's a gun show here in October.  Maybe it's finally time for me to buy a gun for myself while I still can.

 

Go ahead and take the guns from the violent criminals.  I'm with you on that.  But leave mine alone.  Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade said:

Go ahead and take the guns from the violent criminals.  I'm with you on that.  But leave mine alone.  Please.

 

There's the problem. With all the guns out there, you can take a gun away form a violent criminal and he can buy another, illegally, in hours.

Unless you take most of the guns out of circulation, you will never solve this problem.

 

Is the problem worth solving? Are your family keepsakes worth deaths? How many?

 

23 hours ago, laripu said:

Fixing a culture takes decades.  How many more mass shootings will we tolerate while we fix the culture?

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

It doesn't matter if it takes 10 years or 100 years or forever, it's the only thing that will work.

 

And it will never happen while guns are as easily available as they are now.

 

2 hours ago, Renegade said:

I'll agree that when a person is convicted of violent crime, they should forfeit their right to bear arms.   Is that good enough?

 

No.

Beside violent crime, include stalking, and misdemeanors like driving without a license or insurance. A person needs to demonstrate responsibility in everything. Any crime should cause a person to forfeit their right to bear arms because it indicates a lack of responsibility.

 

Require yearly training for anyone that wants to own a weapon. Someone in NHB (non-liberal) suggested gun training in high school; I'm okay with that. If they don't pass, too bad.

 

Keep a record of mental illness.  People who have been mentally ill should also forfeit their right to bear arms.

 

All guns must be registered and all transfers of any kind recorded; with thorough background checks prior to any transfer. No exceptions.

 

Illegally transferred guns impose liability on the original owner as well as the person using them for a crime.

 

I'd back away from the numeric limit for people who have family keepsakes, but there needs to be some proof.  At minimum a letter or a photo referencing the original ownership of the firearm. Some could be grandfathered in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laripu said:

There's the problem. With all the guns out there, you can take a gun away form a violent criminal and he can buy another, illegally, in hours.

Unless you take most of the guns out of circulation, you will never solve this problem.

 

Is the problem worth solving? Are your family keepsakes worth deaths? How many?

 

Thank you for listening to what I have to say.  I sincerely respect your opinion and your positions.  There is logic on your side.  When I look inward and ask myself why I have taken this position, the answer certainly isn't 'logic'.   I recognize that I have an emotional attachment to guns and the idea of guns.  I am attempting to use logic to rationalize this emotional attachment.  That's not ideal, but I believe the other side is doing the same thing.  I'll come back to that later.

 

How do you feel about swimming pools?  They kill lots of people.  The  CDC says  "Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger." How many lives should we sacrifice so people can swim? 

 

I think it's important to remember that I haven't killed anyone.  My family keepsakes haven't caused any deaths.  They're not for sale to criminals or anyone else, illegally or otherwise.  They're not in "circulation".  Yet, it's me you're coming after.   

 

4 hours ago, laripu said:

And it will never happen while guns are as easily available as they are now.

 

Why not?  Why can't we fix our culture in the presence of guns?  Guns don't make people do bad things.  They're not possessed.  

 

I've said a couple of times that a person bent on murder will use whatever tool they can get.  If you make guns illegal, the bad guys will just use something else.  You can make some awesome explosives out of some seemingly innocuous household products and deliver them over long distances with commercially available drones.   There's an unlimited number of ways to kill your fellow human beings without a gun.   Even if you could eliminate every gun on the planet, I doubt it would make much of a dent in the homicide numbers.

 

How would I fix our culture?  You haven't asked, but it's a logical question for someone who says that's what we ought to do.  

1)  Jobs for everyone.   If the private sector isn't hiring, then the government should.

2)  Good schools for everyone.  Whatever it takes.

3)  Stop spreading hate.  Yeah, that's kind of hard to do when that's all the press wants to talk about and we have this freedom of speech thing.  But, somehow we need to convince the press to stop turning us against each other.  That's where the effort should be going.  

 

5 hours ago, laripu said:

Beside violent crime, include stalking, and misdemeanors like driving without a license or insurance. A person needs to demonstrate responsibility in everything. Any crime should cause a person to forfeit their right to bear arms because it indicates a lack of responsibility.

 

I couldn't go for that.  No one can live a perfect life forever.  I tend to get speeding tickets once every 4 or 5 years.  

 

As Neil deGrasse Tyson noted, lots more people die in car wrecks, yet no one is calling for mandatory annual training, psych evals, or taking cars away from stalkers.

 

I admitted up front that a large part of the reason I take the position I do comes down to my emotional attachment to guns.  I also believe that if most of the people who want to make guns illegal were completely honest, a large part of their reason is that they're afraid of guns.  They don't see a gun as a metal tool in the same way they'd look at a hammer or a chainsaw (even though these can also be used to kill).  They see it as something sinister that brings out evil impulses in people.  There is irrationality on both sides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, laripu said:

Beside violent crime, include stalking, and misdemeanors like driving without a license or insurance. A person needs to demonstrate responsibility in everything. Any crime should cause a person to forfeit their right to bear arms because it indicates a lack of responsibility.

 

Wow ! you want to revoke peoples given rights over misdemeanors ?

 

your ideas come from fear and little to do with us keeping our rights  so much as making sure you are less afraid

 

I too am afraid but in deal with it a different way I live across the street from a half way  house at least twice a year I have six police cars out in front of my home where I  had to raise my son

 

 By law my wife's work place had to inform her a death threat placed upon her life because some supposed meth head did not get his check in the mail soon enough 

 she does work for the state 

 

 I was allowed to see the surveillance on said person and the make model license plate of his vehicles 

 

 I have 20 minutes of alone time to defend myself till help can arrive

 

 I gave up owning guns 20 years ago advocated for tougher access from that point on but 4 years ago I bought the thing I though others wouldn't feel a need to have

now that  might be a 90 lbs pit bull named garrote  or a semi auto 

 

suggestions ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rrober49 said:

Wow ! you want to revoke peoples given rights over misdemeanors ?

 

your ideas come from fear and little to do with us keeping our rights  so much as making sure you are less afraid

 

I would revoke the right to carry a murder-weapon to a person who showed evidence of irresponsibility. Maybe not permanently. But if a person gets a DUI, with blood alcohol at 0.16, speeding at 90 mph in a 60 zone, c then they're not responsible enough to own a weapon.

 

My ideas don't come from fear because it's unlikely in the extreme that I'll ever be injured by a weapon. I mostly go to work and then home, with an occasional stop at a grocery, or bank, or Sam's Club. I'm completely boring.

 

My ideas come from the fact that no western nation on Earth has a firearm death rate when close to that of the United States.

 

I could argue that people only want guns because of fear: fear of being attacked and helpless. I don't, but I could.

 

I don't because these ideas should be criticised as ideas. My motivations or yours are irrelevant to whether or not the ideas are correct.

 

On 9/18/2019 at 6:33 PM, Renegade said:

As Neil deGrasse Tyson noted, lots more people die in car wrecks, yet no one is calling for mandatory annual training, psych evals, or taking cars away from stalkers.

 

This is an invalid argument, because cars are not an instrument of murder, but an instrument of travel. You would be on firmer ground arguing that heroin should be legal because aspirin is. Right, you can die from eating aspirin. Over 500 mg/kg of body weight is deadly ... so heroin should be legal? Nah. A 220 lb man (100 kg) can be killed by eating 50,000 milligrams, that is, 50 grams of aspirin. For the people that are unfamiliar with grams, 50 grams is just under 1.8 ounces. So heroin should be legal?

 

Nonsense.

 

On 9/18/2019 at 6:33 PM, Renegade said:

They see it as something sinister that brings out evil impulses in people. There is irrationality on both sides.  

 

I don't see guns as "something sinister that brings out evil impulses in people". I see them as the instrument of choice to satisfy the evil impulses of evil people. You noted that if they had no guns they would use something else to kill. Indeed they would, and it would be nowhere near as efficient. The per capita death rate from murder would begin to drop, and two generations later would be on par with Canada's.

 

This guy killed 58 and wounded 422. With a knife he'd have been tackled before he'd killed his third. Very few people both know how to make a McVeigh bomb and have the urge to do so. And the prep work could give them away. Not so with high power firearms.

 

There isn't any irrationality in the numbers. Canada's per capita death rate from shooting is smaller by a factor of 6.2. The reason is fewer guns.

 

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread for those numbers:

 

Quote

Some simple statistics:

In 2018, there were 14,611 gun deaths in the United States. These were non-suicide gun deaths. Click here for the source of this statistic.

The ratio of population is around 327 million to 37 million, i.e. 8.84 to 1, roughly. If Canada had the same number of gun deaths, per capita, as the US, they should have 14,611/8.84 or about 1653 gun deaths.


The two countries have similar but not identical cultures. Similar levels of insanity, all the same violent movies, all the same violent video games, all the same TV shows. A bit of Canadian content that you rarely see here, but sometimes it makes it. (John Candy, Kids in the Hall, K.D.Lang, Celine Dion, Leonard Cohen.)


In actuality, in 2017, Canada's gun deaths hit a record high: 266. Click here for the source of that statistic.


Conversely, if the US had Canada's rate of gun deaths, we'd have about 266 * 8.84 or about 2351 gun deaths.


The difference: gun culture. For gun culture, for the 18th century conception of liberty, we're sacrificing over 12,200 people per year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

I would revoke the right to carry a murder-weapon to a person who showed evidence of irresponsibility.

 

A murder weapon is a weapon that has been used to commit murder.   My guns have not been so used, so they are not murder weapons.  They have the potential to become murder weapons, but so does your car.

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

My ideas don't come from fear

 

I'll take your word for it.   It just seems as if your reaction to guns is out of proportion to your reaction to other tools which have similar capabilities.  

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

My ideas come from the fact that no western nation on Earth has a firearm death rate when close to that of the United States.

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

There isn't any irrationality in the numbers. Canada's per capita death rate from shooting is smaller by a factor of 6.2. The reason is fewer guns.

 

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread:  "New Hampshire has 0.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people (a lower rate than Canada)." 

 

New Hampshire still abides by the 2nd Amendment.  New Hampshire doesn't have a gun homicide problem.  Let's make the rest of the United States like New Hampshire.  Is this approach acceptable?

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

if they had no guns they would use something else to kill. Indeed they would, and it would be nowhere near as efficient.

 

Any time something interferes with the free market selection process, there is a loss of efficiency.  So, I agree that if there were no guns, killers should be less efficient.  But, I'm not so sure it would be a significant difference in the overall number of deaths.   Some mass murderers could actually end up killing many more people by switching to explosives or chemical/biological weapons.   Even if the killer only wanted to kill one person, more might die since these weapons are less precise.   This would at least partially offset any reduction from those who are too lazy to build a bomb and too squeamish to use a knife.

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

This is an invalid argument, because cars are not an instrument of murder, but an instrument of travel.

 

Cars and guns are just tools that do whatever is in the heart of the operator.  If that doesn't make sense, I give up.  This is the core of our difference.  I would treat guns as any other tool.  If a large number of people are dying from the use of a particular tool, then that tool may need more safety precautions.  The safety regulations and policies should be similar for tools that cause a similar number of deaths.  More deaths should mean tighter precautions.  Is that not logical?

 

I've seen estimates that there are about 270 million vehicles in the USA and about 390 million guns.  Even though there are more guns than cars, cars kill more people.  Would it not be logical to have tighter rules for training, licensing, and ownership of cars than for guns?

 

13 hours ago, laripu said:

You would be on firmer ground arguing that heroin should be legal because aspirin is.

 

Aspirins aren't killing people (not very many anyway) but cars are killing thousands.  You would be on firmer ground if you would explain why it's less important to prevent car deaths than gun deaths.  

 

12 hours ago, laripu said:

so heroin should be legal?  Nonsense.

 

I completely missed the connection to guns and this may take us down a rabbit hole, but I'll bite.  Why shouldn't heroin be legal?   If a person is not free to make decisions about their own body, how are they free at all?   What right do I have to tell someone else what they can do to themselves?  

 

You don't need to tell me how terrible heroin addiction is, how many people die, or quote statistics.  I don't dispute any of that.  The only question that matters to me is whether or not I have the right to force someone else not to do something because I think it's better for them.  They think that heroin makes them happy...I think otherwise.  Who gets to decide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, laripu said:

I would revoke the right to carry a murder-weapon to a person who showed evidence of irresponsibility. Maybe not permanently. But if a person gets a DUI, with blood alcohol at 0.16, speeding at 90 mph in a 60 zone, c then they're not responsible enough to own a weapon.

 

wouldn't  you be opening the door to allow our Government to revoke all our rights should they choose ? over misdemeanors  ? 

 

 Idaho is in the top 5 most armed states  with a Homicide rate of 1.9,  Florida weighs in at 5.0  and we have open carry  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rrober49 said:

wouldn't  you be opening the door to allow our Government to revoke all our rights should they choose ? over misdemeanors  ? 

 

That's alarmism.

The right to bear arms shouldn't be a right in the first place. It should be something for which you get trained, licensed, regulated and tested.

 

There no evidence that government will revoke all our rights, any more than government has revoked all the rights in England, France, Canada, Belgium, or Holland.

 

There's plenty of solid evidence that there were many thousands of unnecessary gun deaths.

 

Rrober, a few posts ago you were saying that you thought I wanted to ban guns out of fear. Are you afraid of your government? (Present occupant excepted, of course.) I'm not afraid of the Big Bad Barbara Boxer or Malevolent Mitch Romney. Maybe Mendacious McConnell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, if you want a model for authoritarian dictatorship, look to Iran. Iran uses it's armed population to keep it's peaceful opposition repressed.

 

They're called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. And if you don't think that's possible here, consider this link:

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/armed-militias-pledge-to-fight-for-fugitive-oregon-gop-lawmakers-at-any-cost

 

There was someone on the right who recently bragged that in any conflict between the left and the right, the right would win because they have guns .

 

So if you're worried about your rights, look to the right-wing-nuts, who will bark like dogs about their gun rights while stripping you of all your others rights; not to regulatory measures of democratically elected government.

 

I can't believe this argument is taking place in the liberal forum. You two sound like right wingers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with people today in america, they think that they can run rampant with Bazookas and that is keeping a well regulated militia. YEAH I DON'T THINK SO.

The main thing is people need to go through some form of background check and or mental check to be eligible to purchase a gun no matter what it is. I know plenty of normal people that own guns that do not cause harm to anybody and this does not authorize the government to take our guns away. So in turn I probably am a little more pro gun that most on this forum but we all have the right to our opinions. 

 

I know Im going to be attacked for even speaking my mind unlike that of other forums. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zkyllonen8 said:

I know Im going to be attacked for even speaking my mind unlike that of other forums.

 

Nope. Not going to be attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...