|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 07 2013 10:51 Zergneedsfood wrote:I wouldn't discredit gun rights advocates so quickly by saying they think it's the first step to a fascist government. It's more about individual rights versus the collective good of a society/community/country. Here's something I'll quote from someone I vehemently disagree with, but I find the argument at the very least compelling, and not at all like someone's who's scared of a fascist government (in fact he's not opposed to any government as long as they protect the natural rights of its citizens). Show nested quote +Background checks aren't intrusive if a person consents. A person has an indisputable right to his/her own life, so derivatively a person has a right to what he/she has produced from said life. There's not point to life, in one can't maximize its utility (pursue happiness.) So whatever is produced from one's life is to serve one's utility. A person must, therefore, have absolute discretion over his/her life and all that is produced from it, since one's will is the only guarantee in serving one's utility.
If a person consents to a background check, then there's nothing wrong since it is done in accordance to said person's will. If it is done without consent, then it violates one's will and therefore countermands one's will in one's pursuit to maximize the utility of one's property. So what does this all mean in layman's? The information about myself is something that I own, and even though I can't prevent its reproduction, no one has a higher priority than me. The forceful extraction of this information which I own is a violation because it goes against my will. You want me to prove that? I can't. It's an ethical principle. I can't prove that murder is wrong, either, yet the principle is the same. I can agree that the practicality of his statement means little in the status quo, but a belief that one owns his own property means a lot to people more than (what they perceive to be) irrational beliefs that gun control will lead to any reasonable changes in gun violence. [/QUOTE]
I respect the position, but does tweaking gun legislation and coming up with ways to minimize the abuse of guns really need to become a philosophical discussion, about whether the rights of the individual have more value to the safety and prosperity of society as a whole?
Imagine if instead of discussing potential solutions to the mutually agreed upon issue — I pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees that crazy and stupid people shouldn't have guns — that I did this instead:
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi MOTHERFUCKERS. BOOM! Discussing gun rights is a non-issue because guns inevitably lead to mutually assured destruction. GAME OVER!
I would and should be made fun of until the end of time.
|
On May 07 2013 11:23 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:51 Zergneedsfood wrote:I wouldn't discredit gun rights advocates so quickly by saying they think it's the first step to a fascist government. It's more about individual rights versus the collective good of a society/community/country. Here's something I'll quote from someone I vehemently disagree with, but I find the argument at the very least compelling, and not at all like someone's who's scared of a fascist government (in fact he's not opposed to any government as long as they protect the natural rights of its citizens). Background checks aren't intrusive if a person consents. A person has an indisputable right to his/her own life, so derivatively a person has a right to what he/she has produced from said life. There's not point to life, in one can't maximize its utility (pursue happiness.) So whatever is produced from one's life is to serve one's utility. A person must, therefore, have absolute discretion over his/her life and all that is produced from it, since one's will is the only guarantee in serving one's utility.
If a person consents to a background check, then there's nothing wrong since it is done in accordance to said person's will. If it is done without consent, then it violates one's will and therefore countermands one's will in one's pursuit to maximize the utility of one's property. So what does this all mean in layman's? The information about myself is something that I own, and even though I can't prevent its reproduction, no one has a higher priority than me. The forceful extraction of this information which I own is a violation because it goes against my will. You want me to prove that? I can't. It's an ethical principle. I can't prove that murder is wrong, either, yet the principle is the same. I can agree that the practicality of his statement means little in the status quo, but a belief that one owns his own property means a lot to people more than (what they perceive to be) irrational beliefs that gun control will lead to any reasonable changes in gun violence. I respect the position, but does tweaking gun legislation and coming up with ways to minimize the abuse of guns really need to become a philosophical discussion, about whether the rights of the individual have more value to the safety and prosperity of society as a whole?
In so far as people provide inconclusive evidence (or at the very least mixed) that gun control leads to reductions in crime, I think arguing individual rights versus the collective good is a relevant topic of debate. While I'm personally convinced that if properly implemented, gun control does help in reducing crime, there have been plenty of case studies that negate my conclusions.
One could also argue that valuing individual rights are what allows a safe and prosperous society where people are able to maximize their utility without feeling like their liberties are being exploited by actors who have no right to exert their will on others, especially when their act is operating under the assumption of premeditating an act before it happens.
It's also important to note that an argument made is that the State threatens violence for non-compliance with gun control regulations. Is the proper way of tackling violence to use violence?
On May 07 2013 11:23 Defacer wrote:
Imagine if instead of discussing potential solutions to the mutually agreed upon issue — I pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees that crazy and stupid people shouldn't have guns — that I did this instead:
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi MOTHERFUCKERS. BOOM! Discussing gun rights is a non-issue because guns inevitably lead to mutually assured destruction. GAME OVER!
I would and should be made fun of until the end of time.
I think the potential solutions of many people who are in favor of these individual liberties believe that it is up to personal responsibility of individuals to make sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. To say that the State makes a negligible impact on the reduction of gun violence through controls that threaten violence is something that's up to debate.
Now granted, I'll admit that this particular position is quite extreme, but nonetheless it highlights the doubt that a lot of people have about proper gun control. Perhaps the solution is found somewhere else even (I definitely agree that we should try improving mental health care for example). As long as people who are in favor of gun rights are so intent on believing that guns do not automatically translate into violence (which I think is true), then the idea that we need to think about a solution other than gun control legislation is still on the table.
|
On May 07 2013 11:07 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:47 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:47 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them  Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." I hope you stand by this view when it comes to nuclear material. Or anthrax. Or any number of exceedingly dangerous materials that most people would agree don't belong in the hands of the average citizen. Not comparing guns to WMDs, of course, but it's a little ridiculous to say that the notion of people manufacturing weapons is good because them not being able to is the equivalent of slavery. I mean, there are plenty of things we'd like to put restrictions on (e.g. nukes) that are very much worth whatever moronic liberty we give up to do so. The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment. Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem. Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides. On May 07 2013 09:02 Defacer wrote:On May 07 2013 08:43 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ I had the biggest shit eating grin on my face when I read they successfully fired the damn thing. Man, I love the internet. Nothing brings joy to my face more, than the idea of untrained unlicensed people printing guns by the dozens and doing what they please with them Wait... I mean, to be entirely fair, we'd still be shooting par for the course based on that criteria... On May 07 2013 08:21 Shiori wrote:On May 07 2013 08:04 Kimaker wrote:On May 07 2013 07:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 07:18 Sermokala wrote:
Its going to be a long long time before you'll be able to print a working barrel for guns on a 3d printer.
If all legislation become incapable of stopping people from getting guns anymore the NRA will simply cease to exist. The whole thing is set up to fight legislation from the voters being their support and the corperations providing the lobbying. It can't just "change from legislators to technology". I refuse to believe that gun manufacturers are not the main funders of the NRA. Luckily, within a few months, EVERYONE can potentially be a gun manufacturer! ^_^ . That sounds incredibly dangerous. I'mma do something people hate right here, and quote Jefferson: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Ummm, wasn't Jefferson's entire estate built primarily on the backs of slaves? Context man! In a few hundred years I expect that we'll look back at anti-sweatshop quotes and say, "But that motherfucker had an Ipod, what a hypocrite." And so they all bowed to the font of historical relativism because no one reads sufficiently on the topic of historiography. And they lived happily ever after... The end. The Frumptious fantasy mulling aside, I understand that doesn't make Jefferson's actions"good" or "right" but what does that have to do with his statement? O_o? (despite the overt irony). Goddamn defeatist history they teach in school these days....  I'm just busting your chops. As romantic, well-spoken and imminently quotable as Jefferson was, one of my biggest pet peeves when discussing gun legislation is when people start quoting Jefferson and Washington. As wonderful as those guys are as historical figures, they have nothing to do with the state of gun culture, politics and legislation today. It's hard to respect Pro-gun advocates when they avoid talking about the complexity of gun legislation and the importance of public safety, and instead introduce with frivolous platitudes. "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." Well, sure, obviously. But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less. People might think a background check on private sales is a) a headache inconvenience or b) a half-assed solution to a much bigger problem. One thing it ISN'T is the first step to being enslaved by a facist government that want's to enslave the free world. Give your country, it's civilians, and your own government some more credit than that. It's nothing personal, I'm sorry if it comes off that way. It's just a pet peeve. You're not the first guy to drop truth-bombs from America's greatest hit makers, as if gun legislation is the make or break issue for sustaining the Great Almighty America forever and ever. It ain't. I'd be more worried about public health, education, access to energy etc. Word. I figured you were being humorous, but at the same time: "But gun legislation ISN'T a decision between personal freedom and self-imposed slavery. It's a discussion about Accessibility/Convenience versus Responsibility/Public Safety. That's all. No more, no less." I can't disagree with that more. Individual liberty vs. Collective Will is the very core of the debate. If one is unwilling to accept what is collectively deemed as being congruent with "Public Safety" then it becomes part and parcel a debate about freedom vs. slavery. The issue arises from the definition of "freedom". I've always stood by the notion that you cannot define what liberty is, only what it is not. You can describe what liberty/freedom is, but it's simply a description, not a definition. Descriptively freedom is ACTUALLY a state of being which derives from the interaction (superficially) of mindset, person (the individual part of yourself that forms the core of "you") and environment then expressed, acted upon and reflected upon. It's a perspective. To you it may be about Accessibility/Convenience vs. Responsibility/Public Safety. Not to me. That dichotomy is simply the vehicle conveying the larger ideological frameworks, it dictates the language, but not what the language is describing.
Okay. But really, I don't think I've heard any proposals for gun legislation that when beyond making the law annoying for responsible gun owners. I'm sure there are some nut bars that fantasize about banning all the guns from the earth but personally, I never took ideas like that seriously, and I don't think gun owners (as long as they are American and vote) would ever have to worry about that happening.
|
Absolutely, Defacer. The goal is to establish a more responsible and controlled environment in which we possess and use firearms toward the end of a better public health outcome.
The goal is not, and never has been, to outright eliminate guns from the US. As a firearm enthusiast and someone who enjoys taking an AR-15 to the range, I certainly would not like to see a blanket ban on any and all firearms. I would, however, like to see gun deaths in the US go down sharply, which requires some action.
|
My 2 cents and opinion.
There will always be criminals, and there will always be people with mental health problems who loose their rag and try to harm others. There is no perfect society. While we can study and hope to understand the underlying factors that contribute to someone becoming a 'criminal' or a 'maniac' we will never be able to completely stop these people from developing in our society. At least not without violating peoples human rights. Humans are just clever animals, not logical machines. There will always be an animal instinct beneath the surface in people that enables us to commit irrational violence towards one another. It is the reason we have survived and evolved the way we have.
If we accept this as fact, then it stands to reason that if these people will always exist in society, then the best we can hope for is to limit the amount of harm they can inflict on innocent people. Everyone will agree, that putting a gun into the hands of a criminal or a mentally ill individual is a recipe for disaster. The problem in the USA is that guns have become so widely distributed that it is almost 'too late' to start implementing this kind of gun control. All you will achieve by doing this is removing guns from people who would like to defend themselves, whereas the criminals etc will easily find illegitimate means to get their hands on guns.
In New Zealand, we don't really have a gun problem. This is because it is very hard for ANYONE to get a gun. Because of this, there are proportionately, much fewer guns in circulation and the ones that are around tend to be hunting rifles and shotguns, rather than semi-automatic and automatic weapons. I am certain, that there a proportionately just as many violent criminals in New Zealand as there are anywhere in the United States, the difference is, that New Zealand's criminals have a hard time getting hold of a gun at all. Meaning that when they want to commit violence, they need to use some other kind of weapon, such as a blunt instrument or knife. Just try committing a massacre with a knife and see if you can kill anywhere near as many people. It's just too easy to kill someone with a gun, meaning that a theoretical 'violence' threshold for using one is lower, than say, a knife. it's a lot more gruesome and personal to try and stab or beat someone to death, which is why countries with fewer guns per head of population (generally) have less gun related deaths.
In general I think that no one should be allowed to own and carry a gun (except for the police). This way, we limit the means of people that want to commit violent crime upon one another. As said above, this kind of rule (banning guns completely) is now impossible for the States as there are simply too many guns around now. The gun lobby has been very successful in keeping people scared and the weapons manufacturers have made a fortune off violence, murder and tragedy.
So, if it is too late for the USA to implement this kind of gun control, then what is the solution? It's hard to say, but here are my ideas:
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost.
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters, where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out.
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person.
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate.
None of these options would be very popular amongst the gun manufacturers as it means less sales.
Finally, no single piece of law reform can solve America's gun problem. You cant just legislate over 220 years of easy gun access and expect the problem to go away. A concerted effort to slowly reduce the total number of guns over the next 100 years is the only way to even begin to tackle to problem.
This is of course all just my opinion and it is the perspective of someone who lives in a country that is largely free of guns. I don't own or carry a gun and I like the fact that I can leave my house at night without worrying about 'protection'. Just think, if there were no guns for the general public, then no one would need to worry about this. Unfortunately, the second amendment and the power of the gun lobby has allowed America to buy SO many guns, that its almost impossible to go back now. Remember, just because something is in 'the law', doesn't mean it's right.
|
United States24578 Posts
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
My 2 cents and opinion. A lot of what you said sounded reasonable to me.
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost. Slowly reduce the production, how?
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters People don't have fully-automatic weapons for the most part. They are not a problem.where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out. This is debatable, but I just don't understand the comparison you are trying to make.
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person. Different guns are better for protection in different situations. Perhaps you think everyone should be limited to pistols, and only one. This is much more extreme than most of what you are suggesting if implemented suddenly.
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate. In the usa this is a violation of the constitution and protection from searches. You cannot be searched without a very good reason. Some localities have challenged this such as a weird 'stop and frisk' policy in NYC but I think it will be overturned it implemented on a wider scale.
|
@Sevredol
In response to points 2 and 3, although it is very minor with respect to the bulk of your overall statement (which I think is very nice):
+ Show Spoiler +If you talk with a decent number of war fighters you will probably learn that a shotgun will serve better in a close quarter battle scenario than a pistol, or even a rifle with a length configuration that isn't illegal. This is the opinion I've heard more frequently -- that a shotgun is actually much more effective in a home defense scenario. I have specifically been told that an AR-15 or similar weapon is actually a pretty suboptimal choice for a number of compelling reasons.
|
On May 07 2013 11:07 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 11:03 kmillz wrote:On May 07 2013 11:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:Well you should really quit making that many assumptions about basically every single comment to which you respond Everything will flow much smoother if no assumptions are made, and instead questions are asked when things are unclear. Well here is the part that I read: At first blush, it would appear that if drivers are at fault for almost all collisions, the focus of prevention should be on drivers. Indeed, in the 1950s, the safety focus was on driver education and enforcement of the traffic laws. At the same time, public health physicians began asking a different question — not “Who caused the accident?” but “What caused the injury?”4 They found that drivers' vital organs were ruptured when the spearlike steering column punctured the chest; faces and major arteries were ripped apart by windshield glass; occupants were thrown from the car; and many motorists died when their car left the road and hit the unyielding signs, lights, and trees that lined highways. These physicians asked, Why can't cars have collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, safety glass, seat belts, and air bags? Why can't we make the roads safer? Where is the source for this? It's linked in the post I made that xDaunt mistakenly attacked due to making an inaccurate assumption: + Show Spoiler +On May 07 2013 10:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 10:07 Deezl wrote:
It's my understanding that the right to bear arms exists to ensure that the citizens have the power to revolt in case the government starts being all North Korea and shit. I'm a Democrat that's for a broad interpretation of that amendment, and I think guns are mostly fine and we should treat the crazy people instead. We should treat criminals and crazy people, for sure. But how about on top of doing that, we also address the environment in which the problem of too many gun deaths per year in the US persists, based on a public health approach -- the same approaches that were applied successfully to other public health concerns in the past? Here's one way to think about it: 1) Today an ever-growing number of physicians, epidemiologists, and other public health professionals recognize gun violence as a public health problem in the US. The medical and public health community community understands this perspective and accepts the challenge to address the problem. 2) Although other problems, such as car accidents, cancer, and heart disease kill many more people each day, it remains a fact that too many people die to guns in the US each year. That other problems exist does not mean all of them can't be addressed in parallel. People can work, for example, on curing cancer while others work on decreasing gun deaths and injury numbers in the US via a public health approach. 3) The logic behind a public health approach is to address the problem in a special way: The strategy to solve the problem, rather than simplistically aiming at only the victims/perpetrators of the problem, aims at the actual agent and environment in which the problem persists (without necessarily excluding approaches that aim at victims/perpetrators). 4) In the case of gun violence, the agent and environment in which the problem occurs are guns and gun prevalence, if the problem is traced as far upstream as possible, and if overall numbers are the focus rather than specific individuals and instances of the problem. This approach enables the focus to shift from "what can we do to stop criminals from being criminals" or "what can we do to stop humans from making mistakes or behaving poorly" to "what can we do to make being a criminal more difficult, and to make committing errors more forgiving?". 5) In addition to this approach, of course, it would also be highly desirable to address problems with why criminals exist in the US, how to solve that issue, etc. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1302631http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1556167 It's the NEJM link. I thought you would have recognized it because a couple days ago you were involved in a discussion that spawned over that same article, as if you had read the article too. In any case, please, in the future so we can have more productive discussions and move forward on this issue, let's not make anymore assumptions!!!!!! If you read something and it elicits a strong gut reaction, or a "WTF he's crazy", but it seems like maybe you're a little unsure, just go ahead and ask for clarification before jumping down an argument based on an assumption that may end up confusing the issue and taking attention away from the brunt of points
It would help if you actually linked to the article itself and cited the portion of the article where the analogy works. The excerpt that you posted made no sense in isolation. That's on you.
|
That's fair, xDaunt. I had actually linked it in the previous comment -- the one to which you responded -- so I didn't bother plugging the link in again, which turned out to be a bad idea. That's on me, like you said, so I'll go ahead and make sure to be extra careful about inserting links each time they should be inserted in the future.
|
On May 07 2013 12:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:
That's fair, xDaunt. I had actually linked it in the previous comment -- the one to which you responded -- so I didn't bother plugging the link in again, which turned out to be a bad idea. That's on me, like you said, so I'll go ahead and make sure to be extra careful about inserting links each time they should be inserted in the future.
Yes, all of the confusion was in the context. I read most messages in this thread but I miss a few here and there.
What you said makes more sense now, I mistook what was in the article as your own personal assertions.
|
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost.
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters, where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out.
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person.
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate.
1) Can't do it and still call it a Free Market. You'd get even more opposition to this than you do to just common gun control.
2) Practically no one has fully automatic weapons. They're already nigh-impossible to get. I think you're thinking of "Assault Weapons", which as I've said repeatedly is a made-up buzzword. It doesn't actually mean anything.
3) Why? It's not like you can really use more than one at once anyways.
4) No searches without a warrant. 4th Amendment. I'm perfectly OK with harsher penalties for straw purchasing or gun trafficking, but absolutely against warrantless searches or gun registration.
This is of course all just my opinion and it is the perspective of someone who lives in a country that is largely free of guns. I don't own or carry a gun and I like the fact that I can leave my house at night without worrying about 'protection'. Just think, if there were no guns for the general public, then no one would need to worry about this. Unfortunately, the second amendment and the power of the gun lobby has allowed America to buy SO many guns, that its almost impossible to go back now. Remember, just because something is in 'the law', doesn't mean it's right.
I'd worry MORE without a gun. If I get mugged or attacked, and I don't have a gun, I'm screwed. I can't fight, and really, you shouldn't have to rely on your physical strength, because criminals will always be tougher than victims. They don't target MMA champions, they target the weak and the vulnerable.
|
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost.
You can't put some kind of magical quota on how many guns can be manufactured or sold. That would be like putting a quota on cigarettes, and create a black market for gun manufacturing.
The only way to reduce guns in America is by decreasing demand. That involves a gamut of solutions that reduce crime. Like higher standards and training for acquiring a gun licence/permit in the first place. Improved public education and after-school programs. An affordable healthcare system.
Not an easy problem.
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters, where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out.
There are restrictions on guns.
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person.
Special licence or registry for collectors, sportsmen, gun club members, perhaps? I don't know how the hell you'd convince a gun owner to relinquish guns from their collection.
On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate.
I can probably get on board with more severe penalties. But unwarranted searches — not in America.
Being from Canada, I attribute the lack of gun owners and gun crime to the fact we've had strict gun laws AND universal health care for 30 years. It's a lot easier to keep track of crazy people and a lot easier for poor people to escape poverty when they're getting free care.
|
On May 07 2013 12:20 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost.
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters, where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out.
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person.
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate.
1) Can't do it and still call it a Free Market. You'd get even more opposition to this than you do to just common gun control. 2) Practically no one has fully automatic weapons. They're already nigh-impossible to get. I think you're thinking of "Assault Weapons", which as I've said repeatedly is a made-up buzzword. It doesn't actually mean anything. 3) Why? It's not like you can really use more than one at once anyways. 4) No searches without a warrant. 4th Amendment. I'm perfectly OK with harsher penalties for straw purchasing or gun trafficking, but absolutely against warrantless searches or gun registration. Show nested quote +This is of course all just my opinion and it is the perspective of someone who lives in a country that is largely free of guns. I don't own or carry a gun and I like the fact that I can leave my house at night without worrying about 'protection'. Just think, if there were no guns for the general public, then no one would need to worry about this. Unfortunately, the second amendment and the power of the gun lobby has allowed America to buy SO many guns, that its almost impossible to go back now. Remember, just because something is in 'the law', doesn't mean it's right. I'd worry MORE without a gun. If I get mugged or attacked, and I don't have a gun, I'm screwed. I can't fight, and really, you shouldn't have to rely on your physical strength, because criminals will always be tougher than victims. They don't target MMA champions, they target the weak and the vulnerable.
Agreed, I'm actually much more concerned with my 4th amendment rights being infringed than my 2nd amendment rights. I would also be in favor of making the punishment for crimes committed with a gun harsher than they currently are as opposed to increasing the restrictions on obtaining one.
|
On May 07 2013 12:20 Millitron wrote:
I'd worry MORE without a gun. If I get mugged or attacked, and I don't have a gun, I'm screwed. I can't fight, and really, you shouldn't have to rely on your physical strength, because criminals will always be tougher than victims. They don't target MMA champions, they target the weak and the vulnerable.
Millitron, just as a warning before I proceed, please don't interpret this response as wanting to start an argument with you or as a personal attack against you. I'm just responding to this particular little point you made so that other readers don't get a one-sided idea on whether carrying a gun actually improves your odds vs. an assailant, armed or otherwise. Here's a take on attempting to repel an attacker from an evidence-based perspective:
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp
This police training material illustrates why carrying a weapon does not achieve much else besides providing the illusion/feeling of safety:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d8_1367104934
In short, while carrying a handgun may provide you with the illusion of safety, please do not assume it will actually lead to better outcomes automatically should you find yourself in a real attack situation. You may end up stopping the attacker, but evidence says you may just as well end up worsening the confrontation, which may very well cause harm to you or other bystanders.
That being said, defensive gun uses may be justified, so I want to clarify that I am not saying outright that carrying a gun will *never* lead to a good outcome. I'm thinking in terms of overall numbers, not in terms of specific hypothetical or real scenarios.
|
On May 07 2013 12:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 12:20 Millitron wrote:
I'd worry MORE without a gun. If I get mugged or attacked, and I don't have a gun, I'm screwed. I can't fight, and really, you shouldn't have to rely on your physical strength, because criminals will always be tougher than victims. They don't target MMA champions, they target the weak and the vulnerable. Millitron, just as a warning before I proceed, please don't interpret this response as wanting to start an argument with you or as a personal attack against you. I'm just responding to this particular little point you made so that other readers don't get a one-sided idea on whether carrying a gun actually improves your odds vs. an assailant, armed or otherwise. Here's a take on attempting to repel an attacker from an evidence-based perspective: Show nested quote +
Criminologists have for decades studied the responses of victims to violent crime. Robberies in particular became a topic of scholarly research in the 1980s and 1990s, as random street crime spread through urban areas, with those studies mostly confirming the obvious: if you resist a robber, you are more likely to get hurt or, possibly, killed.
“From any perspective of rationality, the thing to do with a robber is to cooperate politely,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist at Berkeley Law School. But, he added, both robbers and recalcitrant victims have never been the most rational actors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/nyregion/robbed-at-gunpoint-some-bronx-victims-resist.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hpThis police training material illustrates why carrying a weapon does not achieve much else besides providing the illusion/feeling of safety: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d8_1367104934In short, while carrying a handgun may provide you with the illusion of safety, please do not assume it will actually lead to better outcomes automatically should you find yourself in a real attack situation. You may end up stopping the attacker, but evidence says you may just as well end up worsening the confrontation, which may very well cause harm to you or other bystanders. That being said, defensive gun uses may be justified, so I want to clarify that I am not saying outright that carrying a gun will *never* lead to a good outcome. I'm thinking in terms of overall numbers, not in terms of specific hypothetical or real scenarios.
That's cool, no worries. I am not worried for my own safety because I live in a pretty small town. But there are definitely people in worse neighborhoods than I am who might have a legitimate concern. In any case, I accept that resisting criminals has its risks, but people should always have that choice. You shouldn't have to cowtow to thugs.
Gun or no gun, I know I wouldn't just give up. A gun just gives me better odds.
|
On May 07 2013 12:20 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 11:46 Sevredol wrote:
1) Slowly reduce the production of new guns made available over a period of 50-100 years. This will reduce the total number of guns in circulation and make it more difficult for people to just 'get a gun' from anywhere at low cost.
2) Restrict the types of weapons available. I still cant understand why someone needs a fully automatic weapon to defend their house at close quarters, where a semi-automatic pistol is much more practical for a close quarters shoot out.
3) Restrict the number of guns that each person is allowed to own for protection to one per person.
4) Increase the penalties for people carrying unregistered/illegal firearms severely. Give police the right to search people for guns and check if they are registered/legitimate.
1) Can't do it and still call it a Free Market. You'd get even more opposition to this than you do to just common gun control. 2) Practically no one has fully automatic weapons. They're already nigh-impossible to get. I think you're thinking of "Assault Weapons", which as I've said repeatedly is a made-up buzzword. It doesn't actually mean anything. 3) Why? It's not like you can really use more than one at once anyways. 4) No searches without a warrant. 4th Amendment. I'm perfectly OK with harsher penalties for straw purchasing or gun trafficking, but absolutely against warrantless searches or gun registration.
Good points. Thanks for your perspective. To reply:
1) If you can regulate the food and pharmaceutical industry, then you can regulate the gun industry. I don't really think the need for a free market when it comes to guns over-rides the need for public safety. A gun quota regulation would put restrictions on the gun makers that would only allow them to produce enough weapons each year as deemed appropriate by a federal agency (Think of the FDA but for guns FGA anyone?). I know this It will never happen in reality, its just an idea to attempt to reduce the total number of guns in circulation as I think that is the main cause of the problem, a market drowning in readily available guns.
2) Fair enough, my lack of knowledge about what is actually available coming through here.
3) Limiting the number of guns per person is not to improve safety but rather to reduce the demand for guns and therefore supply. This restriction aims to reduce the number of guns available for purchase. You would obviously need to have exemptions for hunters/collectors etc.
4) Fair enough point, I was just imagining a policeman trying to search me for no reason and I realized how much of a violation this would be. I am still for much tougher penalties on those who carry illegal firearms.
I think technology could also play a role in gun control in the future. Think of the James Bond/Judge Dredd style DNA/Hand print specific gun that doesn't work for anyone else. If you wanted to legitimately buy a gun for protection it would be matched to you and your family's DNA so only you could use it. Obviously there would be ways around this but not for dumb two-bit criminals.
|
On May 07 2013 11:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Absolutely, Defacer. The goal is to establish a more responsible and controlled environment in which we possess and use firearms toward the end of a better public health outcome.
The goal is not, and never has been, to outright eliminate guns from the US. As a firearm enthusiast and someone who enjoys taking an AR-15 to the range, I certainly would not like to see a blanket ban on any and all firearms. I would, however, like to see gun deaths in the US go down sharply, which requires some action.
Then the burden of proof (I know this is repetitious, forgive me) is on you to provide evidence that such controls would legitimately reduce gun-related violence, otherwise I stand by, "It annoys me" as a reasonable response. Having been in this thread for some time, I have yet to see actual empirical data to suggest it would. What's more, anecdotal parallels with other nations aren't functional either when you consider the historical gulf of difference between the US and the rest of the world in terms of firearm's as an ingrained part of the culture. Americans, for the most part, are highly responsible gun-owners barring urban areas which have a publicly reticent approach to guns (resulting in the vast amount of stupidity that goes on there).
Of course that doesn't even begin to address whether gun-violence is worse than other sorts of violence, or if those other sorts of violence go up in the absence of guns. At which point it effectively becomes a preferential quality vs. quantity argument. More violence? Or less violence that uses guns (more potentially harmful)?
No one wouldn't prefer to see less people killed in the United States period. And while I appreciate knowing your own experiences and how you feel about humans dying, that entire second paragraph is fluff in regards to what exactly that first paragraph warranted as a followup.
You claim the goal has never been outright elimination. Take the purpose and logic behind gun-control laws to their logical conclusion. I don't think it's a "great conspiracy" or anything like that. It's simply that, overtime, it will happen unless it's fought tooth and nail every step of the way. The contemporary thinking of gun-control advocates is, "Reduce guns in circulation, reduce gun-related deaths." Noble, certainly. However, if you take the number of guns in circulation to zero, you should have zero deaths. Right? That is after all the logical conclusion (if we don't take into account the law of diminishing returns, which I don't think we will given how we've been using Keynesian Economics to bludgeon our economy back into "place" for the past 30+ years. The suggestion being we refuse to see the LoDR in action, just because it worked once so well.
|
1) You're exactly right about there being little research on this topic. In the 1990s there was a good bit of ongoing research into this topic, but the research was shut down since then due to politics. Today there are fewer than a dozen active researchers investigating guns as their primary focus, and money is all but dried up -- many of these researchers actually use their own private funds due to lack of other funding. When politics interferes with scientific work it's pretty pathetic and sad -- especially when it's in the US.
You can thank the NRA for doing its part to lobby to ensure that research into guns. After a good bit of lobbying and campaigning against gun research funding, the NRA managed to cut the money off a couple decades back. Thankfully I believe I read recently that the Obama administration will be putting money back into this area of research. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure money for research in general is being cut right now, so we'll have to see what that means.
2) I have not read anything from anyone that expects the number to ever go to zero if more responsible steps are taken toward better gun policies. Theoretically if you take the idea "to the extreme" it might land at you zero guns, but that is never going to happen in reality due to the kinds of extreme steps that would need to happen. All that's being aimed at is an environment in which it is harder to make mistakes, harder to be a criminal, and easier to come out OK if mistakes are made. I don't agree with your assumption that this approach will necessarily continue being applied in increasing severity until the problem is zero.
|
On May 08 2013 00:18 FallDownMarigold wrote:
1) You're exactly right about there being little research on this topic. In the 1990s there was a good bit of ongoing research into this topic, but the research was shut down since then due to politics. Today there are fewer than a dozen active researchers investigating guns as their primary focus, and money is all but dried up -- many of these researchers actually use their own private funds due to lack of other funding. When politics interferes with scientific work it's pretty pathetic and sad -- especially when it's in the US.
You can thank the NRA for doing its part to lobby to ensure that research into guns. After a good bit of lobbying and campaigning against gun research funding, the NRA managed to cut the money off a couple decades back. Thankfully I believe I read recently that the Obama administration will be putting money back into this area of research. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure money for research in general is being cut right now, so we'll have to see what that means.
2) I have not read anything from anyone that expects the number to ever go to zero if more responsible steps are taken toward better gun policies. Theoretically if you take the idea "to the extreme" it might land at you zero guns, but that is never going to happen in reality due to the kinds of extreme steps that would need to happen. All that's being aimed at is an environment in which it is harder to make mistakes, harder to be a criminal, and easier to come out OK if mistakes are made. I don't agree with your assumption that this approach will necessarily continue being applied in increasing severity until the problem is zero.
Yes, no one has ever said, "We can totally eliminate gun related crimes by banning guns." in an official capacity (to my knowledge). However, that is, undeniably, the underlying assertion with these laws. I'm excited about the increased research btw. I suspect it will support the pro-gun stance even more. The data we have already supports it, and I don't see why future data would say any different.
On the topic of humans stopping themselves before we break the LoDR:
Regardless, historically humans have always ignored the evidence provided that the LoDR was in play. We don't with the economy, we don't with our resources, and we won't with regard to quantified "safety". Institutions come into being for a purpose. They pursue that purpose to the exclusion of all else, and fight to justify their own existence because you have actual human beings all making up this vast inhuman machine. You can logically say, it won't get to that point. Can an institution?
What's more, in terms of human nature, I don't buy into the idea that we "make mistakes and become criminal". I would argue that by tightening gun control laws you are making it EASIER to become a criminal (in a legal sense) since you're prescribing actions on a person as opposed to describing their actions as criminal after the fact of their committing the crime.
Minority Report is bullshit.
|
Would you mind linking some of the papers that demonstrate we should not pursue more responsible gun control? Keep in mind the NRA moved to block this research because results indicated higher prevalence of guns correlates strongly with higher firearm injury, homicide, and suicide -- they did not move to block it because it was "supporting the pro-gun stance" heh.
In any case I'm glad that you support more research, which is not what the NRA supports
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
