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 June 16 2016 09:36 saocyn wrote: It's rather laughable that, we live in a country who thinks guns should be given out freely and with very little regulation. The concept of a person having the POWER to END ANY life at his whim or discretion sounds preposterous. it's a cold hard logic and fact to get to the bottom of this, compare every scenario that a person who had a gun was able to prevent a suicide bomber, robber, rapist, w/e and then compare the amount of scenarios where guns are misused and taken innocent lives. How many lives has a gun saved vs how many lives did it actually take? The concept of every person needs one to protect themselves sounds like horse shit if were to actually get the statistics of that.
The fact that more and more youths and deaths that occur BECAUSE it's unregulated and misused should be a call for reform. It's understandable if no murders, deaths, robbery, occur because of this, but that isn't the case.
And cutting someone's neck with a knife, smashing their head with a bat or crowbar, injecting people with one of the many substances you can buy at your home hardware store - or 3D printing a gun nowadays.
Come on, we live in a society... i.e. we need shared values, we need to work together. Maybe it's possible to function completely secluded from everyone else, but is this really how you'd like to envision the human race?
I don't have a gun, I don't live in a place like the US, but I will say that a guns bring a sense of freedom, even though it may not be a tangible one. Anyway, it's nice to feel like you have some control in your life, and you COULD do something, even if you wouldn't. It's nice having more choice than choosing whether to buy the red or green peppers in your supermarket... It's bullshit how we need to wait 1-2 months to get a fishing license (and pay for it too) here when we want to go with a friend in a one-off occurrence, doing this with guns... I dunno, I'm not a fan.
So just because it's inconvenient for you to wait, you'd rather make guns easily available to homicidal individuals that can walk into a store and buy weapons?
There's also a difference between someone with a knife and someone with a gun. It's far easier to shoot and kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife and it is far easier to escape someone with a knife/crowbar/bat or whatever than it is to escape someone with a gun. Making the argument that someone wishing to kill will kill is not a valid argument because guns make it easier to kill. If you make it harder, more lives will be saved. And that's a fact. If the Orlando shooter who looks like he began to support ISIS recently didn't have access to a gun and instead chose an attack with a knife do you really think the number dead would be as it is now?
On February 20 2012 03:11 Yongwang wrote: Hello everyone in this other thread! As to answer the OP's question, as I'm sure you already know my stance on this from the other thread, I fully support the right to bear arms and the right to carry. At the end of the day, there is no legitimate reason for the government to take away either of those fundamental rights. Remember kids, fear is not a reason to take away people's freedom.
This is absolutely false. I hear people say "oh government's taking away our guns, stop them!" and that's absolutely false. There's this special fearmongering around Obama that's especially ridiculous because he's never done anything of that sort. In fact, more guns have been bought during his term as president than any other time. And don't think Obama's spreading guns either.
What he has been trying to do is push through standard checks and procedures that should take place. A comparison can be made with buying a car. When you buy car, you have to prove that you have the ability to by obtaining a driver's license, show you have no medical condition that prevents you from driving, etc, etc. Why are these things in check? Because we saw ridiculous auto fatality rates in the past. So we researched why that was the case and put different things in check. One part was making sure the driver was responsible and other steps such as fixing roads, stepping up driving laws and enforcement were others.
In some states, this is not the case with guns. You can walk into any store and buy a gun with ammunition as you want. That's without any of the prerequisite steps like a driver's license, showing you have no medical condition, etc, etc. All we want are some standard checks in place like background checks that make sense.
And you know what's ridiculous? It's been stated and it's known that the FBI cannot stop a known ISIS endorser from walking into a shop and buying a gun. They have a list of individuals that visit ISIS supportive sites and they can stop them from boarding an airplane but they can't stop them from buying a gun. When you think about it, isn't it ridiculous? An ISIS supporter can't board a plane but they can buy a gun.
And that's because whenever background checks and other procedures are proposed as prerequisites to buying a gun that could show an ISIS supporter for who they are, the NRA raises its banner and rallies gun owners under the false pretense that the government is taking away their guns. NO. That is absolutely not the case.
I don't understand why people are so adamant about this. If you are sane and capable of using firearms you can still access them in the future. But the steps that people want to put in place are to ensure the insane are not walking into a shop and buying firearms.
There are other implications of this. In other countries where guns are less easily obtainable, police methods revolve around coercing an attacker into submitting without force. There are videos of police from European countries surrounding a machete or knife wielder until the attacker submits to arrests. In America, we shoot that attacker on sight. Why? Because police are trained to shoot in such situations because the attacker might have a gun. If we make guns only available to those capable and sane enough to wield them, they have a means of self-defense and we can change police training as well.
I am in full support of the 2nd amendment and would never propose taking it down. But making sure insane individuals don't get access to guns easily is not taking down the 2nd amendment but supporting it imo.
Instead of reading what he said, watch this video, he pretty much said this for verbatim:
All I can say is that when trying to be objective in your argument (if that's your intention), try to not use unbiased sources.
On June 16 2016 09:36 saocyn wrote: It's rather laughable that, we live in a country who thinks guns should be given out freely and with very little regulation. The concept of a person having the POWER to END ANY life at his whim or discretion sounds preposterous. it's a cold hard logic and fact to get to the bottom of this, compare every scenario that a person who had a gun was able to prevent a suicide bomber, robber, rapist, w/e and then compare the amount of scenarios where guns are misused and taken innocent lives. How many lives has a gun saved vs how many lives did it actually take? The concept of every person needs one to protect themselves sounds like horse shit if were to actually get the statistics of that.
The fact that more and more youths and deaths that occur BECAUSE it's unregulated and misused should be a call for reform. It's understandable if no murders, deaths, robbery, occur because of this, but that isn't the case.
And cutting someone's neck with a knife, smashing their head with a bat or crowbar, injecting people with one of the many substances you can buy at your home hardware store - or 3D printing a gun nowadays.
Come on, we live in a society... i.e. we need shared values, we need to work together. Maybe it's possible to function completely secluded from everyone else, but is this really how you'd like to envision the human race?
I don't have a gun, I don't live in a place like the US, but I will say that a guns bring a sense of freedom, even though it may not be a tangible one. Anyway, it's nice to feel like you have some control in your life, and you COULD do something, even if you wouldn't. It's nice having more choice than choosing whether to buy the red or green peppers in your supermarket... It's bullshit how we need to wait 1-2 months to get a fishing license (and pay for it too) here when we want to go with a friend in a one-off occurrence, doing this with guns... I dunno, I'm not a fan.
So just because it's inconvenient for you to wait, you'd rather make guns easily available to homicidal individuals that can walk into a store and buy weapons?
There's also a difference between someone with a knife and someone with a gun. It's far easier to shoot and kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife and it is far easier to escape someone with a knife/crowbar/bat or whatever than it is to escape someone with a gun. Making the argument that someone wishing to kill will kill is not a valid argument because guns make it easier to kill. If you make it harder, more lives will be saved. And that's a fact. If the Orlando shooter who looks like he began to support ISIS recently didn't have access to a gun and instead chose an attack with a knife do you really think the number dead would be as it is now?
Did you not read my previous post literally one post above the one you quoted?
You can't stop all killings, that we can agree on. I provided statistics that suggest the number of people dying due to guns is relatively small, and not worth the cost and inconvenience to the people you save.
In the same way how we could reduce our speed limits by 50% to save peoples lives, we could also do this. Both are unnecessary, and the key is to strike a balance. The balance you are proposing is not logical whatsoever, because you don't have an argument, this isn't a black or white issue.
You say "we should have less dangerous things because less people will die", so then what are you proposing with your argument, that we should ban forks, firearms, where do you stop? Saving lives isn't the be all end all role of government. The number one priority of a democratic government (not the party) is to maximize the net utility of all people in society. That is the founding principle of democracy, it's not the constitution or the bill of rights, these documents are created due to this one and only idea. Adding regulation costs (which you should not underestimate), loss of freedoms (they'd likely outlaw more dangerous guns), longer waiting times, additional costs to user, and pissing off half of the US population is not maximizing the utility of the US population.
On February 20 2012 03:11 Yongwang wrote: Hello everyone in this other thread! As to answer the OP's question, as I'm sure you already know my stance on this from the other thread, I fully support the right to bear arms and the right to carry. At the end of the day, there is no legitimate reason for the government to take away either of those fundamental rights. Remember kids, fear is not a reason to take away people's freedom.
This is absolutely false. I hear people say "oh government's taking away our guns, stop them!" and that's absolutely false. There's this special fearmongering around Obama that's especially ridiculous because he's never done anything of that sort. In fact, more guns have been bought during his term as president than any other time. And don't think Obama's spreading guns either.
What he has been trying to do is push through standard checks and procedures that should take place. A comparison can be made with buying a car. When you buy car, you have to prove that you have the ability to by obtaining a driver's license, show you have no medical condition that prevents you from driving, etc, etc. Why are these things in check? Because we saw ridiculous auto fatality rates in the past. So we researched why that was the case and put different things in check. One part was making sure the driver was responsible and other steps such as fixing roads, stepping up driving laws and enforcement were others.
In some states, this is not the case with guns. You can walk into any store and buy a gun with ammunition as you want. That's without any of the prerequisite steps like a driver's license, showing you have no medical condition, etc, etc. All we want are some standard checks in place like background checks that make sense.
And you know what's ridiculous? It's been stated and it's known that the FBI cannot stop a known ISIS endorser from walking into a shop and buying a gun. They have a list of individuals that visit ISIS supportive sites and they can stop them from boarding an airplane but they can't stop them from buying a gun. When you think about it, isn't it ridiculous? An ISIS supporter can't board a plane but they can buy a gun.
And that's because whenever background checks and other procedures are proposed as prerequisites to buying a gun that could show an ISIS supporter for who they are, the NRA raises its banner and rallies gun owners under the false pretense that the government is taking away their guns. NO. That is absolutely not the case.
I don't understand why people are so adamant about this. If you are sane and capable of using firearms you can still access them in the future. But the steps that people want to put in place are to ensure the insane are not walking into a shop and buying firearms.
There are other implications of this. In other countries where guns are less easily obtainable, police methods revolve around coercing an attacker into submitting without force. There are videos of police from European countries surrounding a machete or knife wielder until the attacker submits to arrests. In America, we shoot that attacker on sight. Why? Because police are trained to shoot in such situations because the attacker might have a gun. If we make guns only available to those capable and sane enough to wield them, they have a means of self-defense and we can change police training as well.
I am in full support of the 2nd amendment and would never propose taking it down. But making sure insane individuals don't get access to guns easily is not taking down the 2nd amendment but supporting it imo.
Instead of reading what he said, watch this video, he pretty much said this for verbatim:
All I can say is that when trying to be objective in your argument (if that's your intention), try to not use unbiased sources.
Wow that is a great video. I feel like that's a very good solution to the problem. I don't think banning guns is a great solution anyway; a determined terrorist will probably get one through the border if he/she is resourceful enough (look how many illegal immigrants get through every day! Also the war on drugs...).
But in terms of preventing unstable people from having access to guns? People on the terrorist watch list? Absolutely! Its crazy that Obama has to deal with people who are afraid he is going to take everyone's rights away and become a tyrannical government. It is sad that, this actually crazy response is at least partially responsible for the deaths in Orlando and many more.
Also I never knew that republicans actively deny the Center for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence; that's probably why the Wikipedia page says more studies are needed - because the NRA successfully lobbied to prevent further studies from taking place. This irrationality has gone too far; I really sympathize with Obama. Hopefully Hillary can find a way to make progress on this issue
I need something clarified Fiwifaki, did you post this video as evidence that Obama was not on the right track when it comes to guns? If 1000 other people hadn't said the same things already, that would have been the most sensible video on the subject ever.
Also I know that you didn't do it on purpose but I laughed at your suggestion that we shouldn't use unbiased sources in our argument. I believe that's at the core of why many people disagree with gun regulation =)
On June 16 2016 05:14 opisska wrote: I honestly don't understand the american obsession with arcane laws from two centuries ago. I understand that for the pro-gun people, the 2nd amendment is a convenient "argument", but why is everyone so happy to buy it? It's one sentence, taken miles out of context, approved by people that have very little to do with the most american citizens today. Traditionalism as a concept is completely irrational in the world that profoundly changes every decade and I feel it is abused by anyone cherry-picking "traditions" when convenient to them. Wouldn't it be much better to sit down and reconsider all contentious issues, instead of following outdated laws for the sake of following outdated laws?
I am not really sure what would be better for US today, but "250 years ago they wanted to protect the universal right to bear arms" should not be an argument at all.
Yeah I agree. We can about it this way: imagine the second-and-a-half amendment was the right to bear motor vehicles (lul).
One day, those cars will be rendered obsolete and will be considered wildly dangerous as road accidents will be nearly nonexistent due to self-driving cars that are solar powered or whatever the hell they come up with. We'll be faced with like, human driven cars that increase the fatality rate by 50000% over self-driving cars.
Now understandably there are people who like cars with gas engines and they'll want to drive them anyway. And that's fine. However this comes with a huge risk, and the legislator needs to recognize that and adjust their laws. And so those cars will need to be regulated because they pose a significant public health risk which CAN be avoided or at the very least diminished. Laws need to be based on reality, and now we have to let any idiot drive a 2 ton hunk of death at 60 mph because it's convenient, but in the future that won't really make sense.
I don't want to blame it on Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, but they have been instrumental in the resurgence of textual literalism and reading by the letter of the code. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is clear that the literalism paired with staunch conservativism, which it frequently is in the supreme court in the last 30 years, has led to a marked failure to push for change by constitutional review. That is why there is such an obsession with an arcane law. Almost all of the pieces that make up the bill of rights could be considered arcane given their age, but they make up the backbone of American law. I am certainly not a literalist, but there is something to be said for these justices reviving literalism as a way to cope with the drastic changes American society has seen in the last 30 years.
On June 16 2016 11:55 Nebuchad wrote: I need something clarified Fiwifaki, did you post this video as evidence that Obama was not on the right track when it comes to guns? If 1000 other people hadn't said the same things already, that would have been the most sensible video on the subject ever.
Also I know that you didn't do it on purpose but I laughed at your suggestion that we shouldn't use unbiased sources in our argument. I believe that's at the core of why many people disagree with gun regulation =)
I posted it as a hey, you're just repeating the exact same thing as Obama said in the exact same order, why not just post the video instead of wasting the keystrokes. It seemed to me almost guaranteed that hey used this video as his more or less sole reference when talking, and hence I criticized him, whether the argument was sensible or not.
Anyway, Obama is good at being persuasive no doubt, but just because he's a good speaker doesn't mean you should take his opinion as the right one.
I believe that 92-93% of deaths in the US are due to natural causes (body failure, so I'm including smoking, even though it's normally not included [though it should be because the current system is abysmal] etc), of the remaining 7-8%, around 80% are due to accidents and 20% due to intentional harm. And of that 30%, roughly 80% is due to suicide and 20% is due to murder. And from that 20%, "only" 70% uses guns, and from that 70%, 50-75% is due to drug and criminal activity.
Multiplying it all out, you're somewhere between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 120,000 to die from guns in any given year given that you're not doing something insanely illegal. Back here in the Oilsands, the standard for companies is that you want to ensure a rate of death of 1 in 10,000 or lower on any given year for employees. We just want to be realistic about the situation.
You know, it does look a bit silly that they aren't allowed to do research, but I can see where they're coming from. The democrats have their agenda, and personally I don't believe Obama would come out against gun rights even if he supported them (in their current form), simply because he's on the democrat side and they don't. In my eyes, the reality is that the liberal agenda has always been baby steps in becoming the big brother. So you know, today it will be "hey, lets get people to make sure they're properly trained", sure its logical. Do keep in mind, that will likely mean licensing costs for all guns, a license costing $100-$250 every 3-5 years (that's how it's in Canada), plus tax payer money going towards this. The thing we must ask is... is it really worth it? To continue the point I made before, one day it will be licensing, then the governing body will say hey, these guns are dangerous, can't have concealed weapons here and that, look at these European countries, we have more guns that anyone. This is the standard liberal agenda, and while Obama sounds logical and reasonable, don't take what he says at face value.
Canada has a homicide rate half of the united states and we have gun laws, and we go much farther than what Obama is proposing. And then like I said before, that begs the question, is it worth it to reduce homicide rates by 25-50% when they're reasonably low. Could we instead focus on education, getting people out of poverty, etc to lower reduce rates?
Remember, I was anti-gun in the past, but some delving into the topic has changed my mind. So when someone argues there is only one logical position on this issue (banning guns), I really have to scoff them.
On June 16 2016 05:14 opisska wrote: I honestly don't understand the american obsession with arcane laws from two centuries ago. I understand that for the pro-gun people, the 2nd amendment is a convenient "argument", but why is everyone so happy to buy it? It's one sentence, taken miles out of context, approved by people that have very little to do with the most american citizens today. Traditionalism as a concept is completely irrational in the world that profoundly changes every decade and I feel it is abused by anyone cherry-picking "traditions" when convenient to them. Wouldn't it be much better to sit down and reconsider all contentious issues, instead of following outdated laws for the sake of following outdated laws?
I am not really sure what would be better for US today, but "250 years ago they wanted to protect the universal right to bear arms" should not be an argument at all.
Yeah I agree. We can about it this way: imagine the second-and-a-half amendment was the right to bear motor vehicles (lul).
One day, those cars will be rendered obsolete and will be considered wildly dangerous as road accidents will be nearly nonexistent due to self-driving cars that are solar powered or whatever the hell they come up with. We'll be faced with like, human driven cars that increase the fatality rate by 50000% over self-driving cars.
Now understandably there are people who like cars with gas engines and they'll want to drive them anyway. And that's fine. However this comes with a huge risk, and the legislator needs to recognize that and adjust their laws. And so those cars will need to be regulated because they pose a significant public health risk which CAN be avoided or at the very least diminished. Laws need to be based on reality, and now we have to let any idiot drive a 2 ton hunk of death at 60 mph because it's convenient, but in the future that won't really make sense.
I don't want to blame it on Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, but they have been instrumental in the resurgence of textual literalism and reading by the letter of the code. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is clear that the literalism paired with staunch conservativism, which it frequently is in the supreme court in the last 30 years, has led to a marked failure to push for change by constitutional review. That is why there is such an obsession with an arcane law. Almost all of the pieces that make up the bill of rights could be considered arcane given their age, but they make up the backbone of American law. I am certainly not a literalist, but there is something to be said for these justices reviving literalism as a way to cope with the drastic changes American society has seen in the last 30 years.
Could you explain how the supreme court could prevent a constitutional review? I was under the impression that reviewing/amending the constitution was the work of Congress and the state legislatures, so the supreme court would have no say in this. I understand that they're the ones who can choose to favor a very literal and antiquated interpretation of the constitution but I have no idea how they can do more than that. The reason why you can't review the constitution is because it would take the support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all State legislatures... that'd be viewed as political suicide even by politicians who'd be favorable to the amendment.
You haven't produced an argument against anything, you have produced beliefs. So my counter will be hey, I don't believe that democrats are trying to big brother you. My point is about as powerful as yours.
I'd also appreciate it if you didn't mix banning guns with regulating them, kind of like Obama asks you to in the video. We can discuss a ban on guns in the future maybe and perhaps we'll be on opposite sides again, perhaps not, I don't know yet; but right now what you need is better regulation which is completely different from a ban. The NRA isn't fighting so that you can keep your guns through sensible regulation, it's fighting so that the insanely lenient regulation that you have now is kept and gun manufacturers can continue to make as much profit as they can. When you argue against regulation using the notion that you don't want guns banned, you are falling victim to NRA's propaganda that this is the position that you are opposing, when that isn't the case. I'd suggest some unbiased sources.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
Well I'm glad you don't live anywhere close to here, I'd hate to have a neighbor like that. Nonetheless birdshot is very frequently suggested by people for home defense, because at the distances you'd shoot someone in your home, it's actually absolutely devastating (almost disgustingly so), and it won't go through nearly as many layers of drywall.
Especially if you live in an apartments complex, if your idea of a self defense weapon is an AR15, you're a threat to your neighbors.
Either way I'm just going off of my limited knowledge on 223 (which I shoot) and some stuff that I've read out of curiosity. I'm not at all concerned with home invasions myself where I live. If I need to do me some home defense I'll use the good old baseball bat, at the end of the day that's probably safer for myself anyway.
On June 16 2016 05:14 opisska wrote: I honestly don't understand the american obsession with arcane laws from two centuries ago. I understand that for the pro-gun people, the 2nd amendment is a convenient "argument", but why is everyone so happy to buy it? It's one sentence, taken miles out of context, approved by people that have very little to do with the most american citizens today. Traditionalism as a concept is completely irrational in the world that profoundly changes every decade and I feel it is abused by anyone cherry-picking "traditions" when convenient to them. Wouldn't it be much better to sit down and reconsider all contentious issues, instead of following outdated laws for the sake of following outdated laws?
I am not really sure what would be better for US today, but "250 years ago they wanted to protect the universal right to bear arms" should not be an argument at all.
Yeah I agree. We can about it this way: imagine the second-and-a-half amendment was the right to bear motor vehicles (lul).
One day, those cars will be rendered obsolete and will be considered wildly dangerous as road accidents will be nearly nonexistent due to self-driving cars that are solar powered or whatever the hell they come up with. We'll be faced with like, human driven cars that increase the fatality rate by 50000% over self-driving cars.
Now understandably there are people who like cars with gas engines and they'll want to drive them anyway. And that's fine. However this comes with a huge risk, and the legislator needs to recognize that and adjust their laws. And so those cars will need to be regulated because they pose a significant public health risk which CAN be avoided or at the very least diminished. Laws need to be based on reality, and now we have to let any idiot drive a 2 ton hunk of death at 60 mph because it's convenient, but in the future that won't really make sense.
I don't want to blame it on Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, but they have been instrumental in the resurgence of textual literalism and reading by the letter of the code. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is clear that the literalism paired with staunch conservativism, which it frequently is in the supreme court in the last 30 years, has led to a marked failure to push for change by constitutional review. That is why there is such an obsession with an arcane law. Almost all of the pieces that make up the bill of rights could be considered arcane given their age, but they make up the backbone of American law. I am certainly not a literalist, but there is something to be said for these justices reviving literalism as a way to cope with the drastic changes American society has seen in the last 30 years.
Could you explain how the supreme court could prevent a constitutional review? I was under the impression that reviewing/amending the constitution was the work of Congress and the state legislatures, so the supreme court would have no say in this. I understand that they're the ones who can choose to favor a very literal and antiquated interpretation of the constitution but I have no idea how they can do more than that. The reason why you can't review the constitution is because it would take the support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all State legislatures... that'd be viewed as political suicide even by politicians who'd be favorable to the amendment.
Judicial Review I know its wikipedia, but its a good way of understanding American judicial review. Congress and Senate are able to pass laws, but the Supreme Court can deem them constitutional or unconstitutional. This doesn't include the case that make it to the SC from lower courts that end up creating precedents by the majority opinion of the SC. We don't need to amend the constitution, we simply need to put into place guards that specify further what the 2nd amendment protects. The 2nd amendment might guarantee the right to bear arms, but it also guarantees that in conjunction with the right to form citizen militias to fight tyrranical government. Depending on how the amendment is read, whether or not the first part is dependent on the second defines whether or not I can have a gun for personal protection vs whether or not I can have a gun to fight our own government if needed. Its pretty complex, and while the SC cannot enforce these laws, setting a precedent usually means decades of of that precedent being the standard.
On June 16 2016 05:14 opisska wrote: I honestly don't understand the american obsession with arcane laws from two centuries ago. I understand that for the pro-gun people, the 2nd amendment is a convenient "argument", but why is everyone so happy to buy it? It's one sentence, taken miles out of context, approved by people that have very little to do with the most american citizens today. Traditionalism as a concept is completely irrational in the world that profoundly changes every decade and I feel it is abused by anyone cherry-picking "traditions" when convenient to them. Wouldn't it be much better to sit down and reconsider all contentious issues, instead of following outdated laws for the sake of following outdated laws?
I am not really sure what would be better for US today, but "250 years ago they wanted to protect the universal right to bear arms" should not be an argument at all.
Yeah I agree. We can about it this way: imagine the second-and-a-half amendment was the right to bear motor vehicles (lul).
One day, those cars will be rendered obsolete and will be considered wildly dangerous as road accidents will be nearly nonexistent due to self-driving cars that are solar powered or whatever the hell they come up with. We'll be faced with like, human driven cars that increase the fatality rate by 50000% over self-driving cars.
Now understandably there are people who like cars with gas engines and they'll want to drive them anyway. And that's fine. However this comes with a huge risk, and the legislator needs to recognize that and adjust their laws. And so those cars will need to be regulated because they pose a significant public health risk which CAN be avoided or at the very least diminished. Laws need to be based on reality, and now we have to let any idiot drive a 2 ton hunk of death at 60 mph because it's convenient, but in the future that won't really make sense.
I don't want to blame it on Alito, Scalia, and Thomas, but they have been instrumental in the resurgence of textual literalism and reading by the letter of the code. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is clear that the literalism paired with staunch conservativism, which it frequently is in the supreme court in the last 30 years, has led to a marked failure to push for change by constitutional review. That is why there is such an obsession with an arcane law. Almost all of the pieces that make up the bill of rights could be considered arcane given their age, but they make up the backbone of American law. I am certainly not a literalist, but there is something to be said for these justices reviving literalism as a way to cope with the drastic changes American society has seen in the last 30 years.
Could you explain how the supreme court could prevent a constitutional review? I was under the impression that reviewing/amending the constitution was the work of Congress and the state legislatures, so the supreme court would have no say in this. I understand that they're the ones who can choose to favor a very literal and antiquated interpretation of the constitution but I have no idea how they can do more than that. The reason why you can't review the constitution is because it would take the support of 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of all State legislatures... that'd be viewed as political suicide even by politicians who'd be favorable to the amendment.
Judicial Review I know its wikipedia, but its a good way of understanding American judicial review. Congress and Senate are able to pass laws, but the Supreme Court can deem them constitutional or unconstitutional. This doesn't include the case that make it to the SC from lower courts that end up creating precedents by the majority opinion of the SC. We don't need to amend the constitution, we simply need to put into place guards that specify further what the 2nd amendment protects. The 2nd amendment might guarantee the right to bear arms, but it also guarantees that in conjunction with the right to form citizen militias to fight tyrranical government. Depending on how the amendment is read, whether or not the first part is dependent on the second defines whether or not I can have a gun for personal protection vs whether or not I can have a gun to fight our own government if needed. Its pretty complex, and while the SC cannot enforce these laws, setting a precedent usually means decades of of that precedent being the standard.
Right right, I get that. It just seems to me like a good way to ensure a more reliably sane reading of the 2nd amendment would be to clarify it within the constitution. But I guess that's a fairytale and it falls upon the SCOTUS to draw the line, and the current one is not very conducive to progress... With some luck Scalia will be replaced with a more reasonable justice.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
Well I'm glad you don't live anywhere close to here, I'd hate to have a neighbor like that. Nonetheless birdshot is very frequently suggested by people for home defense, because at the distances you'd shoot someone in your home, it's actually absolutely devastating (almost disgustingly so), and it won't go through nearly as many layers of drywall.
Especially if you live in an apartments complex, if your idea of a self defense weapon is an AR15, you're a threat to your neighbors.
Either way I'm just going off of my limited knowledge on 223 (which I shoot) and some stuff that I've read out of curiosity. I'm not at all concerned with home invasions myself where I live. If I need to do me some home defense I'll use the good old baseball bat, at the end of the day that's probably safer for myself anyway.
i mean, as always, resorting to a weapon for self-defense would be a last resort aka life in danger. at that point, honestly, who wouldn't want to have the most effective round for the job? as you stated, use cases of individuals are subjective, and in your case you don't need an ar, that's totally fine. but again, that doesn't mean that the ar doesn't fit the use case of a lot of other people. just something to consider.
On June 16 2016 10:05 FiWiFaKi wrote: I still think guns are one of the smallest issues the US has.
If there was actual evidence of guns being bad, I could see an argument. The reality is that the US has a homicide rate of 3.9 per 100,000 people. For reference, western countries average around 1.0 per 100,000 people (Germany 0.9, Sweden 0.9, Australia 1.0, France 1.2).
Next, statistics say that 72.5% of homicides are committed by firearms, so that's 2.8275 per 100,000 people. Assuming that you can prevent all homicides by regulating guns, you'll at best still be at the rate of 1.0725 per 100,000 people. Furthermore, it's extremely stupid quoting number of killings in US versus other countries, because the US is so much bigger.
Yes, 500~ people died in mass shootings in 2015 (worst mass shooting year in history) in the USA. To be clear, that is 1 in 640,000 people a year. So onto the numbers, roughly 9048 people die from gun shootings in the US every year, so that's 1 in 35,400 people. And to be clear, no amount of banning or regulation would get that number down to zero, not to mention the lives that guns do save. Currently in the US you have a 1 in 443~ probability you will die from gun use assuming a life expectancy of 80. Just to pull a random number out of my ass, assume that you'd reduce this number by 50% in 20 years, that's 4500~ deaths.
Now compare that to the amount of people that die from unintentional injuries every year, 130,000 people, or how about the 40,000 people dying every year from suicide?
Honestly, I'm not sure what percentage of homicides is due to crime and gang related activity, but I'd wager around 50-75%. I'm having trouble finding sources, so this article says in NYC it's 49% due to only gangs, so I'll be conservative and assume 4500 deaths in United States occur to people not involved with serious crime.
Compare that to 32,700~ deaths involving car accidents, 2500~ due to choking, 2700~ due to fires, 25,000~ due to falls, 2,000 due to drowning, and "only" 600 due to accidental shootings.
We might as well require people to have a swimming license before they go swimming (plus 50% of the population can't even swim) if we're going to have firearm licenses and all that. So kindly, big brother government, fuck off. Originally I had the liberal view that yes, guns are bad, lets get rid of them, but I switched. It's such a nonsense argument, spending so much money and pissing off so many people, to an issue that is hugely over exaggerated. I sincerely think any competent person cannot think restricting guns in the US is a good idea (if we got to decide at the start it'd be a different argument).
Just continue to educate to populace, and the rates will steadily decrease.
Every "freedom" that people receive is naturally going to cause some potential risk, and the policy of zero crime, zero of anything is unattainable. It's about finding the right balance of freedom and security, and this is one glaring issue I feel like the democrats are completely backwards on.
If you only want to look at the numbers then there is one quastion:
Why is everyone afraid of terrorism? Yes it is a bad thing, but the death toll is negligible in comparison to other death causes in the US.
On June 16 2016 00:45 ahswtini wrote: the issue with requiring a gun license is that by the very nature of a license, it no longer becomes a right but a privilege. licensing is also registration, which pro-gunners maintain will one day allow for confiscation. im sure if there was a way of absolutely guaranteeing gun control measures would end at the "gun license", it would make it much more palatable to pro-gunners. currently, the pro-gunners refuse to yield a single inch, because of their (well-founded) belief that it never stops at that one inch. their rights will be continually eroded at each available opportunity. and they only have to point to britain to show that it is the case.
I think that's the problem; we need to make it crystal clear that owning a modern gun in the year 2016 is a privilege for all practical purposes, regardless of the outdated Constitutional "right" referring to muskets and well-regulated militia.
After all, not everyone deserves to have a gun, and some people deserve to lose their gun-owning privileges.
I think that "freedom do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe or present a risk to the lives of others" could be put under a "right".
If I fly an aircraft without training, I am putting others at risk. That's why you have pilot licenses.
Hurrrdurrrr I ameritarded, if those faggots had guns they wouldve protected themselved. hurrrdurrr, if everyone has a gun we are all much safer. Hurrrdurrrrrrrr. hahahahahahahaha PROUD TO BE A EUROPOOR. At least we have brains.
Just look at Australia: Legal guns = multiple mass shootings/year. Made them Illegal = 0 Mass shootings since.
BUT HURR DURR MOAR GUNS=MOAR FREEDOM; IM AMERITARDED HURRDURR.
I'm sorry that something so dramatic, and terrifying makes me feel like you guys deserve it (cant help me feels maaaan).
On June 16 2016 09:36 saocyn wrote: It's rather laughable that, we live in a country who thinks guns should be given out freely and with very little regulation. The concept of a person having the POWER to END ANY life at his whim or discretion sounds preposterous. it's a cold hard logic and fact to get to the bottom of this, compare every scenario that a person who had a gun was able to prevent a suicide bomber, robber, rapist, w/e and then compare the amount of scenarios where guns are misused and taken innocent lives. How many lives has a gun saved vs how many lives did it actually take? The concept of every person needs one to protect themselves sounds like horse shit if were to actually get the statistics of that.
The fact that more and more youths and deaths that occur BECAUSE it's unregulated and misused should be a call for reform. It's understandable if no murders, deaths, robbery, occur because of this, but that isn't the case.
And cutting someone's neck with a knife, smashing their head with a bat or crowbar, injecting people with one of the many substances you can buy at your home hardware store - or 3D printing a gun nowadays.
Come on, we live in a society... i.e. we need shared values, we need to work together. Maybe it's possible to function completely secluded from everyone else, but is this really how you'd like to envision the human race?
I don't have a gun, I don't live in a place like the US, but I will say that a guns bring a sense of freedom, even though it may not be a tangible one. Anyway, it's nice to feel like you have some control in your life, and you COULD do something, even if you wouldn't. It's nice having more choice than choosing whether to buy the red or green peppers in your supermarket... It's bullshit how we need to wait 1-2 months to get a fishing license (and pay for it too) here when we want to go with a friend in a one-off occurrence, doing this with guns... I dunno, I'm not a fan.
How do you know that guns bring freedom , you do have control in your life what you don't have is control of that other guy life and his rages and his issues , when he draws a semi automatic rifle and gun down your family , this isn't a movie you aren't saving anyone with the gun of yours you seems a bit childish saying its another choice like peppers in a supermarket when a guy start shooting at the street you will be shitting your pants , I was in the military for 3 years and 1 real war , seen people die nothing about guns is a freedom its a RESPONSIBILITY and a HUGH one , you talk about fishing license .... when you see someone BLEED to death and his fucking life sucked away from him you won't say dumb and childish things like that.
Were you ever mad , really mad? like the kind of mad that makes you go crazy ? you be surprised how many people have those feelings every day for various reasons letting them have something in arm reach that can cause death in an instant is not a good idea no matter what , i rather have a guy punch someone in the face for f***g is girl friend or crushing into his car or cursing his mother or getting fired or whatever then drawing a gun ..... Whatever I'm done with this thread makes me sad seeing so many people thinking guns is a toy and everyone should buy them at toys are us .
Don't ever in your life believe you don't have control , and worst don't believe anyone who tell you the owning a gun will improve it , trust me its the biggest liability you will ever own if you know what actually happens when you shoot someone or being shot at.
Sorry if I came out harsher didn't mean to be personal about it.... cheers.
On June 16 2016 09:36 saocyn wrote: It's rather laughable that, we live in a country who thinks guns should be given out freely and with very little regulation. The concept of a person having the POWER to END ANY life at his whim or discretion sounds preposterous. it's a cold hard logic and fact to get to the bottom of this, compare every scenario that a person who had a gun was able to prevent a suicide bomber, robber, rapist, w/e and then compare the amount of scenarios where guns are misused and taken innocent lives. How many lives has a gun saved vs how many lives did it actually take? The concept of every person needs one to protect themselves sounds like horse shit if were to actually get the statistics of that.
The fact that more and more youths and deaths that occur BECAUSE it's unregulated and misused should be a call for reform. It's understandable if no murders, deaths, robbery, occur because of this, but that isn't the case.
And cutting someone's neck with a knife, smashing their head with a bat or crowbar, injecting people with one of the many substances you can buy at your home hardware store - or 3D printing a gun nowadays.
Come on, we live in a society... i.e. we need shared values, we need to work together. Maybe it's possible to function completely secluded from everyone else, but is this really how you'd like to envision the human race?
I don't have a gun, I don't live in a place like the US, but I will say that a guns bring a sense of freedom, even though it may not be a tangible one. Anyway, it's nice to feel like you have some control in your life, and you COULD do something, even if you wouldn't. It's nice having more choice than choosing whether to buy the red or green peppers in your supermarket... It's bullshit how we need to wait 1-2 months to get a fishing license (and pay for it too) here when we want to go with a friend in a one-off occurrence, doing this with guns... I dunno, I'm not a fan.
How do you know that guns bring freedom , you do have control in your life what you don't have is control of that other guy life and his rages and his issues , when he draws a semi automatic rifle and gun down your family , this isn't a movie you aren't saving anyone with the gun of yours you seems a bit childish saying its another choice like peppers in a supermarket when a guy start shooting at the street you will be shitting your pants , I was in the military for 3 years and 1 real war , seen people die nothing about guns is a freedom its a RESPONSIBILITY and a HUGH one , you talk about fishing license .... when you see someone BLEED to death and his fucking life sucked away from him you won't say dumb and childish things like that.
Were you ever mad , really mad? like the kind of mad that makes you go crazy ? you be surprised how many people have those feelings every day for various reasons letting them have something in arm reach that can cause death in an instant is not a good idea no matter what , i rather have a guy punch someone in the face for f***g is girl friend or crushing into his car or cursing his mother or getting fired or whatever then drawing a gun ..... Whatever I'm done with this thread makes me sad seeing so many people thinking guns is a toy and everyone should buy them at toys are us .
Don't ever in your life believe you don't have control , and worst don't believe anyone who tell you the owning a gun will improve it , trust me its the biggest liability you will ever own if you know what actually happens when you shoot someone or being shot at.
Sorry if I came out harsher didn't mean to be personal about it.... cheers.
Those people suffer from the strongest human emotion: fear.
The news say "Shooters here", "Terrorists there" and "Government and police are bad guys", so they are afraid, afraid of bad guys, the husbands of the women they had affairs with, the government, any muslims or black people, despite not actually being in danger since, for the most part, most people are actually sort of decent human beings. Then someone tells them "You don't have to be afraid of gunmen if you own a bigger gun than them", so they go out, buy a gun and their fears are gone, because the steel in their hand gives them the feeling of safety and control, the power over life and death of the evil guys hiding in every dark alley.
They don't want to think about whether that gun actually makes them safer, because they are too afraid of other people with guns, not realizing that they've just become one of those people with guns that others might be afraid of. They try to rationalize it any way they can, because everything else would mean that they'd have to confront their fears.
It's irrational, most people have pretty much nothing to be afraid of apart from losing their job or their girl-/boyfriends, but they are too afraid of everything and need the power of a weapon in their hand, they need a wall to keep the drug sellers in the south away, they need all muslims to be far away in the middle east, just so they don't have to be afraid. Then someone tells them something else they have to be afraid of and they'll do everything to not be afraid of that, too. "Evil WMDs in iraq, they might blow you up any second now, support us to invade them before that happens."
Modern media and politics in all of history is all about fear, probably not even intentionally but because fear sells and convinces even more than sex. Not the actual life-or-death fear someone experiences in a real gun fight, but the imagined fear of the unknown, the things that might happen if they don't protect themselves any means possible.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range?
At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is.
And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars. there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
EPT
