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 the value judgement aspect, I personally have firearms mostly as a hobby, some hunting, and because I'm not calling the police for anything and live in a pretty rural area.
That said, I'm willing to accept/support some pretty strict restrictions, the one thing I'd think everyone should be able to agree on, but large swaths of the "more regulation!" crowd openly rejects, is that the increased regulations be based in reason and science and not politics and ignorance.
The title and frequent focuses of this thread stand as evidence of that.
What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ?
I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw.
I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only?
Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower.
And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun!
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine.
I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting.
Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective.
I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless.
The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small.
Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree?
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance.
“Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind.
And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
I know it isn't directly anything to do with the guns debate but this particular point seems odd to me. You say it's not the government's job to be your nanny or your brother's keeper...
Then who runs the jails? The police? It's not federal, but surely it is exactly the government's job to be both nanny and keeper of brothers? It's the government setting the laws to stop people doing things that are stupid and damaging to one another, and the government punishing people for doing those things anyway. I don't know if the fundament you're working from is particularly firm. It seems, from the outside, like the lines separating stuff the government is fine to run and stuff the government isn't are really arbitrary.
It's quite the logical leap to talk about the nanny state in terms of "One of the reasons government should regulate guns for the reason of making it harder for it's citizens to commit suicide" and "Running jails qualifies under the nanny state and brother's keeper definition." The government should run courts of law finding out fraud and punishing murder with jail time and rehabilitation. That's quite a different sort. I think both of us could recognize degrees of being an overprotective parent, without collapsing to anything close to the concept of parenting must be part of overprotective parenting.
To me one of the main functions of government is to protect citizens from each other. I don't think anyone can really argue against that (otherwise there would be no need for armed police officers).
However, I think this should very rarely move into the arena of protecting citizens from themselves. The best protection against oneself is education, not legislation.
its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control
If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote: its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control
A poster quoted *specifically* that part of the argument, called it "fucking heartless," and my response drove a lot of responses back. If you all can't separate my criticism of gun control as means of suicide prevention and gun regulation in general, then of course you'll think everything is cherry picking. Please, read some more of the posts others have been making to see what kind of arguments I'm also responding to.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
We should really just agree to abandon the term in the context of gun control policy and useful classifications of weapons.
This recently came up in the Kavanaugh hearings about what qualifies as common use and what is covered under terms. It's a useful point of discussion based in past legislation (gun control proponents love to label bills Assault Weapon Bans that are mere accessory bans or blanket semi-auto bans). It should really be relegated to the past as it applies to current and future discussion, except maybe when talking about what gun owners think are possible bad outcomes from gun legislation from past gun legislation.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
On September 07 2018 22:30 JimmiC wrote: If guns are not the problem with gun violence and mass shootings, what is? How would your propose to lessen it?
I think it’s an interesting cultural and societal conversation, but I’m going to wait on that. Too much of the base insults like your “I know you think it is fake news but to the rest of the world it is just facts“ and “too bad you misplaced those” sort of cheap political vitriol. “Fucking heartless” and “raging boner fantasising over how they gonna kill the shit out of a burglar” and “Who jerk off to the thought of "coming after the tyrannical government”
I think the better conversation gets the air to breathe when trolls moderate themselves and get moderated. The only thing casting pearls before swine does at this point is showing that cheap insults and witty sexual imagery is the way to hold a discussion at combating unlawful gun homicides. You played the part of the cheap huckster in two threads, and maybe next month or next year there’s actually a desire to hear each other’s solutions and debate them. You show by word that is not the case.
I appreciate your fake outrage as what it is grandstanding. I asked you many simple questions which you dodged. And you attributed many comments to me that were not mine. The one about fake news was, as I asked over and over for any statistical info and you either had none (likely) or failed to produce, and treat the mountains of it like it doesn't exist. As usual you are more interested in "winning a argument" by some made up set of debate rules than actually explaining your position. Which more and more starts to look like your position is wining arguments about a policy that you care about because it is a policy not because of the policies merit. There is no consistency in your argument "I am all about civil liberties and personal freedom" How do you feel about these other personal freedom and civil liberties examples "..... some long winded answer never answering or nothing at all". It would be great to get into an actual debate with someone who had consistent reasons for their obsession with guns.
Also all the rest of the developed world doesn't not have to deal with Mass shooting in anywhere near the consistency you do. It is not a Utopian fantasy it is the way the rest of the world works LOL.
I refer to the rather long conversation of your question
If guns are not the problem with gun violence and mass shootings, what is? How would your propose to lessen it?
Your worldview may dictate that there's easily explained proposals about what's the root cause with gun violence and how to lessen it. Mine does not. And I'm certainly not going to invest time and effort with someone so intent in calling me a believer in fake news, a grand-stander, and having selective amnesia. This is a long debate going back decades and there's plenty of time to wait for other posters to come around at the seriousness of the issue and how to approach it without needlessly smearing the other side.
As usual you are more interested in "winning a argument" by some made up set of debate rules than actually explaining your position.
Again, you needlessly misinterpret. I stated my reasons for not offering up an argument at this time. If that's "winning an argument," you have a very strange definition of what "winning an argument" means. I think you're trying to fit behavior you can't understand into more familiar molds that you can understand.
And if you think my previous answers are "some long winded answer never answering or nothing at all," maybe say you've been victorious within your own mind and move on? You're playing two men here: one of them laughing and insulting, the other one looking for answers to questions. You'll have to pick an avenue eventually, "Should I call him a big believer in fake news that all the world knows is wrong, and some charlatan that conveniently forgot his argument?" or "Should I ask him what he thinks about this issue giving his previous post and expect an answer?"
I won't have to bring this up again because saying it once for everyone is sufficient.
Despite your inclinations, not all my questions were directed at you. You answer some of them, but you cherry pick the ones you feel you can easily answer and avoid the rest. If you don't understand why this is frustrating I'm not sure why. I brought up fake news because you said you disagreed with the statistics, that is basically what people do now a days, don't like some fact disagree with it, they are not opinions to be disagreed with.
I am really interested in how you can be so "individual rights and freedoms" on one topic, but not on many others. I also am confused to how you can logically think that having a gun in your home makes you safer, but I think you know it actually doesn't.
You are right that I do tweak you when you avoid and clutter up the questions. But don't act like you don't do the same, you are far from some innocent poster, lol. You tend to only get "offended" when you can't or won't answer anymore.
You may imagine my small frustration at posting several paragraphs only to get a short response about fake news and amnesia. That's your choice and it reflects your style of argument. I said exactly what my response to your choice was, and I didn't really expect you to like it. We could hike it up a notch where you call me a big believer in fake news, and I call you a big fan of government tyranny over its citizens, and evilfatsh1t calls all my arguments hypocritical utopianism, and I call all his arguments purposeful obfuscation. I'm sure some people will have a grand old time. But given that we probably understand each other at some level, we're done here. See: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27139024 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27139341
And as always, if you think I'm being awfully unfair and grandstanding and all that, my PMs are open to you.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen.
I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating.
No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on.
It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips.
You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that.
On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote: [quote] I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw.
I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only?
Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower.
And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun!
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine.
I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting.
Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective.
I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless.
The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small.
Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree?
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance.
“Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind.
And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?
and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible".
to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person
No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice.
Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest.
I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility.
according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice. the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible.
no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices.
if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms.
According to my first sentence, government can do a great deal of harm when it oversteps its authority to police crime and sentence lawbreakers and enforce its regulation and wants to overinvolve itself in citizens choices. I remind you that you're responding to a quote chain that has two important contentions:
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun.
is really fucking heartless.
and
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Please don't read both of those and conclude (1) no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0, when he asked for the plan to reduce something related--school/mass public shootings--to zero or (2) I'm cherry picking gun suicides+ Show Spoiler +
On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote: its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control
, when he literally excerpted the three sentences from a 18-sentence response dealing with specifically gun suicides.
Onto the rest of your post:
the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible.
It's not up to government to take action on behalf of the citizens. That is a debated point here. It's up to citizens to debate and elect representatives to government to take some actions and not others, or no actions at all in favor or against gun control. When I talk about keeping gun protections guaranteed by the second amendment in place, I mean that to contradict "it is in Americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible." No, it is in America's interest to narrowly tailor gun regulations to help keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable young adults while also protecting lawful gun-owning citizens rights.
I think the political groups are influenced by lobbyists, both gun industry types, and gun control groups. Citizens form groups to lobby their government for action. Corporations also lobby their government for actions favorable to them. I see a great deal of opposition between "its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens" and "political groups are not making better choices in their own interests." Political groups are formed and managed to make political decisions in their own interest. The conflict and compromise between them form the decisions of government, restricted by controls on what government can do. That's why I like debates among citizens in the public square without broad-based calls on government to "reduce gun violence as much as possible" and "its up to the government to take action on behalf of its citizens." The groups must debate the best cause of action, including trade-offs on individual rights and liberties, before calling on government to just 'do something.' The circumspect look shows governments frequently take action that does absolutely nothing positive, and quite a few things negative, and gets excused because at least they "did something."
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen.
I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating.
No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on.
It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips.
You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that.
A federal gun law that had a snowballs chance in hell of passing. None of those have existed since the 1990s. Especially when it comes to assault weapons. It is a dead issue on the federal level. On the state level, states can do whatever they want, but no ban is going to remove the existence of those weapons from other states.
And the easiest way to bridge that “knowledge gap” would be for people with the powerful knowledge about fire arms to help with the legislation. But it is pretty obvious that isn’t the goal of folks who engage with the “they don’t understand the thing they are regulating” style of discussion.
What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ?
I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw.
I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only?
Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower.
And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun!
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine.
I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting.
Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective.
I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless.
The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small.
Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree?
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance.
“Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind.
And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
I know it isn't directly anything to do with the guns debate but this particular point seems odd to me. You say it's not the government's job to be your nanny or your brother's keeper...
Then who runs the jails? The police? It's not federal, but surely it is exactly the government's job to be both nanny and keeper of brothers? It's the government setting the laws to stop people doing things that are stupid and damaging to one another, and the government punishing people for doing those things anyway. I don't know if the fundament you're working from is particularly firm. It seems, from the outside, like the lines separating stuff the government is fine to run and stuff the government isn't are really arbitrary.
It's quite the logical leap to talk about the nanny state in terms of "One of the reasons government should regulate guns for the reason of making it harder for it's citizens to commit suicide" and "Running jails qualifies under the nanny state and brother's keeper definition." The government should run courts of law finding out fraud and punishing murder with jail time and rehabilitation. That's quite a different sort. I think both of us could recognize degrees of being an overprotective parent, without collapsing to anything close to the concept of parenting must be part of overprotective parenting.
Oh yes.
BUT
I also think we'd both agree it's not overprotective parenting to keep guns away from the kids and in the hands of, say, adults who have reason to be using them in a professional context. I've not personally seen a good, concrete, substantive argument for why adults need guns outside a professional context or in very rural areas where wild animal attacks are still genuinely a thing.
I don't see the social good of legal firearms. But I do recognise that partially this is an inside-outside problem. I grew up in a nation that doesn't allow them, you grew up in a nation that does, and moreover, one that almost institutionally hates and fears its own government.
We more or less trust ours, Iraq invasion notwithstanding.
Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower.
And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun!
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine.
I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting.
Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective.
I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless.
The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small.
Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree?
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance.
“Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind.
And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?
and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible".
to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person
No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice.
Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest.
I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility.
according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice. the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible.
no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices.
if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms.
According to my first sentence, government can do a great deal of harm when it oversteps its authority to police crime and sentence lawbreakers and enforce its regulation and wants to overinvolve itself in citizens choices. I remind you that you're responding to a quote chain that has two important contentions:
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun.
What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings?
Please don't read both of those and conclude (1) no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0, when he asked for the plan to reduce something related--school/mass public shootings--to zero or (2) I'm cherry picking gun suicides+ Show Spoiler +
On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote: its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control
, when he literally excerpted the three sentences from a 18-sentence response dealing with specifically gun suicides.
the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible.
It's not up to government to take action on behalf of the citizens. That is a debated point here. It's up to citizens to debate and elect representatives to government to take some actions and not others, or no actions at all in favor or against gun control. When I talk about keeping gun protections guaranteed by the second amendment in place, I mean that to contradict "it is in Americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible." No, it is in America's interest to narrowly tailor gun regulations to help keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable young adults while also protecting lawful gun-owning citizens rights.
I think the political groups are influenced by lobbyists, both gun industry types, and gun control groups. Citizens form groups to lobby their government for action. Corporations also lobby their government for actions favorable to them. I see a great deal of opposition between "its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens" and "political groups are not making better choices in their own interests." Political groups are formed and managed to make political decisions in their own interest. The conflict and compromise between them form the decisions of government, restricted by controls on what government can do. That's why I like debates among citizens in the public square without broad-based calls on government to "reduce gun violence as much as possible" and "its up to the government to take action on behalf of its citizens." The groups must debate the best cause of action, including trade-offs on individual rights and liberties, before calling on government to just 'do something.' The circumspect look shows governments frequently take action that does absolutely nothing positive, and quite a few things negative, and gets excused because at least they "did something."
basically youre saying you dont trust the people you elect to make educated decisions for your country and to keep the interests of your citizens at heart. therefore the responsibility falls on the citizens themselves to come to a consensus before tossing legislation work to the government? your cynical view of your government makes it clear why youre so afraid of a tyrannical government. as for your idea that a debate amongst citizens must be had before governments take action, its quite clear to me that you once again do not understand how stupid it is to place so much expectation on individuals. you have people that dont even vote in elections. then you have people who vote but dunno wtf theyre voting for. then you have people that are severely uneducated/misinformed etc and therefore should not be trusted to make decisions that impact anything but themselves. the very biggest flaw with democracy is that you cant overrule a stupid population. yet your solution is to try and find an answer at the lowest tier of society rather than let the people who were chosen to make educated decisions for you do their jobs? this is wishful thinking at its finest.
as for you cherry picking arguments, just because you specifically replied to a point about suicide doesnt mean you can neglect every other point made in relation to gun control lol. and the 0 death toll thing was an obvious hyperbole. interpreting that literally is either an attempt to troll or to steer the discussion away from points you dont have sensible rebuttals for.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen.
I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating.
No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on.
It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips.
You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that.
A federal gun law that had a snowballs chance in hell of passing. None of those have existed since the 1990s. Especially when it comes to assault weapons. It is a dead issue on the federal level. On the state level, states can do whatever they want, but no ban is going to remove the existence of those weapons from other states.
And the easiest way to bridge that “knowledge gap” would be for people with the powerful knowledge about fire arms to help with the legislation. But it is pretty obvious that isn’t the goal of folks who engage with the “they don’t understand the thing they are regulating” style of discussion.
I'm presenting that argument and it's very much in the interest of hoping that people that really want better regulations recognize how refusing to learn is shooting themselves in the foot. Not merely to try to grind progress to a halt, but because I'd like to see better regulations for guns.
It's actually a pretty common perspective among gun owners. Hence the widespread support for various stricter gun regulations.
On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote: If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon.
If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers.
It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen.
I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating.
No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on.
It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips.
You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that.
A federal gun law that had a snowballs chance in hell of passing. None of those have existed since the 1990s. Especially when it comes to assault weapons. It is a dead issue on the federal level. On the state level, states can do whatever they want, but no ban is going to remove the existence of those weapons from other states.
And the easiest way to bridge that “knowledge gap” would be for people with the powerful knowledge about fire arms to help with the legislation. But it is pretty obvious that isn’t the goal of folks who engage with the “they don’t understand the thing they are regulating” style of discussion.
I'm presenting that argument and it's very much in the interest of hoping that people that really want better regulations recognize how refusing to learn is shooting themselves in the foot. Not merely to try to grind progress to a halt, but because I'd like to see better regulations for guns.
It's actually a pretty common perspective among gun owners. Hence the widespread support for various stricter gun regulations.
The problem with this is that there is wide spread support, but the invested, hard line, anti-gun law base drives the discussion. For an example, the smart gun:
This was never going to be a regulation, but was an invention that someone wanted to bring to market. It was a simple concept that in theory could have made guns safer to own for people who wanted to use the tech. But the smart gun, as a concept, was chased out of the entire market by gun advocates who couldn’t allow thing to come to market. It simply cannot exist anywhere, because that might lead to some sort of requirement by states to have that system on some types of fire arms. Or something. Best to keep the status quo.
And this is the problem right now as it was in the 1990s, the reasonable gun owners are not in control of the discussion and seem to not want to ever control the discussion. And that has been the dynamic for like 30 years. I grew up around guns and this narrative arm wrestling about who knows enough to write gun laws has been around for my entire life. It one of the three to five wells hard line gun advocate s go to over and over. Because they love the status quo and know how to kill any discussion about effective gun laws.
EPT
