|
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. |
OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that.
|
To add to that, I've several times been accused of wanting to abolish all guns from people in this very thread alone simply for wanting a bit more regulation. There doesn't seem to exist a middle ground for these people where you can still have your guns but require some training to do so (and proper storage laws).
|
It is very strange bit of logic to me that the party who see's themselves as the law and order party are the ones that appear to be most against these steps. Registering weapons and requiring licencing would not "only let the criminals" have guns, it would make it much easier for law enforcement to find people who had used their gun in crimes. No it wouldn't work immediately, but over time there would be less and less unregistered guns and unlicensed owners out there.
The NRA and gun manufacturers know this would reduce sales and that is why they have created this boogieman of "were commin for all the guns, and then democracy will end" campaign that has worked on a large portion of the population.
At least that population is shrinking and there is hope for some common sense regulation and legislation in the future. I'm very much hoping for it be federal, because if it is just state wide the states is small enough, with no border checks between states that it just creates a easy black market where anyone drives a few hours, picks up a bunch of guns, drives back and sells them.
|
On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others.
Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats? It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right.
It isn't just past legislation and reversal either. Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine. Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns.
Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil. Lovely. Lots of arguments that the second amendment shouldn't protect anything like individual gun ownership, that it should be stepped around in favor of stricter gun control. Hmm, not even a backstop allowed against the eventual ban and/or confiscation. They're quite willing to take away the amendment without a new constitutional amendment. Right on. Several comparisons to some action hero for wanting the ability to unlock your gun, load your gun, and protect yourself with it, since lawful right to defend yourself with a gun in the home isn't sacrosanct. There's a great tendency to confuse assault rifles with the nebulous assault weapons description. So people here have argued AR-15s should be banned because they're assault rifles that have been used in shootings in Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and California ... despite the fact that they aren't assault rifles, and have been banned for civilian purchase since the 1980s. Ignorance about the classes of gun *that people already want to ban* could easily spill over into all semi-automatic guns (as has been seen from congressional representatives, CNN interviews, etc). Some of these exchanges:+ Show Spoiler +On February 22 2018 09:53 micronesia wrote:Okay, I'll make a small list. - Using 'goodness' as a characteristic of guns. In fact, some are excessively good.
- Relating the effective range of a firearm to its suitability as a defensive weapon.
- Using the term 'assault-file' improperly. Perhaps if you shared the definition you are using it would help at least.
- Using the term 'smaller arms' in a confusing way. "Small" means something different when referring to firearms.
- Referring to dissenting views as 'high-flying shitty fantasy' rather than an incorrect view.
- Taking issue with 'stopping power' even though it is extremely important when evaluating a firearm for suitability for home defense.
- Referring to bullet speed as a concern without referencing the mass or momentum (22 target rifles shoot very fast bullets but so what).
- Implying that accuracy is a feature to avoid in defensive firearms.
- Implying that the simulated fully-auto capability granted by a bumpstock is trivial when compared to otherwise available actions, even though this is false in some situations such as the Las Vegas shooting.
- Saying caliber doesn't matter for defensive weapons
- Conflating assault style weapons which are based on designs to stop/wound vice kill targets with battle rifles or sniper rifles which are designed to kill.
- Not addressing magazine size at all.
That's just based on the past few posts on this page. You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter. On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote: You're a mod? Jesus Christ.
What about magazine-sizes? What about them? What do they to do with the AR-15 specifically? Lots of guns can carry magazine of all kinds. That isn't a specific issue to assault rifles. Your list is just throwing a bunch of random shit at me.
On May 20 2018 00:49 micronesia wrote: Ciaus_Dronu by labeling the NRA and their supporters as terrorists you are helping the NRA to maintain the status quo, regardless of what moral highground you decide to hang out on. highlight the point. Even one gun control advocate in this thread admitted "its hand guns and automatics that people want gone," to draw a distinction about bolt-action/long rifles/shotguns. But nobody wants to ban guns, haha.
Also, these regulations tilt in one direction. They aren't means-tested and subject to removal if they're found to not make the smallest of dents on gun crime. Gun control only goes in one direction: more of it, slowly or quickly, and less rights for you. Washington DC you still have to prove the continued threat against you, such that an investigated police report of a stalker is about the bar you have to pass to even carry your gun to protect your person outside of the house. Plenty of states make it absurdly difficult to obtain these carry permits. The terms are generally "No Issue" or "May Issue" compared with "Shall Issue" states. No gun ban, just effectively gun carry bans. You can own your gun, it's just never going to accompany you on a walk ... not "it should be regulated" or such, it's banned. "You can still have them" as you've said, is dangerously naive. From bans on carry, to bans on entirely classes of gun argued and legislatively passed, to denial of lawful home defense uses.
Backing away from the "nobody wants to ban your guns" point, you also argue that the "US is just flat out insane" for not regulating as you see fit. You call it the way that reflects how a dangerous weapon should be regulated as such. Myself and others think most existing gun laws do that already to a high degree. You want more in lines of gun classes. I think that's too far in a constitutionally guaranteed right, and it should just be a societally and governmentally recommendation that you get to know the weapon you may purchase if you're not a felon or provably mentally unstable. The complaint is generally just mass shootings, and the fix is generally claimed to be highly regulating the lawful purchasers to have the secondary effect of making it harder for criminals to get their hands on them. If the US has such a nationwide problem with dumb people misusing their firearms, I can admit to the need. I think that society does a fine job with shooting ranges and gun clubs and social relationships with people that know gun trainers and can teach that such regulations are absolutely unnecessary and just burdensome. The mass shooters were not just accidents of yahoos shooting their guns without knowing how to operate them safely. Deer hunting accidents and accidents while cleaning are rare enough. Most existing laws properly enforced would count for keeping them away from people that accidentally shoot them (locked in a cabinet generally kept locked).
Sermokala just made the point a couple of pages ago about what you said on "turning it into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." How much regulation is too much or how much regulation is not enough is an ongoing debate. Your rules aren't delivered by God to your hand stamped in tablets with "Common Sense." It will be political "horse trading" for graduations between total bans and total freedom (and I'm not arguing for total freedom). I think any man or woman of SENSE has to agree that they are a political issue SIMPLE BECAUSE nobody will agree to what list of measures comprise "common sense." You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff.
|
On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way).
First:
Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that.
You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation.
Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us.
It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable".
Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case.
You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this.
Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using.
Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil" ....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff?
|
On November 20 2018 02:56 Gzerble wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way). I've seen a lot of people here with the two big punches you pull out here: "they're so crazy"/"the US is just flat out insane" as means of arguing that the debate is beyond the pale, and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world sees you." It's like you're determined to hit the big memes in a big way. I have my fun with the trolls all the same, but it's a topic I view seriously and I think popping off these "literally insane" angles doesn't do you justice, doesn't do your whole side justice, and simply reinforces existing stereotypes held by gun rights defenders. To think you're doubling back to claim unaddressed points is well ... interesting. But we'll move on.
First: Show nested quote +Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that. You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation. I have no quarter to give people with gun suicides that drive up "shot by own gun" stats. I also don't like people with guns that brandish but are then disarmed. Same goes for people that fail to secure it. However, the actions of those that don't treat them seriously should not deny the lawful holders from continuing to have the right to use them in defense of home and person. Let's address the suicide problem and address any lack in securing arms against children getting them to drive the number home. Not disarm you so you have no means of effectual self defense within the home.
Show nested quote + Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us. My governor signed several new gun control laws just a few months ago, on top of California's already tough gun laws. He signed into law more in 2016, one of which is under injunction by appeals court. So in California, now is the worst time even in a high-regulation state to try and own a gun. Additionally, there has been no relaxation of past gun control laws that made it harder for citizens to exercise their second amendment right without corresponding impact on criminal use. Just the march forward. Many cities and states are open about banning carry permits, or putting such onerous regulations on them to make it a miracle to obtain. These are on the rise nationally. It's actually a bad time and a hard time historically to purchase a gun.
Show nested quote +It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable". You've got some balls here, I'll give you that. You said that "no one wants to take your guns." But, provably, ten years ago they're coming into your house and putting trigger lock requirements on your guns and disassembly requirements on your guns. And on top of that, 4 justices thought it was totally peachy keen on your second amendment rights. We all narrowly had our rights preserved by the thinnest of margins on Heller and have been riding that marginal victory ever since (or trying to, since the right to "bear arms" is still trashed by legislatures from coast to coast).
Legislators, with the backing of groups holding political power, feel perfectly at ease coming after your guns. That's why these cases make it to the Supreme Court ... because they're passed legislation. + Show Spoiler +That's why it's a grave injustice that the Supreme Court hasn't been hearing cases regarding carry (bear arms) ... because they've already come for your rights to bear those guns (see recent dissents in denying review. There would be no case against the law before the Supreme Court if legislators hadn't said a policeman could carry his gun in federal office buildings, but wasn't allowed to have one in his home.
You attempted to make the point that "no one is coming for your guns" and you can still have them. I didn't sidestep a thing. Hell, you might even have had a view I shared if the Supreme Court agreed with you and voted 9-0. I grant you that ... it would be showing the world that everybody knows the second amendment makes only loonies think they can prevail upon your guns.
Show nested quote + Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case. You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this. I'm not a big guy for using the AR-15 in the home. That's the one I like shooting in the desert. Apparently you share my view. But I differ in you that I won't impose my preference on someone else by removing their ability to use their favored firearm (nonautomatic) in defense of person, family, and home. If this issue, and all your accusations of insanity matter enough to you, you can read people in this very thread that like aspects of the AR-15 and argue for its use (but you'll have to pour through a hundred pages in all likelihood). In real life, I'll try to convince them that a glock is your better bet, but to each his own. You have that right to choose differently, and I say the constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms in that fashion.
Show nested quote +Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using. Re-read your own words. You didn't say "I'm not coming for your guns." You said "No one is coming for your guns." When I'm documenting successful legislative efforts across the country, I'm telling you directly that people are coming for your guns, entire classes of guns, and they've been SUCCESSFUL. I'm trying to hold the snark back to a dull roar, but read your own points and your own words if you meant something different, because I can't read your mind and I know people have walked back extreme stances that they had no intention to make. And don't try and trot out the "putting words in my mouth" again.
Show nested quote +Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil" ....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff? I'll have to see if the points I made earlier are elaborated on further than the (...), if you need more evidence that yes, people are coming for your guns, I should hope to see you quote the omitted parts and respond to them. You're posting in a thread where people have said what guns they're coming for and what guns they aren't coming for. It varies from person to person.
I also made a point about how dumb it is to say "because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." Of course it's a political issue. You can refer to that paragraph should you want to argue further. I think it just aims to poison the debate by denying the legitimacy of political positions and what is and isn't common sense and reasonable (and GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES disagree on this currently as well).
|
|
these shootings are still not "statistically signficant" unfortunately.
|
On November 20 2018 06:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 02:56 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way). I've seen a lot of people here with the two big punches you pull out here: "they're so crazy"/"the US is just flat out insane" as means of arguing that the debate is beyond the pale, and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world sees you." It's like you're determined to hit the big memes in a big way. I have my fun with the trolls all the same, but it's a topic I view seriously and I think popping off these "literally insane" angles doesn't do you justice, doesn't do your whole side justice, and simply reinforces existing stereotypes held by gun rights defenders. To think you're doubling back to claim unaddressed points is well ... interesting. But we'll move on. I think it's insane that you're dodging the elephant in the room that is "people who are not supposed to have guns are getting them", as do most gun rights advocates. People who are not supposed to be getting drugs are getting them, but guess what, that's illegal, it's one of the things that the police tackles most seriously, the DEA is massive, and the US applies international pressure up to military action in certain cases to deal with it. Alcohol has an age limit, not anybody can sell medicines, and people have to learn and be tested to get a drivers license... this is what I call insanity: what the US as a country sees as common sense for things inherently less dangerous than guns doesn't apply to guns. Guns are the peak of humanity's personal killing tools, why are they not treated with respect for being such?
Show nested quote +First: Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that. You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation. I have no quarter to give people with gun suicides that drive up "shot by own gun" stats. I also don't like people with guns that brandish but are then disarmed. Same goes for people that fail to secure it. However, the actions of those that don't treat them seriously should not deny the lawful holders from continuing to have the right to use them in defense of home and person. Let's address the suicide problem and address any lack in securing arms against children getting them to drive the number home. Not disarm you so you have no means of effectual self defense within the home. Are you saying that people being suicidal is not a factor that should be considered before giving them a gun? That's what "no quarter" means. But even if you remove gun suicides, that statistic still holds. You haven't said that you agree that people who put guns where their kids can access them should not have guns. This is my entire point, that laws exist because of the people who ruin things for the rest of us. I can handle my booze like a champ, but some asshole drives drunk and kills people, and now there is a law in place and I have to take a cab. Society has been seen to work better with laws than without, because otherwise the edge cases will be everywhere, and the average well meaning person loses out. Why does this not apply to guns, as things like mass shootings (you probably know The Onion's headline about those), kids getting accidents due to negligence, and other things of the kind are not factors despite them being (unfortunately) statistically significant?
Show nested quote + Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us. My governor signed several new gun control laws just a few months ago, on top of California's already tough gun laws. He signed into law more in 2016, one of which is under injunction by appeals court. So in California, now is the worst time even in a high-regulation state to try and own a gun. Additionally, there has been no relaxation of past gun control laws that made it harder for citizens to exercise their second amendment right without corresponding impact on criminal use. Just the march forward. Many cities and states are open about banning carry permits, or putting such onerous regulations on them to make it a miracle to obtain. These are on the rise nationally. It's actually a bad time and a hard time historically to purchase a gun. What I see is you complaining about regulations as to how to use your gun, not as to how to buy them. And again, this is anecdotal, because in some states you can literally buy a rifle legally out of someone's car. On average, the laws are getting more relaxed on the national level. These things fluctuate, but things like "bump stocks" and so on are ridiculous to me as a point of contention because anyone with experience doesn't need those to kill a lot of people, and I don't consider their regulation to be a part of what I'm getting at. The "what" is a lot less interesting than the "who", because it's people with guns that kill people, and maybe we should scrutinize those rather than brushing it off as a separate issue.
Show nested quote +It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable". You've got some balls here, I'll give you that. You said that "no one wants to take your guns." But, provably, ten years ago they're coming into your house and putting trigger lock requirements on your guns and disassembly requirements on your guns. And on top of that, 4 justices thought it was totally peachy keen on your second amendment rights. We all narrowly had our rights preserved by the thinnest of margins on Heller and have been riding that marginal victory ever since (or trying to, since the right to "bear arms" is still trashed by legislatures from coast to coast). A trigger lock on your gun is not taking away your gun. I think of it as a less cumbersome replacement for a safe, which while extreme also minimizes the chances of tragic accidents, and again, it seems extreme, but unfortunately something needs to be done to address accidental firearm use (which for me would mean training and licensing, similar to vehicles). Your right to bear arms, just like your right to freedom of speech, still exists, but still should have common sense laws applied to them: you give a concrete threat of physical harm against some, and that is legally actionable despite "freedom of speech". You have the right to bear arms, but if you're an alcoholic with a record of shooting randomly when drunk then maybe you shouldn't. There's a military saying: "all these (safety regulations) are written in blood". I think that being blase about people dying due to accidents is shocking, and you offer no way to address that by arguing against gun regulations rather than arguing for common sense ones.
Legislators, with the backing of groups holding political power, feel perfectly at ease coming after your guns. That's why these cases make it to the Supreme Court ... because they're passed legislation. + Show Spoiler +That's why it's a grave injustice that the Supreme Court hasn't been hearing cases regarding carry (bear arms) ... because they've already come for your rights to bear those guns (see recent dissents in denying review. There would be no case against the law before the Supreme Court if legislators hadn't said a policeman could carry his gun in federal office buildings, but wasn't allowed to have one in his home. You attempted to make the point that "no one is coming for your guns" and you can still have them. I didn't sidestep a thing. Hell, you might even have had a view I shared if the Supreme Court agreed with you and voted 9-0. I grant you that ... it would be showing the world that everybody knows the second amendment makes only loonies think they can prevail upon your guns. There's this trick politicians do, where they pass laws/regulations they know are going to be struck down. For Democrats it is gun and environmental regulations, and for Republicans it is anti-abortion laws and removal of affirmative action ones. They either attempt to pass and fail, or pass and then have them struck down, and then they say "look, we tried, but the other side is against us and is taking away our rights". This is the story with most gun regulations in the US, and why they are constantly struck down. They're never seriously intended to pass, otherwise there would be congressional or senate votes on the subject. And on the national stage, the consensus is that no new regulation needs to be passed, and has been for about thirty years.
Show nested quote + Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case. You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this. I'm not a big guy for using the AR-15 in the home. That's the one I like shooting in the desert. Apparently you share my view. But I differ in you that I won't impose my preference on someone else by removing their ability to use their favored firearm (nonautomatic) in defense of person, family, and home. If this issue, and all your accusations of insanity matter enough to you, you can read people in this very thread that like aspects of the AR-15 and argue for its use (but you'll have to pour through a hundred pages in all likelihood). In real life, I'll try to convince them that a glock is your better bet, but to each his own. You have that right to choose differently, and I say the constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms in that fashion. Then it is disingenuous to bring up the "defense" argument when talking about the AR-15. It's a fun weapon, but being real the only real use it has is recreational or paramilitary. I believe people should have a right to use one as well, but there is a great case for AR-15s to have trigger locks inside of homes because they are recreational rather than defensive, and to be perfectly honest they're awesome so you know kids are gonna try and play with them.
Show nested quote +Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using. Re-read your own words. You didn't say "I'm not coming for your guns." You said "No one is coming for your guns." When I'm documenting successful legislative efforts across the country, I'm telling you directly that people are coming for your guns, entire classes of guns, and they've been SUCCESSFUL. I'm trying to hold the snark back to a dull roar, but read your own points and your own words if you meant something different, because I can't read your mind and I know people have walked back extreme stances that they had no intention to make. And don't try and trot out the "putting words in my mouth" again. And I did not say to take away anyone's guns. The examples you gave are not of people "taking guns away", but rather attempting to limit their storage/handling. I feel those are ineffectual at best because they do not deal with the root cause, which is people who shouldn't have guns having guns. This is my point, and I think we can agree about that. Whenever there is a mass shooting, my reaction isn't "there should have been more people with guns", it's not "guns are bad", it's not talking about arms modification or owning a large arsenal, it is "that specific person should not have had access to a gun". That last one is something that needs to be addressed, but the discussion in the US so thoroughly avoids it that I can't help but see it as mind-boggling.
Show nested quote +Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil" ....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff? I'll have to see if the points I made earlier are elaborated on further than the (...), if you need more evidence that yes, people are coming for your guns, I should hope to see you quote the omitted parts and respond to them. You're posting in a thread where people have said what guns they're coming for and what guns they aren't coming for. It varies from person to person. I also made a point about how dumb it is to say "because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." Of course it's a political issue. You can refer to that paragraph should you want to argue further. I think it just aims to poison the debate by denying the legitimacy of political positions and what is and isn't common sense and reasonable (and GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES disagree on this currently as well). I think that people not seriously debating whether common sense things like regulating guns in a similar way to vehicles, by focusing on each person being trained in responsible use, a national database, the ability of the government to revoke a license after repeated attempts at breaking the law or changes to health... gun ownership is a responsibility, and I'm saying it should be a bigger responsibility than owning a car due to the fact that guns are designed to kill. The political debate avoids this like the plague, and the partisan positions ("guns are bad" vs. "don't take away my guns") completely ignore what should be a bipartisan solution to avoid tragedies that are far too common.
edit: fixed some grammar
|
On November 20 2018 13:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:these shootings are still not "statistically signficant" unfortunately.
And you can make it even less significant if the more you narrow the definition! Then instead of talking about solutions you can argue about stats and call everyone liars for using numbers that do not fit your specific definitions!
|
On November 20 2018 17:15 Gzerble wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 06:23 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2018 02:56 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way). I've seen a lot of people here with the two big punches you pull out here: "they're so crazy"/"the US is just flat out insane" as means of arguing that the debate is beyond the pale, and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world sees you." It's like you're determined to hit the big memes in a big way. I have my fun with the trolls all the same, but it's a topic I view seriously and I think popping off these "literally insane" angles doesn't do you justice, doesn't do your whole side justice, and simply reinforces existing stereotypes held by gun rights defenders. To think you're doubling back to claim unaddressed points is well ... interesting. But we'll move on. I think it's insane that you're dodging the elephant in the room that is "people who are not supposed to have guns are getting them", as do most gun rights advocates. People who are not supposed to be getting drugs are getting them, but guess what, that's illegal, it's one of the things that the police tackles most seriously, the DEA is massive, and the US applies international pressure up to military action in certain cases to deal with it. Alcohol has an age limit, not anybody can sell medicines, and people have to learn and be tested to get a drivers license... this is what I call insanity: what the US as a country sees as common sense for things inherently less dangerous than guns doesn't apply to guns. Guns are the peak of humanity's personal killing tools, why are they not treated with respect for being such? You want to call that issue the "elephant in the room." You want to say it's a dodge to not address it as you would want it addressed. I think differently. As long as you have robust second amendment rights in this country, you will have criminals getting their hands on guns. You'll have suicide by gun. In some cases, they won't be stored properly under lock and key and some child or inexperienced adult will take and use them. I accept their mere existence as unfortunate side affects of my rights free from government compulsion. I debate legislation designed (purportedly or actually) to lower their chances of falling into the wrong hands with the impact on law-abiding citizens who just want to defend themselves in their stores or homes and in high-crime areas. There's nothing insane about it. That's why I brought up your two memes of "it's not debatable, it's just insane" and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world views you." They're repeated like any rational thinking person MUST land on the side of high restrictions on use and storage and type of gun and magazine side, or it means they're just out of this world on their civic ideas. It's wrong, and dead wrong, and I maintain you're being cavalier with your rights and the rights of others.
I'm very critical on the "war on drugs," so I don't look kindly on your positive comparisons to how the US has tried to keep them from the wrong people. I also disagree with you on what's the true comparison between "common sense" stuff like alcohol age limits, the selling of medicines, and driver's licenses. Guns do have age limits and I agree with the principle. Not everyone should be in the trade of selling guns, which is why the Gun Control Act already requires licensing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for people in the business of selling firearms. The penalty is 5 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000 for god's sake man. You don't have some individual right to own and drive the car, that is a privilege bestowed by the state for people meeting sets of criteria like vision and insurance. There is no second amendment guarantee that you might keep and drive a car, but keeping and bearing arms is fundamental to your right of self defense and protections against future tyranny.
We differ on what we think is common sense and what qualifies as insane, and unless you're counting on some divine mediator to spell out my ideas aren't common sense and yours are, I suggest you put the elephants in the room back out to graze.
Show nested quote +First: Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that. You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation. I have no quarter to give people with gun suicides that drive up "shot by own gun" stats. I also don't like people with guns that brandish but are then disarmed. Same goes for people that fail to secure it. However, the actions of those that don't treat them seriously should not deny the lawful holders from continuing to have the right to use them in defense of home and person. Let's address the suicide problem and address any lack in securing arms against children getting them to drive the number home. Not disarm you so you have no means of effectual self defense within the home. Are you saying that people being suicidal is not a factor that should be considered before giving them a gun? That's what "no quarter" means. But even if you remove gun suicides, that statistic still holds. You haven't said that you agree that people who put guns where their kids can access them should not have guns. This is my entire point, that laws exist because of the people who ruin things for the rest of us. I can handle my booze like a champ, but some asshole drives drunk and kills people, and now there is a law in place and I have to take a cab. Society has been seen to work better with laws than without, because otherwise the edge cases will be everywhere, and the average well meaning person loses out. Why does this not apply to guns, as things like mass shootings (you probably know The Onion's headline about those), kids getting accidents due to negligence, and other things of the kind are not factors despite them being (unfortunately) statistically significant? No, I'm saying the statistic of "You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun" is a stupid statistic that lowers the credibility of anyone bringing it up. Bridges increase the likelihood of people committing suicide by jumping off bridges, so let's get an ordinance against building those. We can talk gun control with people that are schizophrenic and clinically depressed or deserving involuntary commitment as a topic unto itself. Just don't use statistics including suicide to dress up an argument unless you want to say they're suicidal because they own a gun.
I'm fine with criminal punishments for people with guns that don't keep them out of the hands of their children. We can even talk punishments in terms of their deterrence. I'm not okay with citing the people that break "gun control laws" as evidence that we need more "gun control laws," nor statistics founded upon how ineffective they are.Show nested quote + Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us. My governor signed several new gun control laws just a few months ago, on top of California's already tough gun laws. He signed into law more in 2016, one of which is under injunction by appeals court. So in California, now is the worst time even in a high-regulation state to try and own a gun. Additionally, there has been no relaxation of past gun control laws that made it harder for citizens to exercise their second amendment right without corresponding impact on criminal use. Just the march forward. Many cities and states are open about banning carry permits, or putting such onerous regulations on them to make it a miracle to obtain. These are on the rise nationally. It's actually a bad time and a hard time historically to purchase a gun. What I see is you complaining about regulations as to how to use your gun, not as to how to buy them. And again, this is anecdotal, because in some states you can literally buy a rifle legally out of someone's car. On average, the laws are getting more relaxed on the national level. These things fluctuate, but things like "bump stocks" and so on are ridiculous to me as a point of contention because anyone with experience doesn't need those to kill a lot of people, and I don't consider their regulation to be a part of what I'm getting at. The "what" is a lot less interesting than the "who", because it's people with guns that kill people, and maybe we should scrutinize those rather than brushing it off as a separate issue. Now that I'm rereading these parts, it looks like you're describing the long period up to today as "the easiest time to get guns in the US." Sorry.
Show nested quote +It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable". You've got some balls here, I'll give you that. You said that "no one wants to take your guns." But, provably, ten years ago they're coming into your house and putting trigger lock requirements on your guns and disassembly requirements on your guns. And on top of that, 4 justices thought it was totally peachy keen on your second amendment rights. We all narrowly had our rights preserved by the thinnest of margins on Heller and have been riding that marginal victory ever since (or trying to, since the right to "bear arms" is still trashed by legislatures from coast to coast). A trigger lock on your gun is not taking away your gun. I think of it as a less cumbersome replacement for a safe, which while extreme also minimizes the chances of tragic accidents, and again, it seems extreme, but unfortunately something needs to be done to address accidental firearm use (which for me would mean training and licensing, similar to vehicles). Your right to bear arms, just like your right to freedom of speech, still exists, but still should have common sense laws applied to them: you give a concrete threat of physical harm against some, and that is legally actionable despite "freedom of speech". You have the right to bear arms, but if you're an alcoholic with a record of shooting randomly when drunk then maybe you shouldn't. There's a military saying: "all these (safety regulations) are written in blood". I think that being blase about people dying due to accidents is shocking, and you offer no way to address that by arguing against gun regulations rather than arguing for common sense ones. The law also banned the purchase, sale, and transfer of handguns. It wasn't just the trigger lock, although I focus on it because that part of "bear arms" is usually where arguments go. It was a handgun ban. It stood one judge away from staying a handgun ban, because legislators came for your guns and succeeded.
Show nested quote +Legislators, with the backing of groups holding political power, feel perfectly at ease coming after your guns. That's why these cases make it to the Supreme Court ... because they're passed legislation. + Show Spoiler +That's why it's a grave injustice that the Supreme Court hasn't been hearing cases regarding carry (bear arms) ... because they've already come for your rights to bear those guns (see recent dissents in denying review. There would be no case against the law before the Supreme Court if legislators hadn't said a policeman could carry his gun in federal office buildings, but wasn't allowed to have one in his home. You attempted to make the point that "no one is coming for your guns" and you can still have them. I didn't sidestep a thing. Hell, you might even have had a view I shared if the Supreme Court agreed with you and voted 9-0. I grant you that ... it would be showing the world that everybody knows the second amendment makes only loonies think they can prevail upon your guns. There's this trick politicians do, where they pass laws/regulations they know are going to be struck down. For Democrats it is gun and environmental regulations, and for Republicans it is anti-abortion laws and removal of affirmative action ones. They either attempt to pass and fail, or pass and then have them struck down, and then they say "look, we tried, but the other side is against us and is taking away our rights". This is the story with most gun regulations in the US, and why they are constantly struck down. They're never seriously intended to pass, otherwise there would be congressional or senate votes on the subject. And on the national stage, the consensus is that no new regulation needs to be passed, and has been for about thirty years. I don't care if that was the intention, I care that it's the law of the land. Go find another playground if you want to be persuasive on the "just kidding" parts of "I'm coming for your guns, wink wink, it's the law, wink wink, we know it'll be repealed but you're currently in violation of the law" $1,000 dollars a day and currently transgressing duly passed laws. I'm not hand waving that away like you. Nope. If you're still chill with that happening, and reconciling it to your position, I think we're done on that topic.
Show nested quote + Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case. You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this. I'm not a big guy for using the AR-15 in the home. That's the one I like shooting in the desert. Apparently you share my view. But I differ in you that I won't impose my preference on someone else by removing their ability to use their favored firearm (nonautomatic) in defense of person, family, and home. If this issue, and all your accusations of insanity matter enough to you, you can read people in this very thread that like aspects of the AR-15 and argue for its use (but you'll have to pour through a hundred pages in all likelihood). In real life, I'll try to convince them that a glock is your better bet, but to each his own. You have that right to choose differently, and I say the constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms in that fashion. Then it is disingenuous to bring up the "defense" argument when talking about the AR-15. It's a fun weapon, but being real the only real use it has is recreational or paramilitary. I believe people should have a right to use one as well, but there is a great case for AR-15s to have trigger locks inside of homes because they are recreational rather than defensive, and to be perfectly honest they're awesome so you know kids are gonna try and play with them. I'm not really going to repeat the primary disagreement here much more. You might think it isn't a real use. I just want to protect the people that think it suits them just fine. It includes a couple acquaintances and people in this very thread, should you later choose to read through the pages and argue with someone that thinks you're an idiot for its unsuitability and is willing to propose arguments why.
Show nested quote +Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using. Re-read your own words. You didn't say "I'm not coming for your guns." You said "No one is coming for your guns." When I'm documenting successful legislative efforts across the country, I'm telling you directly that people are coming for your guns, entire classes of guns, and they've been SUCCESSFUL. I'm trying to hold the snark back to a dull roar, but read your own points and your own words if you meant something different, because I can't read your mind and I know people have walked back extreme stances that they had no intention to make. And don't try and trot out the "putting words in my mouth" again. And I did not say to take away anyone's guns. The examples you gave are not of people "taking guns away", but rather attempting to limit their storage/handling. I feel those are ineffectual at best because they do not deal with the root cause, which is people who shouldn't have guns having guns. This is my point, and I think we can agree about that. Whenever there is a mass shooting, my reaction isn't "there should have been more people with guns", it's not "guns are bad", it's not talking about arms modification or owning a large arsenal, it is "that specific person should not have had access to a gun". That last one is something that needs to be addressed, but the discussion in the US so thoroughly avoids it that I can't help but see it as mind-boggling. You're responding to the section I had that referred to the city that would assess thousand dollar fines each day you had guns covered by the legislation. That was not storage/handling. That was for anyone that owned one in the city limits. It's currently under TRO for enforcement. Gun groups have filed for preliminary injunction.
It was modeled on another city's similar gun ban. That ban was not heard by the Supreme Court (Scalia & Thomas dissented from the decision not to hear in 2015, and rightly so).
Show nested quote +Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil" ....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff? I'll have to see if the points I made earlier are elaborated on further than the (...), if you need more evidence that yes, people are coming for your guns, I should hope to see you quote the omitted parts and respond to them. You're posting in a thread where people have said what guns they're coming for and what guns they aren't coming for. It varies from person to person. I also made a point about how dumb it is to say "because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." Of course it's a political issue. You can refer to that paragraph should you want to argue further. I think it just aims to poison the debate by denying the legitimacy of political positions and what is and isn't common sense and reasonable (and GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES disagree on this currently as well). I think that people not seriously debating whether common sense things like regulating guns in a similar way to vehicles, by focusing on each person being trained in responsible use, a national database, the ability of the government to revoke a license after repeated attempts at breaking the law or changes to health... gun ownership is a responsibility, and I'm saying it should be a bigger responsibility than owning a car due to the fact that guns are designed to kill. The political debate avoids this like the plague, and the partisan positions ("guns are bad" vs. "don't take away my guns") completely ignore what should be a bipartisan solution to avoid tragedies that are far too common. edit: fixed some grammar I can go partway with you. The gun debate does tend to the extremes. I think the "don't take away my guns" has a shelf life, so it doesn't always have to be relevant. 1) People admit legislators have passed gun bans in the recent past 2) People recognize (for better or for worse) the second amendment will continue to protect your rights to own civilian weapons in common use 3) Any runaway legislative bodies doing otherwise are roundly condemned and get struck down 3-0 9-0 whatever. I think the debate should move away from AR-15s bans and handgun bans and more to debates over the kind of regulations you propose. What is effective and what targets guns that find their way into crimes.
Rights once taken away are hard to earn back. DC gun ban hung on a single vote. Chicago had gun bans up until five years ago. Chicago switched to a fun system of requiring live-fire training to own a gun, and banning all gun ranges within the city limits. That took until 2017 to reverse. Not 1997 not 2007 but 2017.
In four years, stuff like Chicago will be five years in the past and Heller fourteen years in the past and that argument will be less relevant. The databases aren't too bad, but for the presumption that they might eventually lead to gun confiscation efforts. I'm also more willing to yield on the carry permits for violent offenders, lawbreakers, attempted crimes, or mental health, as you say.
I hope for a track record of respect for gun owner's rights that will also help move past that debate. I've stated several times in this thread that generational churn will help, as newer voting citizens add their voices. Less doctrinaire focus on denying the right to own a gun and use it for defense of yourself, your family, and your possessions, and more focus on what actually keeps guns away from those that threaten violence or have shown serious mental instability. Maybe even the stupid need to call this and that Assault Weapons too. Whatever. I'm optimistic in the long term.
|
i read your first paragraph then stopped because i knew i didnt need to read any more of your bullshit. you straight up admitted that you consider deaths by firearms unfortunate collateral damage to your rights to bear arms.
ive been calling sst out on this forever but he hasnt had the sack to admit it. all i can say is its a disgusting point of view to have and quite frankly, from my perspective, makes anything you say completely worthless when youre so willing to sacrifice a number of lives to retain your dumbass rights. absolutely disgraceful
|
United States24342 Posts
Doesn't everyone agree to sacrifice a number of lives for things they consider important in their life? Perhaps the number dead from guns in the USA in a given year is untenable, but the principle you are basing your attack on isn't sound.
|
do you really need me to elaborate further on how our justification of using cars despite vehicle related deaths is not even comparable to how we allow guns to be in circulation despite them serving literally no other purpose in society than to kill?
why nitpick when you could easily read between the lines
|
United States24342 Posts
On November 22 2018 12:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: do you really need me to elaborate further on how our justification of using cars despite vehicle related deaths is not even comparable to how we allow guns to be in circulation despite them serving literally no other purpose in society than to kill?
why nitpick when you could easily read between the lines The reason why is because I absolutely and completely disagree with you. There is no inherent difference to society between guns and cars. People get to decide what's important to them. Things that are more important are worth more collateral damage. I do agree that cars are super important, and I can understand how many would feel that guns are less important, but the principle remains the same: the more important something is to you, the more collateral damage you are willing to accept.
In other words, you are completely within your rights to say someone's acceptance of X deaths per year due to maintaining their right to Y is horrible misprioritization, but you are not within your rights to say someone is wrong to fight for something important to them simply because there exists at some level a cost involving loss of life, regardless of how big the cost is. You can pivot as you are trying to do, but then quote exactly what it is you disagree with rather than making up positions to defeat as an excuse to write people off. I do think people before in this thread have argued that statistically the current amount of innocent loss of life due to guns is acceptable, so you can probably go after them.
|
On November 22 2018 12:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 12:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: do you really need me to elaborate further on how our justification of using cars despite vehicle related deaths is not even comparable to how we allow guns to be in circulation despite them serving literally no other purpose in society than to kill?
why nitpick when you could easily read between the lines The reason why is because I absolutely and completely disagree with you. There is no inherent difference to society between guns and cars. People get to decide what's important to them. Things that are more important are worth more collateral damage. I do agree that cars are super important, and I can understand how many would feel that guns are less important, but the principle remains the same: the more important something is to you, the more collateral damage you are willing to accept. In other words, you are completely within your rights to say someone's acceptance of X deaths per year due to maintaining their right to Y is horrible misprioritization, but you are not within your rights to say someone is wrong to fight for something important to them simply because there exists at some level a cost involving loss of life, regardless of how big the cost is. You can pivot as you are trying to do, but then quote exactly what it is you disagree with rather than making up positions to defeat as an excuse to write people off. I do think people before in this thread have argued that statistically the current amount of innocent loss of life due to guns is acceptable, so you can probably go after them.
first bolded part is completely wrong. the underlined part is also completely wrong. the importance of cars vs guns in society isnt even a contest. i cant even fathom how one could think their value is comparable. one directly contributes to many measures of economic growth whereas the other directly contributes to deaths. ??? the underlined part is wrong because unfortunately the world doesnt revolve around you. you dont get to choose whats beneficial for society, society does. just because you like guns more than others do doesnt mean society has to live with your choice. this point has been raised many times in this thread alone, guns are probably the only thing in america that isnt regulated as harshly as any other thing that can cause harm to society. id sure love to play with hand grenades but society doesnt allow it for good reason. id also love to drive cars at 200km/h on every road but society wont allow it, also for good reason. i dont have a statistic for this but im willing to bet my left nut that the majority of the world thinks guns arent beneficial to the safety of the citizens of whatever country guns are readily available in, therefore it makes sense for guns to be regulated much more strictly regardless of what a couple gun nuts say about their rights. this is where democracy fails. the fact that we have to actually convince people that the majority of the world is not happy with letting several people die to random acts of gun violence as mere "sacrifices" to the minority's rights to bear arms is ridiculous.
|
United States24342 Posts
On November 22 2018 13:01 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 12:51 micronesia wrote:On November 22 2018 12:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: do you really need me to elaborate further on how our justification of using cars despite vehicle related deaths is not even comparable to how we allow guns to be in circulation despite them serving literally no other purpose in society than to kill?
why nitpick when you could easily read between the lines The reason why is because I absolutely and completely disagree with you. There is no inherent difference to society between guns and cars. People get to decide what's important to them. Things that are more important are worth more collateral damage. I do agree that cars are super important, and I can understand how many would feel that guns are less important, but the principle remains the same: the more important something is to you, the more collateral damage you are willing to accept. In other words, you are completely within your rights to say someone's acceptance of X deaths per year due to maintaining their right to Y is horrible misprioritization, but you are not within your rights to say someone is wrong to fight for something important to them simply because there exists at some level a cost involving loss of life, regardless of how big the cost is. You can pivot as you are trying to do, but then quote exactly what it is you disagree with rather than making up positions to defeat as an excuse to write people off. I do think people before in this thread have argued that statistically the current amount of innocent loss of life due to guns is acceptable, so you can probably go after them. first bolded part is completely wrong. I'll grant you that, as worded, it's an overly strong statement. The supporting information that follows should still stand alone.
the underlined part is also completely wrong. the importance of cars vs guns in society isnt even a contest. I didn't say I believe that guns are as important as cars. Even if guns are much less important than cars, it doesn't change the truth of what I said. i cant even fathom how one could think their value is comparable. Everything of value is comparable. You are being overly dramatic and illogical, and hiding behind "listen to what I mean, not what I say." Understandable, when the topic involves lots of loss of innocent lives including children, but not helpful. one directly contributes to many measures of economic growth whereas the other directly contributes to deaths. Both contribute positively and both contribute negatively. Again, you are free to believe one is super important and the other is garbage. That is opinion, and perhaps one that a great many people have.
??? I both agree and disagree with this sentiment.
the underlined part is wrong because unfortunately the world doesnt revolve around you. you dont get to choose whats beneficial for society, society does. I wasn't actually talking about me. I was talking about each of us. And today I learned that I am not a member of society, whereas evilfatsh1t is. I don't get to judge what's beneficial to society, but evilfatsh1t does.
just because you like guns more than others do doesnt mean society has to live with your choice. That might be true if most of the rest of society agrees with you and I'm all alone in this hypothetical camp of being okay with the status quo, despite the fact that I am not. I was concerned with your logic, not making a pro-gun argument, which you may not have noticed yet.
this point has been raised many times in this thread alone, guns are probably the only thing in america that isnt regulated as harshly as any other thing that can cause harm to society. id sure love to play with hand grenades but society doesnt allow it for good reason. id also love to drive cars at 200km/h on every road but society wont allow it, also for good reason. You aren't actually countering anything I said. i dont have a statistic for this but im willing to bet my left nut that the majority of the world thinks guns arent beneficial to the safety of the citizens of whatever country guns are readily available in, therefore it makes sense for guns to be regulated much more strictly regardless of what a couple gun nuts say about their rights. What the world thinks doesn't really matter for how the USA runs itself. Bordering countries like Canada and Mexico actually have a more direct stake in this so what they think should be considered, at least. It's okay for different countries to have different priorities. I'm sure I disagree with how each of those other countries prioritizes something.
this is where democracy fails. the fact that we have to actually convince people that the majority of the world is not happy with letting several people die to random acts of gun violence as mere "sacrifices" to the minority's rights to bear arms is ridiculous. Perhaps instead of democracy we should let you decide what to do.... based on some of the above you seem okay with that.
In case it's still not obvious to you somehow, I'm not defending any of the gun culture in America, aside from not accepting faulty arguments.
|
On November 22 2018 10:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 17:15 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 06:23 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2018 02:56 Gzerble wrote:On November 20 2018 01:32 Danglars wrote:On November 19 2018 20:47 Gzerble wrote: OK, as someone not from the US, but who has lived in the US for at least a few years of his life, then I can honestly say... the way you see some other countries as "they're so crazy because they X" is how the rest of the world sees you and your guns. Listen, everyone likes firing guns. It's fun. No one is saying you shouldn't. But everyone is saying that a gun is a bigger responsibility than a car, and hence should be controlled more carefully. The US is pretty lax with cars, and that's fine. But there are regulations in the form of proper training before you are licensed, powerful documentation of who owns what that is easily accessible to all law enforcement, a testing procedure for licensing, an entire branch of law that is dedicated to "dos and don'ts" of driving, an entire branch of legal enforcement that is beyond active in such a way that every person who drives has seen them in action at least a few times while driving, and so on...
Yet people say "they won't take away my guns" as a reply whenever someone brings that up. That's insane. No one wants to take away your guns. You can still have them. No one should be giving you guns unless you've been trained in using them safely, no one should be giving you guns if you have a medical condition (physical or mental) that means you shouldn't have one, and no one should be giving you guns if you have a history of violent crime. There should be digital records that law enforcement can easily access as to who owns which weapon. There should be accountability, responsibility, and respect when dealing with guns. Guns are tools for killing, and they should be treated as such. If you argue with this I couls make a case for you not being psychologically fit to own a gun, in any other place in the world. Because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense.
Guns are made for killing. Sure, it's people using guns that kill people, but just like cars, drugs (medicinal or not), parachutes, and any other form of thing that has an inherently higher level of danger associated with its use, it should be regulated in such a way as to reflect that. I grant you that the craziness is largely from the clash of cultures. Gun rights defenders in this country typically look the same way at the low-rights states and other countries with extreme gun control measures. Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? Is it really preferable to live as a vassal of the state with a monopoly on arms, to avoid a few more deaths by guns (alleged)? I know a lot of people didn't grow up knowing an intimate friend that bought and carries a gun, or one that has brandished it in self defense to stop a crime on their person or on a neighbor. It's easy to suppose that the entire atmosphere is alien. Guns are the things that terrorists bring in to shoot up the Bataclan or a Brussels museum, not things that citizens own and carry for their own self defense. You're meant to video the theft and vandalism of your car from an upper floor of a building, because the burglars are armed with hammers. It's perfectly normal for two policeman and a man with a shopping cart to spend several minutes trying to neutralize a terrorist with a knife. Weird to me, normal to others. There is a lot to unpack in what you just wrote, so allow me to address it in order. Though while you quoted me, you did not argue on any of my specific points, but are attempting to derail the conversation to other things. Nothing you said argues that people should not have to learn gun safety to a minimal degree before buying a gun. Nothing you said changes the fact that legally speaking, guns are apparently less of a responsibility than strong cough medicine. But, hoping you will at one point address why my point of view is wrong other than "you're not American so you can't understand" (I grew up in the US by the way). I've seen a lot of people here with the two big punches you pull out here: "they're so crazy"/"the US is just flat out insane" as means of arguing that the debate is beyond the pale, and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world sees you." It's like you're determined to hit the big memes in a big way. I have my fun with the trolls all the same, but it's a topic I view seriously and I think popping off these "literally insane" angles doesn't do you justice, doesn't do your whole side justice, and simply reinforces existing stereotypes held by gun rights defenders. To think you're doubling back to claim unaddressed points is well ... interesting. But we'll move on. I think it's insane that you're dodging the elephant in the room that is "people who are not supposed to have guns are getting them", as do most gun rights advocates. People who are not supposed to be getting drugs are getting them, but guess what, that's illegal, it's one of the things that the police tackles most seriously, the DEA is massive, and the US applies international pressure up to military action in certain cases to deal with it. Alcohol has an age limit, not anybody can sell medicines, and people have to learn and be tested to get a drivers license... this is what I call insanity: what the US as a country sees as common sense for things inherently less dangerous than guns doesn't apply to guns. Guns are the peak of humanity's personal killing tools, why are they not treated with respect for being such? You want to call that issue the "elephant in the room." You want to say it's a dodge to not address it as you would want it addressed. I think differently. As long as you have robust second amendment rights in this country, you will have criminals getting their hands on guns. You'll have suicide by gun. In some cases, they won't be stored properly under lock and key and some child or inexperienced adult will take and use them. I accept their mere existence as unfortunate side affects of my rights free from government compulsion. I debate legislation designed (purportedly or actually) to lower their chances of falling into the wrong hands with the impact on law-abiding citizens who just want to defend themselves in their stores or homes and in high-crime areas. There's nothing insane about it. That's why I brought up your two memes of "it's not debatable, it's just insane" and "as someone not from the US ... this is how the rest of the world views you." They're repeated like any rational thinking person MUST land on the side of high restrictions on use and storage and type of gun and magazine side, or it means they're just out of this world on their civic ideas. It's wrong, and dead wrong, and I maintain you're being cavalier with your rights and the rights of others. And you're cavalier with the life of others, beyond that, you just admitted going into a thread about mass shootings to say that you believe them dying is unfortunate but nothing should be done about it because them dying is worth it for the right of the people who shoot them to have guns. I'm sure you don't think about it that way, but you straight up said this right now.
I'm very critical on the "war on drugs," so I don't look kindly on your positive comparisons to how the US has tried to keep them from the wrong people. I also disagree with you on what's the true comparison between "common sense" stuff like alcohol age limits, the selling of medicines, and driver's licenses. Guns do have age limits and I agree with the principle. Not everyone should be in the trade of selling guns, which is why the Gun Control Act already requires licensing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for people in the business of selling firearms. The penalty is 5 years in prison and/or fines up to $250,000 for god's sake man. You don't have some individual right to own and drive the car, that is a privilege bestowed by the state for people meeting sets of criteria like vision and insurance. There is no second amendment guarantee that you might keep and drive a car, but keeping and bearing arms is fundamental to your right of self defense and protections against future tyranny.
We differ on what we think is common sense and what qualifies as insane, and unless you're counting on some divine mediator to spell out my ideas aren't common sense and yours are, I suggest you put the elephants in the room back out to graze.
People are dead. People will die. This has happened due to people who should not have had guns getting them. This will happen due to people who should not have guns getting them. The title of this thread is about mass shootings, so this "elephant in the room" is literally the sole reason this thread exists, and letting it "graze" is diverting the discussion. You want a thread about mass shootings to ignore gunmen?
Show nested quote +First: Do they value their society so little as to allow their citizens no recourse for meaningful self defense? There is not one reliable (read: not funded by arms manufacturers) that shows any statistical improvement in personal defense by owning a gun in the US. You do not buy a gun for defense, you buy a gun to feel defended. You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun, they are absolute garbage for personal defense from a statistical (rather than anecdotal) perspective. There are extreme cases like shops in high crime areas and the such, and I was very careful to not argue that. You can bring anecdotes (this case, this city, this incident), but statistically the argument that guns offer personal safety is unsound. Statistically speaking, the defense they offer is not greater than the risk. This is because more gun owners exist that are badly trained and do not take gun safety seriously than there do those who actually used guns for defense successfully. This is because the US has garbage regulations. For every case you can bring of a successful defense, I can bring one of a kid getting their dad's gun and shooting someone or the such, and then we're back to the anecdotal rather than statistical, and you would have succeeded in derailing this conversation. I have no quarter to give people with gun suicides that drive up "shot by own gun" stats. I also don't like people with guns that brandish but are then disarmed. Same goes for people that fail to secure it. However, the actions of those that don't treat them seriously should not deny the lawful holders from continuing to have the right to use them in defense of home and person. Let's address the suicide problem and address any lack in securing arms against children getting them to drive the number home. Not disarm you so you have no means of effectual self defense within the home. Are you saying that people being suicidal is not a factor that should be considered before giving them a gun? That's what "no quarter" means. But even if you remove gun suicides, that statistic still holds. You haven't said that you agree that people who put guns where their kids can access them should not have guns. This is my entire point, that laws exist because of the people who ruin things for the rest of us. I can handle my booze like a champ, but some asshole drives drunk and kills people, and now there is a law in place and I have to take a cab. Society has been seen to work better with laws than without, because otherwise the edge cases will be everywhere, and the average well meaning person loses out. Why does this not apply to guns, as things like mass shootings (you probably know The Onion's headline about those), kids getting accidents due to negligence, and other things of the kind are not factors despite them being (unfortunately) statistically significant? No, I'm saying the statistic of "You are more likely to be shot with a gun you own than with any other gun" is a stupid statistic that lowers the credibility of anyone bringing it up. Bridges increase the likelihood of people committing suicide by jumping off bridges, so let's get an ordinance against building those. We can talk gun control with people that are schizophrenic and clinically depressed or deserving involuntary commitment as a topic unto itself. Just don't use statistics including suicide to dress up an argument unless you want to say they're suicidal because they own a gun. I'm fine with criminal punishments for people with guns that don't keep them out of the hands of their children. We can even talk punishments in terms of their deterrence. I'm not okay with citing the people that break "gun control laws" as evidence that we need more "gun control laws," nor statistics founded upon how ineffective they are. No, we need a gun control law that shows a strategy in which people will treat guns with respect. Current gun control legislation does not reflect the need to treat gun responsibility as a priority, hence accidents, ease of access, and most of all, criminals with ease of access to firearms. The laws are ineffective by design, as things like background checks have been turned to "just wait a while or travel to a neighboring state". You're pretending that the ease of buying guns and the lack of enforcement on regulations has nothing to do with people misusing guns. That's disingenuous at best.
Show nested quote + Secondly, it's hard to imagine this issue as seen from someone trying to defend the last lingering rights to own and carry a gun such as are present in the United States. If you love societies that outlaw them, or ones that used to allow them but later confiscated them, who cares to follow the threats?
Last lingering rights? Now is the easiest time to get guns in the US since the Republican party passed regulations after the attempt on Reagan. Stop playing victim here (again, no one is coming to take your guns). I don't love societies that outlaw them. I'm a gun owner myself. I am not arguing to outlaw guns. I am arguing that maybe you should actually regulate guns so that people who have medical conditions (physical or psychological), people who are not trained in gun safety or have a history of ignoring gun safety, people with a history of violence, and so on, should not be given access to guns because they ruin shit for the rest of us. My governor signed several new gun control laws just a few months ago, on top of California's already tough gun laws. He signed into law more in 2016, one of which is under injunction by appeals court. So in California, now is the worst time even in a high-regulation state to try and own a gun. Additionally, there has been no relaxation of past gun control laws that made it harder for citizens to exercise their second amendment right without corresponding impact on criminal use. Just the march forward. Many cities and states are open about banning carry permits, or putting such onerous regulations on them to make it a miracle to obtain. These are on the rise nationally. It's actually a bad time and a hard time historically to purchase a gun. What I see is you complaining about regulations as to how to use your gun, not as to how to buy them. And again, this is anecdotal, because in some states you can literally buy a rifle legally out of someone's car. On average, the laws are getting more relaxed on the national level. These things fluctuate, but things like "bump stocks" and so on are ridiculous to me as a point of contention because anyone with experience doesn't need those to kill a lot of people, and I don't consider their regulation to be a part of what I'm getting at. The "what" is a lot less interesting than the "who", because it's people with guns that kill people, and maybe we should scrutinize those rather than brushing it off as a separate issue. Now that I'm rereading these parts, it looks like you're describing the long period up to today as "the easiest time to get guns in the US." Sorry. Show nested quote +It's simpler to believe that "no one wants to take away your guns." Washington DC wasn't taking away your guns, but they made everyone use a trigger lock or disassemble their existing gun under threat of state punishment. It was only ten years ago that the narrowest of majorities (5-4) decided that those means of invalidating a gun owner's right to self defense within the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans choose for self defense. It wasn't a gun owner's dream scenario, it was actual legislation on the books for years, and it took a supreme court decision to restore that right. Again, you don't talk about my points at all, but rather point somewhere else. OK. So the Supreme court sided with gun rights in this case. Good. This doesn't address things like "who should have guns" at all, but rather "if you have a gun, is this restriction constitutionally reasonable". You've got some balls here, I'll give you that. You said that "no one wants to take your guns." But, provably, ten years ago they're coming into your house and putting trigger lock requirements on your guns and disassembly requirements on your guns. And on top of that, 4 justices thought it was totally peachy keen on your second amendment rights. We all narrowly had our rights preserved by the thinnest of margins on Heller and have been riding that marginal victory ever since (or trying to, since the right to "bear arms" is still trashed by legislatures from coast to coast). A trigger lock on your gun is not taking away your gun. I think of it as a less cumbersome replacement for a safe, which while extreme also minimizes the chances of tragic accidents, and again, it seems extreme, but unfortunately something needs to be done to address accidental firearm use (which for me would mean training and licensing, similar to vehicles). Your right to bear arms, just like your right to freedom of speech, still exists, but still should have common sense laws applied to them: you give a concrete threat of physical harm against some, and that is legally actionable despite "freedom of speech". You have the right to bear arms, but if you're an alcoholic with a record of shooting randomly when drunk then maybe you shouldn't. There's a military saying: "all these (safety regulations) are written in blood". I think that being blase about people dying due to accidents is shocking, and you offer no way to address that by arguing against gun regulations rather than arguing for common sense ones. The law also banned the purchase, sale, and transfer of handguns. It wasn't just the trigger lock, although I focus on it because that part of "bear arms" is usually where arguments go. It was a handgun ban. It stood one judge away from staying a handgun ban, because legislators came for your guns and succeeded. Except they didn't succeed, undermining your point completely.
Show nested quote +Legislators, with the backing of groups holding political power, feel perfectly at ease coming after your guns. That's why these cases make it to the Supreme Court ... because they're passed legislation. + Show Spoiler +That's why it's a grave injustice that the Supreme Court hasn't been hearing cases regarding carry (bear arms) ... because they've already come for your rights to bear those guns (see recent dissents in denying review. There would be no case against the law before the Supreme Court if legislators hadn't said a policeman could carry his gun in federal office buildings, but wasn't allowed to have one in his home. You attempted to make the point that "no one is coming for your guns" and you can still have them. I didn't sidestep a thing. Hell, you might even have had a view I shared if the Supreme Court agreed with you and voted 9-0. I grant you that ... it would be showing the world that everybody knows the second amendment makes only loonies think they can prevail upon your guns. There's this trick politicians do, where they pass laws/regulations they know are going to be struck down. For Democrats it is gun and environmental regulations, and for Republicans it is anti-abortion laws and removal of affirmative action ones. They either attempt to pass and fail, or pass and then have them struck down, and then they say "look, we tried, but the other side is against us and is taking away our rights". This is the story with most gun regulations in the US, and why they are constantly struck down. They're never seriously intended to pass, otherwise there would be congressional or senate votes on the subject. And on the national stage, the consensus is that no new regulation needs to be passed, and has been for about thirty years. I don't care if that was the intention, I care that it's the law of the land. Go find another playground if you want to be persuasive on the "just kidding" parts of "I'm coming for your guns, wink wink, it's the law, wink wink, we know it'll be repealed but you're currently in violation of the law" $1,000 dollars a day and currently transgressing duly passed laws. I'm not hand waving that away like you. Nope. If you're still chill with that happening, and reconciling it to your position, I think we're done on that topic. Except they didn't succeed, because intentions don't matter to the facts, and the facts are that these laws were struck down. Which you keep ignoring even after bringing up this example.
Show nested quote + Maybe you like to use the AR-15 for your home defense weapons for it's comfortability and ease of firing. A Chicago suburb made any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine and the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds illegal to own, subject to $1,000 a day fine.
OK, I actually have used plenty of guns, and the AR-15 is absolute shit for home defense. It is not nearly as easy to aim and fire within corridors/rooms with furniture as a hand gun. There is a reason that hand guns are the weapon of choice for police, and that's just common sense. I've used the military version of the rifle during my military service, and it's a fine weapon, but it is shit for defense, and it is mediocre at best for hunting. It handles pretty well if you want a rifle that you can run with, that is decent in mid-range (25-100 yard) combat, and is very easy to aim well when you are physically spent. It has slower reaction time than guns especially in the under 25 yard range, and for defense, that's the main use case. You also do not need more than 10 bullets for defense, there's so much wrong with that attitude this that I doubt you even understand what weapon is supposed to do these weapons. You could have made a case for a shotgun for home defense, but the AR-15 and big magazines are two non-issues for both defense and for hunting. They're great for military assault and it looks awesome, and firing a lot of bullets at a range at a mid-high rate is sweet, and that's why I'm not arguing against owning them. But the "defense" argument here is utter shit, and anyone that has used a variety of guns should know this. I'm not a big guy for using the AR-15 in the home. That's the one I like shooting in the desert. Apparently you share my view. But I differ in you that I won't impose my preference on someone else by removing their ability to use their favored firearm (nonautomatic) in defense of person, family, and home. If this issue, and all your accusations of insanity matter enough to you, you can read people in this very thread that like aspects of the AR-15 and argue for its use (but you'll have to pour through a hundred pages in all likelihood). In real life, I'll try to convince them that a glock is your better bet, but to each his own. You have that right to choose differently, and I say the constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms in that fashion. Then it is disingenuous to bring up the "defense" argument when talking about the AR-15. It's a fun weapon, but being real the only real use it has is recreational or paramilitary. I believe people should have a right to use one as well, but there is a great case for AR-15s to have trigger locks inside of homes because they are recreational rather than defensive, and to be perfectly honest they're awesome so you know kids are gonna try and play with them. I'm not really going to repeat the primary disagreement here much more. You might think it isn't a real use. I just want to protect the people that think it suits them just fine. It includes a couple acquaintances and people in this very thread, should you later choose to read through the pages and argue with someone that thinks you're an idiot for its unsuitability and is willing to propose arguments why. Except that you don't sell someone a tractor when they want to buy a car to travel from their home in the suburbs to their job in the suburbs. You want to protect the right of people to buy the wrong tool for defense, then stop bringing up defense as the reason for the purchase. The real reason here is "the reason shouldn't matter, people should have access to guns", which is a legitimate point. But stop bringing up defense here because someone that misinformed making that kind of purchase is a danger that I believe should be addressed.
Show nested quote +Go tell that town's citizens that nobody wants to take away their guns. Have the bravery to confront the facts. Have a conversation in a suburb of high-crime Chicago that your semi-automatic rifle you previously lawfully owned is now illegal, and tell them nobody wants to take their guns. Putting words in my mouth must have been easy. I'm not arguing against AR-15s (they're cool and handle well), even though they are not the right tool for defense. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have access to semi-automatic weapons at all. I have never, at any point, argued that. My issue is not with the guns, it is with how they're regulated. If a man with a history of escalating spousal abuse has a gun, then I have an issue with him having a gun no matter what weapon he's using. Re-read your own words. You didn't say "I'm not coming for your guns." You said "No one is coming for your guns." When I'm documenting successful legislative efforts across the country, I'm telling you directly that people are coming for your guns, entire classes of guns, and they've been SUCCESSFUL. I'm trying to hold the snark back to a dull roar, but read your own points and your own words if you meant something different, because I can't read your mind and I know people have walked back extreme stances that they had no intention to make. And don't try and trot out the "putting words in my mouth" again. And I did not say to take away anyone's guns. The examples you gave are not of people "taking guns away", but rather attempting to limit their storage/handling. I feel those are ineffectual at best because they do not deal with the root cause, which is people who shouldn't have guns having guns. This is my point, and I think we can agree about that. Whenever there is a mass shooting, my reaction isn't "there should have been more people with guns", it's not "guns are bad", it's not talking about arms modification or owning a large arsenal, it is "that specific person should not have had access to a gun". That last one is something that needs to be addressed, but the discussion in the US so thoroughly avoids it that I can't help but see it as mind-boggling. You're responding to the section I had that referred to the city that would assess thousand dollar fines each day you had guns covered by the legislation. That was not storage/handling. That was for anyone that owned one in the city limits. It's currently under TRO for enforcement. Gun groups have filed for preliminary injunction. It was modeled on another city's similar gun ban. That ban was not heard by the Supreme Court (Scalia & Thomas dissented from the decision not to hear in 2015, and rightly so). If the supreme court does not strike it down, then it is constitutional, otherwise that law amounts to nothing. That's why the supreme court exists. And don't try and paint it as a bastion of anything other than constitutionalism. You're bringing up the exact kind of case I said: that a law has passed knowing it will be struck down and inneffectual.Show nested quote +Look to this very thread. Lots of pages, right? Read them, read all of them, and come back saying nobody wants to take your guns. Several people argue that the most prominent organization that fights to preserve gun rights is basically a domestic terrorist organization or are basically the devil" ....
You're saying some dangerously ignorant stuff. Now you go to other peoples' arguments. I didn't say any of those. I don't care about any of those. I am giving you the perspective of someone outside the US who has seen both Democrat and Republican leaders speak on the subject at varying lengths and have seen none of them talk about taking guns away. And yet, I'm saying dangerously ignorant stuff? I'll have to see if the points I made earlier are elaborated on further than the (...), if you need more evidence that yes, people are coming for your guns, I should hope to see you quote the omitted parts and respond to them. You're posting in a thread where people have said what guns they're coming for and what guns they aren't coming for. It varies from person to person. I also made a point about how dumb it is to say "because the US is just flat out insane, turning this into a political issue when it's supposed to be common sense." Of course it's a political issue. You can refer to that paragraph should you want to argue further. I think it just aims to poison the debate by denying the legitimacy of political positions and what is and isn't common sense and reasonable (and GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES disagree on this currently as well). I think that people not seriously debating whether common sense things like regulating guns in a similar way to vehicles, by focusing on each person being trained in responsible use, a national database, the ability of the government to revoke a license after repeated attempts at breaking the law or changes to health... gun ownership is a responsibility, and I'm saying it should be a bigger responsibility than owning a car due to the fact that guns are designed to kill. The political debate avoids this like the plague, and the partisan positions ("guns are bad" vs. "don't take away my guns") completely ignore what should be a bipartisan solution to avoid tragedies that are far too common. edit: fixed some grammar I can go partway with you. The gun debate does tend to the extremes. I think the "don't take away my guns" has a shelf life, so it doesn't always have to be relevant. 1) People admit legislators have passed gun bans in the recent past 2) People recognize (for better or for worse) the second amendment will continue to protect your rights to own civilian weapons in common use 3) Any runaway legislative bodies doing otherwise are roundly condemned and get struck down 3-0 9-0 whatever. I think the debate should move away from AR-15s bans and handgun bans and more to debates over the kind of regulations you propose. What is effective and what targets guns that find their way into crimes. Adding a bit of snark here: while "don't take my guns" has a shelf life, "people are dead" unfortunately remains the same, because they're not coming back to life any time soon. You know, because people are dead. Rights once taken away are hard to earn back. DC gun ban hung on a single vote. Chicago had gun bans up until five years ago. Chicago switched to a fun system of requiring live-fire training to own a gun, and banning all gun ranges within the city limits. That took until 2017 to reverse. Not 1997 not 2007 but 2017.
In four years, stuff like Chicago will be five years in the past and Heller fourteen years in the past and that argument will be less relevant. The databases aren't too bad, but for the presumption that they might eventually lead to gun confiscation efforts. I'm also more willing to yield on the carry permits for violent offenders, lawbreakers, attempted crimes, or mental health, as you say.
The rights taken away in the US are very easy to get back. After McCarthyism, the US bounced back just fine. In general, the US is a rather free place with some careful protections of rights, and historically has shown them to be resilient even when horrible abuses happened. The alarmism about how rights are taken away is something I find silly. The fact that these laws are not struck down immediately show that they are at least partially in line with the constitution. That's how the US legal framework is. I hope for a track record of respect for gun owner's rights that will also help move past that debate. I've stated several times in this thread that generational churn will help, as newer voting citizens add their voices. Less doctrinaire focus on denying the right to own a gun and use it for defense of yourself, your family, and your possessions, and more focus on what actually keeps guns away from those that threaten violence or have shown serious mental instability. Maybe even the stupid need to call this and that Assault Weapons too. Whatever. I'm optimistic in the long term.
I don't think that this discussion will change. You can literally hear all politicians repeating certain talking points that are chosen for strategic reasons... and unfortunately, I've heard 30 years of this discussion going nowhere, while people keep waiting for old guys to die already. Change won't happen unless people force politicians to have honest debate, and that is something that is farther from reality than ever.
|
On November 22 2018 13:14 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2018 13:01 evilfatsh1t wrote:On November 22 2018 12:51 micronesia wrote:On November 22 2018 12:41 evilfatsh1t wrote: do you really need me to elaborate further on how our justification of using cars despite vehicle related deaths is not even comparable to how we allow guns to be in circulation despite them serving literally no other purpose in society than to kill?
why nitpick when you could easily read between the lines The reason why is because I absolutely and completely disagree with you. There is no inherent difference to society between guns and cars. People get to decide what's important to them. Things that are more important are worth more collateral damage. I do agree that cars are super important, and I can understand how many would feel that guns are less important, but the principle remains the same: the more important something is to you, the more collateral damage you are willing to accept. In other words, you are completely within your rights to say someone's acceptance of X deaths per year due to maintaining their right to Y is horrible misprioritization, but you are not within your rights to say someone is wrong to fight for something important to them simply because there exists at some level a cost involving loss of life, regardless of how big the cost is. You can pivot as you are trying to do, but then quote exactly what it is you disagree with rather than making up positions to defeat as an excuse to write people off. I do think people before in this thread have argued that statistically the current amount of innocent loss of life due to guns is acceptable, so you can probably go after them. first bolded part is completely wrong. I'll grant you that, as worded, it's an overly strong statement. The supporting information that follows should still stand alone. Show nested quote +the underlined part is also completely wrong. the importance of cars vs guns in society isnt even a contest. I didn't say I believe that guns are as important as cars. Even if guns are much less important than cars, it doesn't change the truth of what I said. you literally said there is no difference to guns and cars in the eyes of society. thats just flat out wrong.
Everything of value is comparable. You are being overly dramatic and illogical, and hiding behind "listen to what I mean, not what I say." Understandable, when the topic involves lots of loss of innocent lives including children, but not helpful. Show nested quote +one directly contributes to many measures of economic growth whereas the other directly contributes to deaths. Both contribute positively and both contribute negatively. Again, you are free to believe one is super important and the other is garbage. That is opinion, and perhaps one that a great many people have. you think me saying danglars is a terrible person for willingly sacrificing people for his rights is dramatic? you think me making the point that guns serve no benefit to the majority of the american population, and therefore cannot be compared to other potentially dangerous tools such as vehicles is illogical?
I both agree and disagree with this sentiment. ??? is my exact reaction when i see your posts. i dont know if youre trolling or just lack comprehension skills
Show nested quote +the underlined part is wrong because unfortunately the world doesnt revolve around you. you dont get to choose whats beneficial for society, society does. I wasn't actually talking about me. I was talking about each of us. And today I learned that I am not a member of society, whereas evilfatsh1t is. I don't get to judge what's beneficial to society, but evilfatsh1t does. lose the condescending tone. like i said, im part of a majority which considers firearms to no longer have their place in modern society, barring some exceptional cases, and therefore we should change how we manage them. as with any other major issue affecting the masses, eventually society will move to make changes regardless of what the minority want. i cant see why youd think this is suddenly about me, other than the fact that youre purposefully looking to nitpick at points for shits and giggles. please stop taking every sentence so literally because its getting tiring having to explain every sentence out to you as if you were a 5 yr old.
Show nested quote +this point has been raised many times in this thread alone, guns are probably the only thing in america that isnt regulated as harshly as any other thing that can cause harm to society. id sure love to play with hand grenades but society doesnt allow it for good reason. id also love to drive cars at 200km/h on every road but society wont allow it, also for good reason. You aren't actually countering anything I said. Show nested quote + i dont have a statistic for this but im willing to bet my left nut that the majority of the world thinks guns arent beneficial to the safety of the citizens of whatever country guns are readily available in, therefore it makes sense for guns to be regulated much more strictly regardless of what a couple gun nuts say about their rights. What the world thinks doesn't really matter for how the USA runs itself. Bordering countries like Canada and Mexico actually have a more direct stake in this so what they think should be considered, at least. It's okay for different countries to have different priorities. I'm sure I disagree with how each of those other countries prioritizes something. those examples were meant to show you that it doesnt matter what danglars considers to be acceptable as "collateral damage", nor does it matter how much he loves his guns. to put it bluntly "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". also it sure as hell matters what the international community thinks of the US. your line of thinking is a big factor in why trump gets so much shit. the US has been and still is the most influential country on the planet. what the US does has lasting repercussions on the entire world, starting from obvious things such as trade to subtler things like culture. the amount of bogans that have become vocal about opposition of immigration or gun laws in australia have increased massively since trumps election. thats only one example out of many that show that the US, as a world leader, has a responsibility to not be retarded because of the influence the country holds. why do you think every country laughed (and swore) at america for allowing trump to get elected? because hes gonna be the president of the most influential country in the world and we didnt wanna deal with his shit. please dont tell me youre one of those americans who think america is god's land and whatever happens in any other country is irrelevant. by the way if you wanna stick to your logic that much then im sure north korea would like a word with you.
Show nested quote +this is where democracy fails. the fact that we have to actually convince people that the majority of the world is not happy with letting several people die to random acts of gun violence as mere "sacrifices" to the minority's rights to bear arms is ridiculous. Perhaps instead of democracy we should let you decide what to do.... based on some of the above you seem okay with that. In case it's still not obvious to you somehow, I'm not defending any of the gun culture in America, aside from not accepting faulty arguments. again, this isnt about me. i dunno why youre obsessed with nitpicking at my argument but stop. you havent made one point about how my argument is faulty, all youve shown is you cant deduce whether to take statements literally or not.
|
We always weigh up danger vs freedom, its an integral part of political debate and decision making. What confuses me about guns is that the freedom to own guns isn't important. How many people would have to die for my freedom to put bear traps out in the road outside my house? We'll never find out because I don't need that freedom so its a stupid question. The same applies, in most cases, to guns.
I can understand the collateral damage argument if its being made by someone who lives in an incredibly dangerous situation where the legality of guns is what decides whether they live or die. If you share your house/garden with a series of huge predators like a family of bearlions or something. Sure, you need a gun to protect yourself.
What pisses me off is gun 'hobbyists' who think that the collateral damage of gun culture is acceptable because it lets them go to the range and show their kids how to shoot targets. That's dumb, sure its a real hobby but no-one needs to die for it.
Then there's a whole range in between those two of people who feel, wrongly, that they need a gun for protection because they are paranoid that someone's going to come into their house armed. Yeah this happens, but its so rare that you don't need a gun to protect yourself from it. A taser or some non lethal option would do fine if you trained yourself. The gun just means you don't have to go through the effort. Its delusional to think that you can only protect your family with a gun. There needs to be no collateral damage because of these people's delusions.
|
|
|
|