Elementary school shooting

You keep going on about the right to defend yourself, no one is saying you don't.
People are saying you may have a right to defend yourself, but using a gun to do so shouldn't be a right, but a privilege.
Nexxo went over that earlier.

Saying that the 'bad guys' will still get guns is also something I find funny.
I highly doubt every person who has gone on a rampage similar to this most recent one has connections to the criminal underworld. You shouldn't assume that the people who want to hurt people will always get a gun regardless, that's silly, as someone already mentioned, some of these crimes are crimes of chance.

 

It's a pretty big part of it, out of the two words, it is responsible for the "shooting" part of it.


Earlier when I sid brixk wall it was in regards to you ignoring my post about USA having a higher GDP per capita than the UK and almost all other nathions - so saying it is too big for its GDP is stupid.

also - would you or £rgr£s nswer this bit?

 

Restricting guns in the way suggested would make it difficult for people to do just that, to defend themselves. It would be too much bureaucracy as well as very expensive. Effectively excluded a large portion of the population in one single swoop, denying them of their right to defend themselves. Yet you would still be able to say – well, you do have the right to arm yourself, which, technically, they would have.

You have the right to take a driver's license. Now I could make it so hard and difficult for you that you could not afford it.
Yet I could claim – well, you have the right to take a drivers license, the fact that I just made it near economically unfeasible for you, and difficult (and anyone like you in your specific income bracket) doesn't really matter now does it. I could then also proceed to say that this was done in the best interest of the "collective". Using car accidents as the excuse.

 

But not being able to afford a gun or whatever doesn't matter, it doesn't affect your right to defend yourself.
What people (some of at least) are saying is yes you have a right to defend yourself, but having a gun to do so isn't a right but a privilege.

 

Well that's exactly what it does, because without it you can't defend yourself, and you can therefore not exercise the right.

 

Whenever a massacre happens, it's in a school, a shopping center or a church. Correct me if I'm wrong, do you carry a gun to defend yourself when you go shopping or when you're at the church? The only time you'll be able to defend youself is at home. Having a gun is pointless since you cannot carry it everywhere, a bulletproof jacket would be a better investment.

 

Can't a constitutional right be revoked? Times change, why not laws?

 

I'm going to cross post what i wrote over in the General forum because I think it's relevant...

The reason gun control legislation isn't going to get traction in the US any time soon has to do with a disconnect between what is and what people feel.

The theory behind gun control is that if there are fewer guns on the streets then we will be safer.

I'll explain why that's in bold in a second, for now just remember it.

Experience has shown over and over again that if someone wants a gun to commit an act of violence then they will be able to obtain one through either legal or illegal means. The mass shooters in recent history have been roughly divided between those who purchased their weapons legally and those who stole them from someone else. This is why laws restricting sales are largely ineffective. So long as there are guns in the community they will be accessible to people intending to use them for nefarious purposes. The concept of licensing fails for the same reason.

OK, coming back to that bold part...

The problem with that theory is not that it's incorrect, but that while it may make people safer in reality, it doesn't make them feel safer, and that's what matters.

If you're someone who fears being attacked or robbed or killed (and that's not a baseless fear these days) then knowing that the person attacking you doesn't have a gun isn't going to make you feel better. What does make you feel better is knowing that you have a gun and can do something to defend yourself or your family or your precious stuff. Many people feel safer when they are carrying or have access to a firearm.

Of course statistics show that you are most likely to be shot with your own gun, either accidentally or by an attacker who gets to it first or takes it away from you. Statistics also show that you are more likely to be killed while carrying a gun than if you're not. The problem is, when it comes down to a choice between cold statistics and the warm safe feeling that comes from a loaded weapon, the statistics are always going to lose.

Gun control forces people to choose between being safer because there are fewer guns in the community and feeling safer because they have one.

To put it in a more relatable case, consider texting while driving. Statistics show that it's very dangerous and that doing so dramatically increases your likelihood of getting into an accident. on the other hand, it feels good to be connected and to have something to think about aside from the boring task of driving. you also know that while it's relatively more dangerous, odds are you can get away with it because that's how odds work. Sure it's more dangerous, but it feels good and that's why statistics show that most of us do it at least once in a while.

When faced with a horrible tragedy such as this, the response of many people is to seek more of what makes them feel personally safe and so it's off to the gun store.

The reason that mass shootings don't cause any real movement in public opinion is also grounded in perceptions rather than reality. The response that many people have is not "we should get rid of guns to be safer", but rather "if only I had been there I could have used my gun to stop him".

It's normal for all of us to fantasize about situations where we could use our skills to do something heroic. These fantasies feel good and help us pass the time. They also prepare us to respond in a certain way should that situation arise.

There are a couple of other ancillary issues at play here, including the very valid sporting use of firearms, their utility for those living in rural areas, etc etc, but they're just that, ancillary.

Making real progress on gun control in the US is going to require convincing people to believe in the more abstract safety of fewer guns in the community versus the personal feeling of safety they get from owning one. Until you accomplish that, the rest of the discussion is pretty academic.

 

It's not so much that a right can be revoked, but that the Constitution can be amended to further define the supreme law of the country. The 18th Amendment (i.e, Prohibition) I referenced earlier is a good example because its utter failure resulted in the 21st Amendment, which effectively repealed the 18th Amendment. The framers knew the ramifications of amending the Constitution, so they intentionally made it a difficult process so as to prevent the creation of law as a result of an emotional event.

Instead, lawmakers use emotional events like the September 11, 2001 attack as an excuse to pass things like the Patriot Act into public law. Few people objected at the time because we were all in a state of shock and wanted at least an appearance of leadership cracking down on bad guys. There is some debate about whether or not the Patriot Act would withstand an honest Constitutional challenge, but in the perpetual election cycle nobody wants to be the one labeled an "unAmerican terrorist sympathiszer."

 

Double post - sorry.

 

the second amendment is so obsolet.

 

Excellent post. The psychology is correct, sadly. There is the locus of control issue and the tendency of people to place themselves at the centre of their own universe (naturally). The science proves from all angles that guns in society are a bad idea, but everybody gets stuck on the personal perspective of being a responsible gun owner themselves and having right to defend themselves.

 

Tell that to the knife wielding intruder I hospitalised with a plate quite a few years ago

It does not remove your ability to defend yourself, it only potentially removes one method of defending yourself based upon whether you are a person who is deemed able to safely and responsibly own firearms.

Take the original case in hand, based upon some of the reports being released (ignoring the fact that they're already trying to blame video games.........again ) then with a sensible level of gun control in place then this particular incident would not have happened. There would be no way for the kid in question to have gotten hold of those guns without resorting to burglary, an act which would already have had police involved to a high degree and the chances are he would have at least been confronted or apprehended by them before the shootings could take place.

Of course gun control is not an easy coverall fix but it would significantly reduce occurrences of this type. Hell, with the previous paragraph in mind make it so that any gun owner has to have 24hour recorded surveillance on their property so that if any firearm is stolen the police have a major headstart in tracking down the perpetrator before they have a chance to carry out any evil doings.

Also the expense argument is just tough frankly. I can't afford to get driving here in the UK, I can afford to do the tests and probably even buy a car but running it is completely out of the question (we actually have to pay for fuel here, roughly $8.62 per US gallon ), but I simply choose to do without, it certainly doesn't affect my rights in any way at all, only my privileges.

 

Fascinating thread. Personally I have to make a great mental effort to understand the POV of the pro-gun lobby in the US - it seems obvious to me as an outsider that allowing anybody who wants one to have a gun lying around the house is a recipe for disaster, whether through accidents or "heat-of-the-moment" acts that would otherwise result in someone getting beaten up or stabbed (inb4 knife wounds are generally worse than gunshot wounds - no they're not. Source: recent school stabbing attack in China). It also seems obvious that guns at home help to facilitate impulsive mass murder - once again, I'd happily choose to face a pi55ed off teenager with a knife or car rather than a Bushmaster, and I defy anyone to say otherwise. The home defence argument is emotive, but ultimately irrational - yes, a gun is peerless when it comes to killing an intruder (and thus stopping the intruder killing you, if that was his intention) but if civilians to have access to guns for home defence it also becomes trivially easy for criminals to own guns, which makes everyone less safe.

Now, I can see that this is an issue that is unlikely to be entirely resolved in the near future (at least, until the Chinese invade the US) because of the various cultural reasons that have been explored above (OMG! Government regulation/control = evil communism!). It's also clear that this isn't going to be resolved through conversations on an internet forum. Personally, my overwhelming feeling is that I'm fortunate to live in a country with a mature and rational approach to gun ownership (not to mention healthcare).

Disclaimer: I would love a go with a SAW.

 

Whilst cars can kill people their fundamental purpose is not that, it's to get from A to B. Sport aside, the fundamental purpose of a gun is to enable the gun holder to kill, animal or man. So the two cannot realistically be compared. After all, you and the "pro gun for defence" lobby state you need a gun to be able to defend yourself and I'm guessing that wouldn't be shooting the interloper/aggressor in the knee cap in the panic of the moment, just to disable them, would it?

 

Whilst I don't completely disagree with your points, the context is completely removed. We didn't radify the Constitution of Psychology, we radified the Constitution of the United States the way it is written. Groups and "society" don't have rights, only individual ones do. Even in cases that involve groups of people, the method of exercising those rights and defending them in a court of law has to be done by individuals. As long as we have agreed obey law enforcement and judges instead of psychologists (which evokes a Philosopher King nightmare situation in my mind) the argument being made is strictly academic.

"The science proves from all angels that guns in society is a bad idea.." That's simply a loaded (pun intended) and incorrect statement. Perhaps from a psychological point of view. But there have been several scientific studies from both criminology and economic arenas that totally contradict what people in this thread have stated as fact. - I would direct you to the work of economist John Lott for reference, a person not particularly fond of guns but his findings were a very scientific study of statistics and facts.

These statistics are true but only useful in certain contexts. With 47% of households possessing the nearly 300M guns in the country, the number of these incidents are remarkably low. Given that, millions have made the choice that the benefits outweigh the the risks.

The point Ct makes about human nature is a good one. But removing the gun does nothing to change that nature. Anyone who would pick up a gun in anger would pick up a knife or drive a truck full of fertilizer an diesel fuel in front of a government building. Look at the streets of Greece with mobs equipped with nothing more than rocks and bottles of gasoline?

 

Well for one, if you extrapolate your argument you'll have a dozen different have-a-go heroes taking out the teachers and school guards who are equally as armed. Nobody will know who's supposed to be shooting who, you'll have vigilantes shooting vigilantes.

Gun ownership in America is a Pandora's box. Closing it now won't put anything back in the box. Preventing new guns and ammunition from being introduced won't gradually decrease their availability to the criminals, it will simply increase their cost slightly.

Criminal is - as criminal does.

 

Pretty defeatist attitude you've got there. Some things take a long time - but that doesn't mean they can't be done, or shouldn't be attempted. That said, I think if there is to be a shift away from gun culture in the US it'll take place incrementally and over the course of many years.

 

And how would these streets look if every one in the mob was armed, the police response would have resulted in a blood bath. See the results of the South African riots where only one member of the protest had a very old handgun.

 

Tosh.
The UK used to have lots of firearms around - we only started cracking down in 1824 after the Napoleonic Wars, due to the vast number of guns floating about. It took until 1870 to have a system involving licensing, which allowed you to take a gun outside your home.

Proper regulation/restriction started in 1903, with the almost total ban came in even later, in the 1920s and 1930s (again, post-war impetus for the 1920 act, and then a rationalisation and extension in 1937).

So, in just over 100 years we have gone from being a country awash with firearms (that were legal inside the home) to one where they are rare. This can happen in the US, the government just has to stay the course.