1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Control, firearms

Discussion in 'Serious' started by BA_13, 30 Apr 2015.

  1. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    Despite my location, my personal philosophy tends to fall to the left of the gun rights debate. That said, I understand that there are various reasons for the Second Amendment, and my comment was more to address the notion that it exists or was written solely for the purpose of enabling a rebellion against our own government. I will point out though that grenades are currently forbidden, and I believe they continue to fall under the "unusual" category of weapons. Whether or not someone will ever challenge that under the US v Miller case is anyone's guess. I doubt it will happen, but I'm happy that our judicial system allows that kind of challenge.

    There aren't any more whackos today than there were back then. People are people, and I don't think human psychology has changed much over the past couple hundred years - our understanding of it, maybe, but not the underlying psychology itself.
     
  2. Maki role

    Maki role Dale you're on a roll... Lover of bit-tech

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    1,725
    Likes Received:
    150
    I think that's part of the point, hell there may even be fewer for all we know. However, the weapons themselves are a known quantity, and those have increased in power and utility dramatically.

    The gist is that a psycho could in theory do much more damage with the weapons available today than back when the amendment was written. You can't really compare even a cheap, unreliable semi/automatic firearm of today with a Model 1777 Musket.
     
  3. bawjaws

    bawjaws Multimodder

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    756
    Indeed. Again, I wasn't quoting numbers from Wiki to show that fatal animal attacks on people are a huge problem - in fact, it was to show the opposite :)

    And of course it's the case that people with guns kill a lot of people every year, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that gun control might require to be tightened. That doesn't necessarily mean that a family living in the middle of nowhere don't have a legitimate reason to own guns, but it probably does mean that someone living in the middle of a city with ample law enforcement might have a harder time justifying why they need access to a semi-automatic rifle or a .45 pistol.

    Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this.
     
  4. KayinBlack

    KayinBlack Unrepentant Savage

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    5,894
    Likes Received:
    516
    I carry a shotgun for home d3fense, because police take an average of an hour to arrive. I also have a 22 rimfire and my wife has a 22 target pistol. We don't carry them to town-but we've lost five dogs to coyotes in three years. They even come up and sit on the porch. It's a tool, and a necessary one here. Not everywhere, but definitely here.
     
  5. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    Our constitution and Supreme Court disagree with your sentiment.
     
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    AFAIK that ruling basically says the police have a duty to protect the public at large and not an individual.
     
  7. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    It's an exercise in reality that police cannot protect everyone from everything always. Hence, there would be no crime. Some people feel like its not as much of a concern to roll the dice, others are not OK with that. It's the text of the constitution and the conclusion of the Supreme court to let people to decide for themselves.

    The very premise of "justice" is: something happened, there is a victim, who is accountable and what can be done about it. All of this is after the fact until some creepy Minority Report situation rears its head.

    Arguing that the police are appointed to protect "groups" of people is irrelevant when individuals are victims of crime and plaintiff/defendants in a court of law.

    If you hear a window break in your house in the middle of the night, hoping the police is helping protect someone else who is part of some academic group of people will be little consolation.
     
  8. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,283
    Likes Received:
    183
    The police have a duty to enforce the law. Any protection that occurs as a result is merely coincidental.
     
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    I thought the police were responsible for enforcing the law, protecting property, and limiting civil disorder, not as an individuals body guards.

    The idea is not to protect every individual as that's practically impossible, the idea is to go after the people breaking the law.

    EDIT: Damn theshadow2001 beat me to it.
     
  10. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    These seem to contradict each other no matter which country you are in. How many more police do I need to hire to achieve what you say, in your own words, cannot be done?

    There are plenty of people in the US that share your philosophy, they don't own guns. Nothing wrong with that.
     
  11. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    But it's not about having enough police so everyone can have their own body guard, it's about having enough to go after those that choose to break said laws.
     
  12. eddie_dane

    eddie_dane Used to mod pc's now I mod houses

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2002
    Posts:
    5,547
    Likes Received:
    65
    I was just arguing the principle regarding the constitution and the supreme court.

    I could and would argue that if you moved a bunch of Fins to the US, crime would go down, not because of gun laws but because that is our cultural experience. America is full of Americans.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    So are you saying Americans are culturally more inclined to shoot each other?
    If so why does American society have such a low regard for life?
     
  14. Quavr

    Quavr Minimodder

    Joined:
    3 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    183
    Likes Received:
    1
    I've never understood this idea that you need a gun to protect yourself in public. In a first world country this really shouldn't be necessary in the vast majority of places and I've personally never been in a situation anywhere in which I've felt carrying a gun would be beneficial.

    While I understand some people need them to protect from animals etc, similarly farmers here have them to protect crops, that doesn't mean I need to carry one all the time to protect myself in case I get mugged or similar.
     
  15. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,801
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Uh-oh. We're more on the American debate track now.

    You know what happens every time gun control is discussed? People approach it with their mind made, and dress up their preconception in speculative rationalizations or flimsy anecdotal evidence.

    Everyone, if they're honest, has this basic conviction inside them: a gut feeling that they do or do not like guns, and can or cannot deal with the presence of guns in society. That feeling runs as deep as your stance on theism and rarely changes - logical sparring isn't going to dislodge it, especially because nobody ever produces hard facts.

    Heading off this downward spiral into blue-sky conjecture, crosstalk and hypotheticals, here are the claims that are relevant to concealed carry and gun ownership generally.

    For:

    1. Concealed carry / gun ownership reduces crime against individuals by deterrence, or prevents harm to individuals during crimes by prevention (muggers, thugs and rapists can't argue with a bullet).

    2. CC/GO reduces high profile crime (robbery, hostage-taking, terrorist attacks) by deterrence or intervention.

    3. CC/GO deters or halts spree killings.

    4. CC/GO prevents harm from natural hazards (wild animals, oversize pets with rabies, zombies).

    5. CC/GO reduces rates of home invasions, or saves lives during home invasions.

    6. CC/GO reduces the risk of corruption, police brutality and abuse of power by deterrance.

    7. CC/GO improves social ease and quality of life by providing psychological security (the reassurance of knowing that good guys in your midst are armed and ready to oppose bad guys).

    8. CC/GO improves the odds of the innocent in confrontations with criminals (rates of injury and death shift away from victims and toward perpetrators).

    Against:

    7. CC/GO increases rates of injury and death during crimes due to escalation (the muggers, thugs and rapists now carry guns because you're carrying one, and consider you a legitimate target of lethal force).

    8. CC/GO increases injuries and deaths during high-profile crime for the same reason.

    9. CC/GO facilitates spree killings.

    10. CC/GO increases injuries and deaths during home invasions.

    11. CC/GO increases police brutality and use of force by police by elevating the potential dangers they face.

    12. CC/GO erodes social cohesion and decreases quality of life by creating fear and tension (people around you have lethal weapons, but you don't know who they are).

    13. CC/GO increases rates of suicide by ease of access to means and rates of accidental injury or death.

    14. CC/GO worsens the odds of the innocent in confrontations with criminals (rates of injury and death shift away from perpetrators and towards victims).


    All of these claims are relevant to whether guns should be legal or not. There will probably be points scored both For and Against. And I would be deeply suspicious of anyone who thinks they know the truth to all of these claims and doesn't have a Criminology masters at least.

    Notice that all of these are empirical claims that can be proved or disproved. Number 9, for instance, would be easily addressed with one statistic - how many spree killers use legally purchased guns and how many use illegal ones? (This vital information never got fully investigated in all the recent debates in America. But then Americans don't always place a high value on hard evidence.)

    All of these claims are like that. Statistics could (and perhaps do) exist that prove or disprove all of them. But for whatever reason they never make it to the table.

    The reason I'm getting all spergey about facts is because people always discuss gun control from the heart. You can't base policy on how people intuitively feel about things. Some of us are scared of guns; some of us feel safer with guns. But neither fear of guns nor comfort in them implies whether they should be carried around in public or owned by citizens. The relevant question is whether they do more good or bad - a question that should be answered with hard facts.

    Lastly, I mentioned anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes are feelings trying to disguise themselves as rational arguments: "I saw this one thing happen once, which is why I feel this way about it now". Anecdotes are worthless because there's an anecdote to prove every point. Babies have been saved by guns. They've also been shot with them. One person's experience of the bad or good guns can do is of no use in figuring out if they're a force for good overall.
     
    Last edited: 7 May 2015
  16. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    Maybe guns are like religion and politics, I was always told never to discuss those two subjects :worried:, In my advancing years I think I understand why. Peoples religious and political beliefs are exactly that and no matter how many "facts" contradict what they believe in they'll reject those facts and rarely change those beliefs.

    Even though the "facts" show that having no firearms control causes much higher rates of firearms related deaths (kind of obvious), some people still believe and argue for no firearms controls.

    I would discuss each of the for and against points you raised but i get the feeling it may get a little heated as like you say it would probably descend into preconceptions, speculative rationalizations or flimsy anecdotal evidence.
     
  17. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    I would say to start that if you aren't an American it will be difficult to impossible for you to understand what we are. So this will inevitably descend into a 'let's bash America' thread that is all to common here.

    Thank you for writing all that, you saved me some time. And it's really all that needs to be said. It's not only in our Bill of Rights, it's also the opinion in our highest courts. *Your* opinion is moot, and if you don't like it, don't come here. Simple as that.

    We were founded by tax evading, rum running, gun smuggling, hard nosed, anti authority, freedom loving rebels. It was defended by normal people taking up arms to make sure their families grew up free and not under the yoke of a tyrannical monarchy based on religion. The 'militia' part people are so hung up on? That's the average American citizen. You might not like it or understand it, but that's how it is.

    Yes, yes I do. And we can and do own them, along with a long list of other things I'm sure will scare you. Not only that, we can make them in our garages where no one is looking and use them on private lands with out supervision. We can buy and sell them face to face and never have to tell our government.

    Did it ever occur to you that there are by far more normal and stable people owning those then whackos? or do you think owning guns automatically makes you one?

    The problem I see in discussing this on BT is that so few of you have actually lived in both places. Having grown up in Europe, I can see how the "organised, centralised and safety in government" view can be appealing. But I would highly encourage you to live places that have little or no rule of law for a few years and see how free it really can be. I also encourage you to live in the US outside of a large metro area for a few years and gain an understanding of how our ingrained attitudes came to be. I suggest Tennessee, the patron state of shooting stuff, lol.
     
    Last edited: 8 May 2015
  18. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    I think what's hard for most people to grasp it that we chose to accept a certain number of deaths in order to maintain our core beliefs.

    Yes, we could take away all the guns and there would be a drop in firearm related deaths. We could also take away automobiles and see a drop in car related deaths, take away ladders and see a huge drop in household repair related deaths. Take away all the hammers and see a drop in injuries those cause.... Those "facts" are pointless, they really are. Your "facts" don't have a bearing on our laws. What we have is based on something much much deeper than that. If you haven't been exposed to it, if it's not in your blood, if it's not a fire in your belly; then you'll never get it and you'll still have pointless "facts".

    But I prefer a nation with fewer rules, higher risk and the resulting freedoms. Which is why we have an pretty awesome nation and it's getting better every year.
     
    Last edited: 8 May 2015
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    388
    The problem with that argument is that cars, ladders and hammers primary purposes aren't intended to cause harm, the fact that they do is secondary to their main reason for being.

    As the topic title says it's about control, no one is saying anyone is going to take away your guns but perhaps better controls on who can or can't own a gun are needed, just like cars have been made safer to use by successive controls on car manufactures, or passing laws to make ladders safer to use.

    I assume when you refer to "we" that your referring to America, if so i would hardly say America is a shining beacon of a country with fewer rules and greater freedoms, not that i think America is any better or worse when it come to those than the UK.
     
  20. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    When this country was founded, the firearms that defended it weren't primarily intended for warfare, that's just your opinion of them. Again, one the stems from a position of not being familiar with guns or having them as part of your culture. One that starts off with the premise of; "guns are bad and hurt people". I doubt your opinion can be swayed even if you were open to it.

    It all depends on where you live, but in your day to day life, there are fewer rules and greater freedoms. Not nearly enough, imo; but that's another thread. Short of living here for four or five years, I doubt you could see that. Honestly, looking from the outside, the media, and through the prism of where you grew up; it's not even something you could describe. Trust me, I came here to attend university and had many of the same views. and after a few years, it clicked. The country I grew up in, while always home, was suddenly was stifling. Insanely closed minded, narrow and over regulated.

    There is a reason why more people immigrate from the UK and EU to the US then the other way around, lol. Although no one wants to admit it.
     
    Last edited: 8 May 2015

Share This Page