Gun Control Compromise

shadowwalker said:

Well, then you missed the last part of my post, where I talked about the hard things, the expensive things, that need to be done to prevent these kinds of tragedies.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I just don't think that searching for other reasons to justify not imposing stricter gun laws is the answer.

shadowwalker said:

As to the likelihood of this tyranny taking place - look what's happened since 9/11.

Click to expand...

And who was the leader of the civilians who said: "We have enough of this! Government, behave, or we, the armed population, will show you your place!" because I surely missed it?

Gale Haut said:

I gotcha. Your position isn't important enough for you to word it for yourself so that we can discuss it here. Or are we supposed to bring up the minutes from the video and counter each point of this little soapbox bit by bit?

For some reason, I was misled in the idea that the point of the thread would be to discuss gun control. I guess we'll just be shouting Bullshit at each other and the hell with any facts or statistics.

This is an extremely productive starting place.

Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing the propositions put forth by the OP of this thread, including the arguments put forth in the OP video link, which is a link to an episode from Penn & Teller's Bullshit! tv show where Penn & Teller discuss the Second Amendment and gun control.





Oh well. I guess I was wrong about that.

firedrake said:

No, I didn't. I just don't think that searching for other reasons to justify not imposing stricter gun laws is the answer.

Click to expand...

No you are a accusing her of "searching for other reasons" --which means you are accusing her of being disingenuous and of having ulterior motives-- when the real truth is she is analyzing the problem, citing weaknesses in the current paradigm, and offering her view on how to improve things.

Ambrosia said:

I also wish to point out that while you are poo-pooing the power of hand guns, it was 2 hand guns used yesterday that did the mass killing. The rifle was still in the man's car.

Click to expand...

I'm poo-pooing the power of hand guns against the army of the supposed tyrant or a country mad enough to wage an open war on the US, not against unarmed school children.

The 20 yr old who slaughtered the kids yesterday didn't own the guns. He took his mother's guns. Perhaps the problem here is not the gun ownership, but the securing of the guns from those who are crazy. Perhaps it should be a law that if you are buying guns you have to have a secure gun cabinet to lock them in. And if your guns are not locked up in the cabinet and are stolen then you are prosecuted the same as if you had committed whatever murder is committed with the stolen guns. It would be a deterrent to obliviousness on the part of some gun owners.

Click to expand...

I think it would be enough if you had to prove that you need a gun. Like, you have a shop in a dangerous area. And if you said "oh, I just collect them, machines built to kill and maim human beings, just like others collect porcelain cats" they would just laugh in your face.

edit: I mean, when I read in the news that "she was a warm, normal woman, not unlike her neighbors" I just want to scream: normal people don't keep a deadly arsenal at their homes!! Come on, has everyone gone insane?

Plot Device said:

No you are a accusing her of "searching for other reasons" --which means you are accusing her of being disingenuous and of having ulterior motives-- when the real truth is she is analyzing the problem, citing weaknesses in the current paradigm, and offering her view on how to improve things.

Click to expand...

Would you please refrain from explaining my own posts to me?
Thank you.

raburrell said:

there are far more powerful and effective ways to deal with it than a bunch of survivalists hoarding arms and munitions.

Click to expand...

Generalize much??

Plot Device said:

I thought we were discussing the propositions put forth by the OP of this thread, including the arguments put forth in the OP video link, which is a link to an episode from Penn & Teller's Bullshit! tv show where Penn & Teller discuss the Second Amendment and gun control.


Oh well. I guess I was wrong about that.

Click to expand...

Completely wrong, as far as I'm concerned. Though I can see how you've made that mistake. The video is just meant to help get the discussion rolling.

Here's the point of the thread, as was clearly stated in the beginning:

Zoombie said:

This is a place for us to try and come up with solutions to the problem of guns and violence in the USA. And there is one.

Click to expand...

I'm stepping out of the room to take a big deep breath, now. Because I am too emotionally/personally invested in this issue to think straight. Hopefully I won't be locked out when I come back.

??
The people who actively worry about and prepare for this sort of stuff are pretty much by definition survivalists. I'm not sure what you're upset about here.

Eta: that was to PD, not Gale

Seriously, gun advocates may well believe in owning guns in case of government tyrnanny, but on a day-to-day basis, many also believe that you ned to be armed to defend yourself. So just addressing the 2nd amendment is not going to be enough to sway those who think 'an armed society is a polite society.'

raburrell said:

??
The people who actively worry about and prepare for this sort of stuff are pretty much by definition survivalists. I'm not sure what you're upset about here.

Eta: that was to PD, not Gale

Click to expand...

I'm not upset. I just see a lot of presuppositions in this thread by a lot of people. Your own post was one of the quintessential ones, very much worth pointing out in its flaws.

And if you watch the Penn & Teller video, they interviewed several folks for their opinoins, and not one of them was a "survivalist." (In fact, one of the key proponents of the Second Amendment whom they interviewed on the video is an accademic who wears bow ties.)

Please. And sorry, but I have no interest in watching a penn and teller video. I don't find their views particularly compelling. If you feel they have something worth saying, I suggest you say it here yourself.

My bottom line opinion is that America has a widespread mental health problem. America has a widespread problem with gun violence. Anyone who thinks those two things are unrelated is kidding themselves.

vsrenard said:

Seriously, gun advocates may well believe in owning guns in case of government tyrnanny, but on a day-to-day basis, many also believe that you need to be armed to defend yourself. So just addressing the 2nd amendment is not going to be enough to sway those who think 'an armed society is a polite society.'

Click to expand...

I agree. But at the same time, the Bill of Rights is one of those pesky things that can't be dismissed.

raburrell said:

My bottom line opinion is that America has a widespread mental health problem. America has a widespread problem with gun violence. Anyone who thinks those two things are unrelated is kidding themselves.

Click to expand...

I think that a lot of Americans are indeed mentally unstable. But only the violent ones make the news. And only the violent ones who resort to guns make history.

So I think there is more to the story oif American mental illness than all that.

People, I know this is a very sensitive topic even before yesterday's madness, but can we keep the discussion as calm as possible? The subject is important and it needs to be discussed with a cool head.

I'll just mention my country's gun laws: You are allowed ONE simple gun for protection and home defense (a handgun) or hunting (a bolt rifle). If it's for home defense, it stays at home and you'll get a huge fine for carrying it. In the case of hunting, you need a special license. If you're a member of a hunting club, it stays at the club. You can only carry your rifle around if you're a farmer, and of course it's banned in public events and most places. If you want a license to carry, you must demonstrate how your life is in danger (such as having suffered a kidnapping or receiving death threats). If you're caught carrying a gun without license, pray it's not at an army checkpoint: the soldiers will beat your ass and confiscate your gun.

In either case, it needs to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and purchased by the citizen from the only armory in the country, also a subsidiary fo the Secretary of Defense.

Like most things in Mexico, it's very far from a perfect system, but I think it works fine. We already have a horrible security situation, and free access to guns would only add to the chaos.

Agreed. I just think that there are a lot of people who are legally allowed to own guns who should not. And the fetishism surrounding the second amendment makes that a very dangerous problem.

I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but so be it.

I think it's interesting to note that while we're in the top fifteen for gun related deaths -- and we're also #1 for guns per 100 residents -- we're nowhere near leading the charts for gun related homicides. This will sound callous, but I'm not too concerned about gun related suicides when it comes to gun control. I've always been a fan of suicide reform laws.

As for gun control itself, and I speak as someone who's dad used to own a 9mm and a rifle and some other gun he never used (which, unbeknownst to him, I had easy access to), I think the "answer" is a lot harder than "get rid of the guns" or "leave gun control laws alone," or even "tighten gun laws."

Speaking from a non-utilitarian standpoint for half a second -- even if mass murderers only had access to a glock, that's still the death of three or four compared to ten - fifteen.

If we examine the mindset behind these crimes -- because getting rid of guns will solve nothing, this kind of killer will only seek other methods (the Columbine killers original plan was to blow up their school and kill off the survivors as they escaped (and we all know how easy it is to make a bomb with a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook and a basic understanding of structures)) -- I think we could go a lot farther in eliminating mass shootings like this.

That being said, I wouldn't mind tightening gun laws in the way of making it harder to obtain a gun. We require tests for driving and flying airplanes and joining the military and everything else. I think guns should be the same. If you want an AK-47, prove that you're mentally fit to own one, why you should own one, and get re-tested every year. Same for all adults in the household with access to the gun. And gun insurance, IMO, should be mandatory -- going up for each member of the household in case one of their guns causes the death of another.

That does little to solve gun violence in gang related crimes and shootings where the guy steals his mom's guns, but there really is no simple answer unless we just want to eliminate all guns. I don't think that will solve much in the case of where most of our gun violence comes from, but it might get rid of a few trigger happy George Zimmermans.

But I think it's very telling that the first things people jump to blame are non-neurotypical people, atheists, video-games, and inanimate objects. Always arguments about gun control, but never anything about preventing the source of the crime from even developing (and I don't mean rooting out psychopaths (and not all psychopaths are killers) and taking them out at birth) -- the mind of the killer. No one is born a killer (though it is debatable that some are born psychopaths).

Plot Device said:

I agree. But at the same time, the Bill of Rights is one of those pesky things that can't be dismissed.

Click to expand...

It can always be amended. It's not the Ten Commandments.

raburrell said:

<snip>

My bottom line opinion is that America has a widespread mental health problem. America has a widespread problem with gun violence. Anyone who thinks those two things are unrelated is kidding themselves.

Click to expand...

I think all the world has a widespread mental health problem. I don't think it is limited to just America.

There is a connection to mass killings and mental illness. The 20 yr old was mentally ill. Evil, perhaps. Mentally ill, without a doubt. But not all violence, gun or otherwise, is due to mental illness. So I am not quite seeing the connect. The people who are mentally ill are not mentally ill because of guns. Most of the gun violence is not being perpetuated by the mentally ill, imo.

frimble3 said:

I always kind of wondered why, if the Right to Bear Arms is based on the Constitution, which was written by guys who had just fought off a foriegn power with flintlock muskets, why the Right to Bear Arms isn't restricted to flintlock muskets (or black-powder firearms in general). If 'a round a minute' made you an elite marksman, then the ability to mass-murder your fellow civilians would be limited, I'd think.
But then, what do I know about guns or American gun culture?

Click to expand...

The same reason the right to speak freely isn't restricted to auditoriums with no sound system and single page, screw operated printing presses.

raburrell said:

Agreed. I just think that there are a lot of people who are legally allowed to own guns who should not. And the fetishism surrounding the second amendment makes that a very dangerous problem.

Click to expand...

Then, for the purpose of protecting people, do you have a problem with government censorship, and a licensing scheme for authors and speakers?

Kaiser-Kun said:

People, I know this is a very sensitive topic even before yesterday's madness, but can we keep the discussion as calm as possible? The subject is important and it needs to be discussed with a cool head.

I'll just mention my country's gun laws: You are allowed ONE simple gun for protection and home defense (a handgun) or hunting (a bolt rifle). If it's for home defense, it stays at home and you'll get a huge fine for carrying it. In the case of hunting, you need a special license. If you're a member of a hunting club, it stays at the club. You can only carry your rifle around if you're a farmer, and of course it's banned in public events and most places. If you want a license to carry, you must demonstrate how your life is in danger (such as having suffered a kidnapping or receiving death threats). If you're caught carrying a gun without license, pray it's not at an army checkpoint: the soldiers will beat your ass and confiscate your gun.

In either case, it needs to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and purchased by the citizen from the only armory in the country, also a subsidiary fo the Secretary of Defense.

Like most things in Mexico, it's very far from a perfect system, but I think it works fine. We already have a horrible security situation, and free access to guns would only add to the chaos.

Click to expand...

I really like this system. As much as I hate guns (and I do absolutely detest them, however irrational you may think that is) I still respect that people want to feel safe in their own homes, and if it takes a handgun to make someone feel safe at home, fine. Your property, your right, so long as you keep it secured from children. Hunting is the only other acceptable excuse for a gun, and I like that in your country, if that is your reasoning, you have to leave it at your hunting club.

Don't think that'll ever fly in the US, though.

Why does Zoombie even bother posting here if people won't read his posts and click his links??

Here's the money-shot from that Penn & Teller video, the final summation found during the final 1 minute of the 28 minute video:

"We're not saying you'll be safer if you have a gun, or that you might not get robbed. We're saying something much heavier. We're saying we need the government to be afraid of its citizens. We want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. And we need to remember they can only take from us what we give them. You see, maybe Mr. Smug [Roger Rosenblatt, journalist, writer, former Time magazine columnist, and outspoken critic of gun ownership] can call the police against a gang-banger, but who does he call against the police?

"We are discussing on a public TV show the idea of the violent overthrow of the country, and it's covered under Free Speech -- how cool is that? We can't trust the government to always be okay with that [to always be okay with Free Speech] we have to trust, well, the Americans all around us."

Plot Device said:

Why does Zoombie even bother posting here if people won't read his posts and click his links??

Here's the money-shot from that Penn & Teller video, the final summation found during the final 1 minute of the 28 minute video:

"We're not saying you'll be safer if you have a gun, or that you might not get robbed. We're saying something much heavier. We're saying we need the government to be afraid of its citizens. We want our rulers to think carefully about what they try to take from us. And we need to remember they can only take from us what we give them. You see, maybe Mr. Smug [Roger Rosenblatt, journalist, writer, former Time magazine columnist] can call the police against a gang-banger, but who does he call against the police?

"We are discssuiong on a public TV show the idea of the violent overthrow of the country, and it's covered under Free Speech -- how cool is that? We can't trust the government to always be okay with that [to always be okay with Free Speech] we have to trust, well, the Americans all around us."

Click to expand...

And the opinion of two Vegas magicians is important...why?

Kaiser-Kun said:

People, I know this is a very sensitive topic even before yesterday's madness, but can we keep the discussion as calm as possible? The subject is important and it needs to be discussed with a cool head.

I'll just mention my country's gun laws: You are allowed ONE simple gun for protection and home defense (a handgun) or hunting (a bolt rifle). If it's for home defense, it stays at home and you'll get a huge fine for carrying it. In the case of hunting, you need a special license. If you're a member of a hunting club, it stays at the club. You can only carry your rifle around if you're a farmer, and of course it's banned in public events and most places. If you want a license to carry, you must demonstrate how your life is in danger (such as having suffered a kidnapping or receiving death threats). If you're caught carrying a gun without license, pray it's not at an army checkpoint: the soldiers will beat your ass and confiscate your gun.

In either case, it needs to be approved by the Secretary of Defense and purchased by the citizen from the only armory in the country, also a subsidiary fo the Secretary of Defense.

Like most things in Mexico, it's very far from a perfect system, but I think it works fine. We already have a horrible security situation, and free access to guns would only add to the chaos.

Click to expand...

And yet Mexico has one of the highest per capita firearms related death rates.

What does that say? Maybe that Mexico has a crime problem?

The U.S. has a crime problem too. It's not as acute as Mexico's, but it's still a fairly large problem.

And so we have the real issue. How does a society re-instill a respect for life, law, and property into a society that is rapidly loosing said respect?