The Glamorization of Murder

[Behemoth]

Here is the fundamental problem with the background checks: they very easily can be turned into a de facto registration. As is, quite rightly, the government is not supposed to keep records of the background checks done for firearms, because otherwise it is, after all, a registration, and flat out, the only value a registration has is to later facilitate a seizure of those firearms. It is of little to no (erring far torwards no) value for actually limiting any crime.

Which, as was noted, is at an all time low.

And, of course, all of this, I feel, misses the core point. So many arguments around this are all 'repeal the second amendment!' or defending it on some other merit, but I feel as if folks missed the entire premise of what the Second Amendment and, indeed, the Bill of Rights is about: even if, by some miracle, you could repeal the Second, or really ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, that wouldn't remove the fundamental right.

You don't have a right to free speech, or more expansively, Freedom of Expression, because the Constitution says you do. Hell, the Constitution even lays that fact out. It is an enumeration of some of your rights that you ALREADY HAVE, ones that can't be taken, but merely infringed. A right can never be 'taken away,' not really, because by default, a right is something you HAVE, it's something that you always have, no matter what, and that someone else is morally and ethically barred from interfering with. If they do, they don't take it away, they merely infringe upon it. And, when you break it down, the fundamental basis of rights derives from the principle of self-ownership, and by extension, the right to property.

IE: you have a right to free speech because no one has a right to stop you from speaking, as you own yourself and they have no right to dictate what you do. The Third Amendment is oft forgotten, about no quartering of troops, but that is fundamentally based in the idea you have a right to property, and to do with your property what you will. This principle has been lost on many, hence why we now have so many taxes and regulations and the like that de facto make it so you don't really own things. The fact that you have to pay a property tax means you are, in essence, naught but renting property from the government, if they have a right to seize it if you fail to pay.

This interacts with the Second Amendment in several ways. Firstly, you've a right to yourself, and thus the products of your labor, and thus to property, meaning if you have a gun, the state has no right to say you can't have it. You also have a right to self-defense, because again, you own yourself and thus are entitled to defend yourself. Between the right to property and the right to self-defense, the state has zero place dictating what you can and cannot buy for the purposes of self-defense against those who wish to do you harm, be they individual or state.

Now, here is the fundamental truth: even if someone could prove gun ownership is literally a detriment, you still couldn't make a moral or ethical argument for banning, or really even restricting, guns, BECAUSE of the fundamental rights-based nature of it. You can't make an argument with any sort of moral or ethical high ground when you're treading on rights. The fact that so many are so quick to say 'hey, lets let the state use their no-fly list which is so explicitly racist it's just considered a trope at this point to strip individuals of their rights' is honestly just sad, yet not at all surprising because so few people bother to boil the arguments down to the core principles.

The fact that no argument can be made to say gun ownership is a detriment (as you can't even draw a correlation between guns and gun crime, let alone crime in general) is its own argument as well, mind you, but one that I feel is almost corollary, and I wish folks would sometimes go to a more principled, rights based argument instead.

I will close with something only partially related:

The Connecticut assault weapons database is a joke, so many guns turned up "missing" or "lost on a fishing trip"

True. It's another common joke among gun owners. If anyone ever asked where your guns went if some sort or restriction or ban went into place, the answer is 'sorry, I lost them in a tragic boating accident.'

 

[mynameisbob84]

Here is the fundamental problem with the background checks: they very easily can be turned into a de facto registration. As is, quite rightly, the government is not supposed to keep records of the background checks done for firearms, because otherwise it is, after all, a registration, and flat out, the only value a registration has is to later facilitate a seizure of those firearms. It is of little to no (erring far torwards no) value for actually limiting any crime.

Which, as was noted, is at an all time low.

And, of course, all of this, I feel, misses the core point. So many arguments around this are all 'repeal the second amendment!' or defending it on some other merit, but I feel as if folks missed the entire premise of what the Second Amendment and, indeed, the Bill of Rights is about: even if, by some miracle, you could repeal the Second, or really ANY of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, that wouldn't remove the fundamental right.

You don't have a right to free speech, or more expansively, Freedom of Expression, because the Constitution says you do. Hell, the Constitution even lays that fact out. It is an enumeration of some of your rights that you ALREADY HAVE, ones that can't be taken, but merely infringed. A right can never be 'taken away,' not really, because by default, a right is something you HAVE, it's something that you always have, no matter what, and that someone else is morally and ethically barred from interfering with. If they do, they don't take it away, they merely infringe upon it. And, when you break it down, the fundamental basis of rights derives from the principle of self-ownership, and by extension, the right to property.

IE: you have a right to free speech because no one has a right to stop you from speaking, as you own yourself and they have no right to dictate what you do. The Third Amendment is oft forgotten, about no quartering of troops, but that is fundamentally based in the idea you have a right to property, and to do with your property what you will. This principle has been lost on many, hence why we now have so many taxes and regulations and the like that de facto make it so you don't really own things. The fact that you have to pay a property tax means you are, in essence, naught but renting property from the government, if they have a right to seize it if you fail to pay.

This interacts with the Second Amendment in several ways. Firstly, you've a right to yourself, and thus the products of your labor, and thus to property, meaning if you have a gun, the state has no right to say you can't have it. You also have a right to self-defense, because again, you own yourself and thus are entitled to defend yourself. Between the right to property and the right to self-defense, the state has zero place dictating what you can and cannot buy for the purposes of self-defense against those who wish to do you harm, be they individual or state.

Now, here is the fundamental truth: even if someone could prove gun ownership is literally a detriment, you still couldn't make a moral or ethical argument for banning, or really even restricting, guns, BECAUSE of the fundamental rights-based nature of it. You can't make an argument with any sort of moral or ethical high ground when you're treading on rights. The fact that so many are so quick to say 'hey, lets let the state use their no-fly list which is so explicitly racist it's just considered a trope at this point to strip individuals of their rights' is honestly just sad, yet not at all surprising because so few people bother to boil the arguments down to the core principles.

The fact that no argument can be made to say gun ownership is a detriment (as you can't even draw a correlation between guns and gun crime, let alone crime in general) is its own argument as well, mind you, but one that I feel is almost corollary, and I wish folks would sometimes go to a more principled, rights based argument instead.

I will close with something only partially related:



True. It's another common joke among gun owners. If anyone ever asked where your guns went if some sort or restriction or ban went into place, the answer is 'sorry, I lost them in a tragic boating accident.'

By this logic though, there's nothing that should prevent domestic ownership of nuclear warheads.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

By this logic though, there's nothing that should prevent domestic ownership of nuclear warheads.

Wait. You aren't allowed to have those either? How backward is the U.K.???

 

[Behemoth]

By this logic though, there's nothing that should prevent domestic ownership of nuclear warheads.

Did you know technically there isn't actually anything to prevent ownership of domestic warheads? I mean, zoning restrictions maybe, but actually, legally speaking, nothing prevents you, if you could afford it, from producing one. Indeed, in the US, most nuclear weapons are produced by private firms under contract with the government, and 'sold' essentially to the government after that.

Few flaws. This actually isn't an argument on your part. If what you said was true, than, well, yes, it would be. You made no attempt to make any sort of argument from any moral or ethical grounds. You simply made a statement of incredulity. That's not an argument.

Secondly, one could make the full argument that weapons such as, well, nuclear warheads, explosives, or any other such device are fundamentally different as well, because they are not weapons at all conducive to self-defense. You don't defend yourself with a hand grenade. However... to loop back into the first slightly...

What gives the state authority to own anything that an individual person does not? What mystic authority derives from many people grouped together that an individual does not have?

 

[mynameisbob84]

Did you know technically there isn't actually anything to prevent ownership of domestic warheads? I mean, zoning restrictions maybe, but actually, legally speaking, nothing prevents you, if you could afford it, from producing one. Indeed, in the US, most nuclear weapons are produced by private firms under contract with the government, and 'sold' essentially to the government after that.

Few flaws. This actually isn't an argument on your part. If what you said was true, than, well, yes, it would be. You made no attempt to make any sort of argument from any moral or ethical grounds. You simply made a statement of incredulity. That's not an argument.

Secondly, one could make the full argument that weapons such as, well, nuclear warheads, explosives, or any other such device are fundamentally different as well, because they are not weapons at all conducive to self-defense. You don't defend yourself with a hand grenade. However... to loop back into the first slightly...

What gives the state authority to own anything that an individual person does not? What mystic authority derives from many people grouped together that an individual does not have?

Semantics and philosophical musings aside, my argument is simply that it should not be as easy as it currently is in America for future murderers to legally obtain guns, and guns like the one used in the Orlando shootings in particular. If that means background checks, so be it. A sense of entitlement, no matter how firmly entrenched in what you feel is right and just, shouldn't get in the way of proper gun control and legislature that could save hundreds of innocent lives every year.

As to the other point, the state is, in theory at least, made up of elected officials whose job it is to serve the public, and that's where their authority derives from. It's not a perfect system but a perfect system doesn't exist. I'd feel safer knowing that a nuclear warhead is being kept in a secure location by a governing body comprised of people who (in theory) value national security above all else, than being stored in some guy's garage down the street while he decides what to do with it.

 

[Behemoth]

Semantics and philosophical musings aside, my argument is simply that it should not be as easy as it currently is in America for future murderers to legally obtain guns, and guns like the one used in the Orlando shootings in particular. If that means background checks, so be it. A sense of entitlement, no matter how firmly entrenched in what you feel is right and just, shouldn't get in the way of proper gun control and legislature that could save hundreds of innocent lives every year.

You can't just say 'yes, I acknowledge your philosophical points, but am going to ignore them.' You're admitting your argument lacks a rational or philosophical basis behind it. The sheer fact you throw out 'a sense of entitlement' to the view. You're right, it is a sense of entitlement, because it is something folks are entitled to. This is akin to you saying 'despite a sense of entitlement, free speech still is totally ok to be restricted.' No, the entire point is that folks are entitled to it, and that needs to be addressed. If you don't, you're just admitting, tacitly, you don't believe in the fundamental principle of rights, and you can't eliminate the Second Amendment without inherently eliminating every other right because they all are linked and derive from a common place.

What you're saying here is "you are wrong. I'm not going to argue HOW you're wrong, but am going to make an implicit statement based on saying 'what you feel is right and just."' It has nothing to do with feelings at all, it has to do with realities of what IS right and just, and you can't simply write that off because you cannot muster a substantive reply because you think there is such as a thing as 'proper gun control.' You ignored the entire point that even if you could argue that it would say 'hundreds of innocent lives,' it still wouldn't be a valid argument because of the rights.

Which, of course, gets to the other aspect of this: there have been zero measures proposed that would have had any effect on the Orlando shooting. First off, we HAVE background checks, and they've had little to no measurable effect on gun crime. The Orlando shooter passed a background check. Heck, he even passed greater one, because he worked as a contracted security guard for G4S. I know what this is like because its the exact same field I work in. I suspect the uniform I wear to work every day looks nearly identical to the one he did, just with different company patches. The point is, he passed background checks, because nothing he did at all broke laws. That's a point that has been brought up time and time again after these events: none of the proposed gun control laws that are pushed on the backs of them would have had any effect on the actual shooting. Which should tell you that either the people pushing them are ignorant of guns and/or the law, and thus shouldn't be pushing the laws at all, OR they're intentionally trying to push laws they know would have had zero effect but they want to push on the back of a tragedy anyway, at which point they REALLY shouldn't be pushing the law.

To push this further, though I made my argument about rights, I acknowledged the other aspect too: gun control does not work. It hasn't worked in any country its been tried. The rate of violent crime in those societies where it is put in place does not measurably change, because the guns aren't the things causing the crime. Folks do not grip a gun and suddenly have violent thoughts, and thus folks who have violent thoughts will find whatever tool they need to do it. Which is why we can measurably show that gun control doesn't actually decrease crime, and access to guns doesn't increase it. That's just a statistical reality that cannot be ignored. We do not have a gun problem in the United States. We barely have a violent crime problem: it's been falling for decades and is at an all time low. If you want to reduce that further, I'd recommend fighting the War on Drugs to destroy the largest source of violence: drug-related gang violence.

As to the other point, the state is, in theory at least, made up of elected officials whose job it is to serve the public, and that's where their authority derives from. It's not a perfect system but a perfect system doesn't exist. I'd feel safer knowing that a nuclear warhead is being kept in a secure location by a governing body comprised of people who (in theory) value national security above all else, than being stored in some guy's garage down the street while he decides what to do with it.

That isn't really a logical argument though. How can a group of people, who are chosen by some but not all of other people, somehow have greater authority to possess things than the individuals? If the individuals don't have a right to own it, than how can they grant that right to the officials. You say 'a perfect system doesn't exist' but that isn't an answer either.

The fact you 'feel safer' is not a rational argument. Folks 'felt safer' when they were murdering sharks after Jaws came out, despite the fact that humans destroy far more Sharks than even bump humans, let alone attack them. Feelings are not facts, and cannot be used as the basis for any sort of rational argument.

 

[mynameisbob84]

You can't just say 'yes, I acknowledge your philosophical points, but am going to ignore them.'

I'm not ignoring them. I acknowledge them and disagree with them on a fundamental level. I'm of the opinion that public safety trumps entitlement to gun ownership. Mass shootings and higher gun crime rates are the price you pay for legal gun ownership and it may be a price you would personally pay willingly (invariably with other people's lives), but that's part of the problem as I see it. I'm not American so ultimately have no say in the matter, but I am entitled to an opinion. It's my opinion that anything that can be done to minimise gun crime, up to and including an outright ban on certain types of guns or even all guns, is a good thing.

To push this further, though I made my argument about rights, I acknowledged the other aspect too: gun control does not work. It hasn't worked in any country its been tried. The rate of violent crime in those societies where it is put in place does not measurably change, because the guns aren't the things causing the crime.

The UK, Australia, India, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway to name but a few all experience dramatically lower gun crime rates than countries (the US included) that allow for nearly unrestricted gun ownership. I do agree that guns don't cause crime, and it's the root of the problem ultimately that needs to be identified and fixed, but guns make matters worse than they ever need to be.

 

[Behemoth]

And yet you provide no argument to substantiate your disagreement. You provide no argument on the basis of rights or principles. We aren't dealinf with 'opinions,' here, we are dealing with substantive material and rational facts. You say 'public safety trumps rights' well ok, make an argument why. You can't just say it an expect that to fly.

You don't seem to have any basis from which rights flow, or where the state derives authority.

Further, more folks died in France than the US in 'mass shootings' last year, so...

The fact you seperate out 'gun crime' is its own issue. Its irrational. There is no moral superiority in being stabbed over being shot. If 50 people are being shot, and you ban guns, and then 50 people still die but are now dead from stabbings, you haven't solved anything. And given the UK's violemt crime rate increased after gun control, what exactly is the argument there?

Australia didn't see any change actually. The rate of violent crime was decreasing before gun control and actually slowed slightly after. Over the same period, New Zeeland saw the same rate of decrease with no change in laws.

Norway has one of the deadliest mass shootings.

I'll repeat: gun control does not work. It does not reduce violent crime. This is a fact.

 

[mynameisbob84]

And yet you provide no argument to substantiate your disagreement. You provide no argument on the basis of rights or principles. We aren't dealinf with 'opinions,' here, we are dealing with substantive material and rational facts. You say 'public safety trumps rights' well ok, make an argument why. You can't just say it an expect that to fly.

You don't seem to have any basis from which rights flow, or where the state derives authority.

Further, more folks died in France than the US in 'mass shootings' last year, so...

The fact you seperate out 'gun crime' is its own issue. Its irrational. There is no moral superiority in being stabbed over being shot. If 50 people are being shot, and you ban guns, and then 50 people still die but are now dead from stabbings, you haven't solved anything. And given the UK's violemt crime rate increased after gun control, what exactly is the argument there?

Australia didn't see any change actually. The rate of violent crime was decreasing before gun control and actually slowed slightly after. Over the same period, New Zeeland saw the same rate of decrease with no change in laws.

Norway has one of the deadliest mass shootings.

I'll repeat: gun control does not work. It does not reduce violent crime. This is a fact.

I can't help but feel you're being wilfully obtuse now, sir. Of course we're dealing with opinions. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You seem like a smart enough guy, and unless you're completely devoid of empathy, I struggle to believe that you wouldn't understand why somebody would value the sanctity of life over legal ownership of a utensil for death. You might fetishize guns, but not everybody feels the same way about them and not everybody believes that your right to own one is the most important part of the equation.

People in France last year were the victim of a religious terrorist attack, an anomaly. Australia's violent crime rates and gun crime rates in particular are lower now than they were before the gun ban. Norway had a horrific mass shooting, but again, an anomaly that skews the figures. More people die as a result of gun crime in the US (per 100,000 people) than people by knife crime in the UK (a figure that had been steadily declining for years until a 2% rise last year). The UK's violent crime rate saw an initial spike after the gun ban before trending downwards each year thereafter to levels lower than they were initially (again, up until last year, where I believe there was a 5% rise).

But gun crime should be separated as its own issue. A person being shot to death should not be viewed as the same thing as a person being mugged. Both unfortunate crimes, but one leads to loss of a wallet and a phone and maybe a few bruises, the other leads to loss of a life. If as many people were stabbed or beat to death in the UK as people were shot to death in America, you'd have an argument. But that's not the case.

 

[Behemoth]

I can't help but feel you're being wilfully obtuse now, sir. Of course we're dealing with opinions. If we weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You seem like a smart enough guy, and unless you're completely devoid of empathy, I struggle to believe that you wouldn't understand why somebody would value the sanctity of life over legal ownership of a utensil for death. You might fetishize guns, but not everybody feels the same way about them and not everybody believes that your right to own one is the most important part of the equation.

No, we're not dealing with opinions. Opinions cannot be right or wrong that way, opinions do not policy make. You can't say we need to restrict something or pass a law based on your opinion. You are implicitly making a claim to truth. The one being obtuse is you, based on your use of such blatantly loaded and frankly intellectually insulting terms such as 'utensil of death,' and creating this false dichotomy about the 'sanctifiy of life' vs the private ownership of arms. The fact you also go into ad hominem in accusing me of 'fetishizing guns' is its own issue. You throw out that I seem 'smart enough,' but allow me to quote two people likely smarter than I:

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable.” - Albert Camus

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates

You're running afoul of both of these, because you seem to be more interesting in what you FEEL is better, rather than what can be factually stated. Once again, you fail to engage in any sort of rational way with implicit statements you're making about rights. This is not about 'believing the right to own one,' and your failure to answer to why someone DOESN'T have the right to own one, because you're making the claim here, I provided a full explanation of why it is my right to own a firearm, one you just accuse of being 'semantics' and 'philosophical musing.' That is not an argument. That is not a rebuttal. Nor is saying 'well some people disagree.' Well of course they do, that's why you're here, but saying 'I disagree' is not an argument of any sort of actual substance. It is not an answer to the challenge I posed about rights and their origin.

We're debating facts. Facts cannot be opinions.

People in France last year were the victim of a religious terrorist attack, an anomaly. Australia's violent crime rates and gun crime rates in particular are lower now than they were before the gun ban. Same with New Zealand. Norway had a horrific mass shooting, but again, an anomaly that skews the figures. More people die as a result of gun crime in the US (per 100,000 people) than people by knife crime in the UK (a figure that had been steadily declining for years until a 2% rise last year). The UK's violent crime rate saw an initial spike after the gun ban before trending downwards each year thereafter to levels lower than they were initially (again, up until last year, where I believe there was a 5% rise).

A religious terror attack, that took the form of a mass shooting, and which you outright call an anomaly. Well so are mass shootings. Statistically speaking, they're so small as to be non-existent. They are no less an anomaly. You are the one playing semantic games now.

Again, as I pointed out, the crime rates were already falling BEFORE the gun ban, and the rate of their decline did not increase. Which is to say, the gun ban cannot be said to have a had any effect on the rate of decline, because it was already declining and did not increase at a greater rate than prior to the ban. New Zealand didn't change their laws, and over the same period as Australia, saw the exact same decline, further showing that the changes in Australia had zero effect.

For the United Kingdom, here is the problem. For one, there is widespread evidence of tampering. Further, the crime surveys between the US and UK actually show some damning numbers, by comparison the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Crime Survey for England and Wales (which obviously does not even cover Scotland or other parts of the UK):

Completed rapes:
UK: 92.6 per 100,000
US: 45.9 per 100,000

Assaults:
UK: 926.9 per 100,000
US: 319.6 per 100,000

Further, given the majority of gun deaths in the US are also gang related, and thus drug related, and that the UK does not both have a federal government whose 'War on Drugs' has only made the problem worse AND share a southern border with Mexico, which is largely controlled by cartels as a direct result of federal drug policy, we have a massive issue here that must be addressed. There as some places, like Baltimore, where 80% of homicides are stated to be gang-related. Which means the issue is not guns, but gangs.

But gun crime should be separated as its own issue. A person being shot to death should not be viewed as the same thing as a person being mugged. Both unfortunate crimes, but one leads to loss of a wallet and a phone and maybe a few bruises, the other leads to loss of a life. If as many people were stabbed or beat to death in the UK as people were shot to death in America, you'd have an argument. But that's not the case.

A person being shot to death should be seen the same as a person being stabbed to death, and if the actual rate of homicide in the UK did not decrease at any greater rate post ban, we can thus state the ban had no effect on reducing homicide. The issue isn't even 'if more people died in one place than the other,' because that ignores the multitude of other factors that could lead to disparate outcomes. Given that the number of guns doesn't correlate to gun crime itself (given guns have become more available and more prevalent yet crime has fallen,) let alone crime on the whole, we must instead analyze other factors to dictate if banning guns had an effect.

Hence why I bring up Australia, and the UK, and the US. Violent crime has been falling in all three of these countries, and has continued to do so despite different gun control policies. In both the UK and Australia, the rate did not decrease at a greater rate after banning guns, and it continued at the same pace in the US, despite gun laws becoming MORE OPEN, as we actually had things like the Assault Weapons Ban for a period in the US, and it had no effect on the crime rate EITHER, and nor did crime increase despite things like that expiring, or a gradual increase in Concealed Carry laws.

And, to loop back around, all of this itself is window dressing on the fact that you have to address the fundamental basis of rights at play. It's not just you can't actually draw any statistically significant relationship to gun ownership and crime, you ALSO can't establish a basis that would give any sort of authority of the government to strip the right to bear arms from its citizens. Saying 'well, I don't believe you have that right' is not an answer. You need to argue how that right is different or seperate from the right to property, to self-defense, and so on. Which, frankly speaking, you can't without getting into arbitrary categories, which are not rational.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Gun crime is more prevalent in the US than other rich, peer countries. This is a fact. Developed countries with more guns tend to have more homicides. This is a fact. There is a correlation between high levels of gun ownership and suicide. This is a fact. Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death. This is a fact. Guns impact negatively on domestic violence figures. This is a fact. The US averages more than one mass shooting incident a day, the majority of which are perpetrated with a legally owned gun. This is a fact.

It's my opinion that these facts should be enough to make gun ownership more restrictive than it currently is in America. You clearly feel differently. I don't know how to make my stance any clearer so at the risk of going round in circles, I'll make this my final argument and move on.

 

[Bocefish]

People that are ignorant about firearms fall prey to the media's continued use of "assault weapon" all the time. Banning one specific type of weapon solely because it "looks" more dangerous is absolutely ridiculous and a complete waste of time.

'Assault' weapons vs. sporting weapons: What's the difference?

A question posted to Quora asked, “are the differences between assault weapons and sporting weapons merely cosmetic?” It was an interesting question, and one that garnered an array of different responses. Take a look at two of the more thorough responses to the question and add your thoughts in the comments section below! (Also note on the first response that the top rifle does not, in fact, have a pistol grip. These were the photos used to make his argument - and while it's a sound argument, a hunting rifle with a pistol grip would be a preferable example here)

An anonymous Quora user responded with the following:

Yes. 100 percent true.

Here's a test. Tell me what the functional difference is between these two firearms:



Time’s up.

This is a test I use on anyone who says we need to ban "assault weapons" but hunting rifles are ok. The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:

• They are semi-automatic in operation.

• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.

• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.

• They are both "black" rifles.

• Both have pistol grips.

In other words, they are functionally identical! Other than the SA-58, a semi-auto civilian version of the FN-FAL, looking "scarier" and military, they're technically equal firearms in terms of lethality and usage. Yet, the one above is fine with most people, and even more so when you get the wood stocked version, but the bottom one they want to ban even if it has a wood stock (and some versions do).

Somehow, the argument is that getting shot by an "assault weapon" is worse than being shot by a hunting rifle. A curious position, because either of these rifles are deadly to deer or human with a single shot. .308 Winchester is not a round you ignore when hurled in your general direction. I've never heard a person hit by .308, assuming they survive, say "I am sure glad I was shot with the Remington! I could've been killed by the evil FN-FAL!".

"Assault weapon" is a marketing term invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center (Assault Weapons and Accessories in America). It was coined for the express purpose of public deception and misdirection on policy issues. And it worked because it resulted in a purely symbolic ban from 1994-2004 and the media STILL bleats on, like loyal sheep, about "assault weapons" anytime there is a mass shooting regardless of whether a scary-looking rifle was used or not.

John Fogh, Professional Firearms Instructor, responded:

The title of the link is disingenuous. A better title for the link would have been "Modern 'Assault Weapons' are the equivalent of the hunting rifles used in the American revolution."

The revolutionaries small arms were either on par (smoothbore muskets) or superior (long rifles) to the weapons of the British military. Currently the major difference is that military rifles are capable of firing multiple rounds per trigger pull (either burst or automatic fire) and civilian models are not. An actual military M4 has a slightly shorter barrel than a civilian carbine. Everything else is cosmetic or ergonomic.

Both the military and civilan versions shoot the same ammunition (as well as many traditional styled hunting rifles.) Many consider this ammunition to be drastically less powerful than a traditional deer hunting rifle.

There is a lot of quibbling over the title 'assault weapon' because it was a term invented by the gun control advocates to make for a scary sound bite. It has no technical definition (in a field where everything has a technical definition). The gun rights side invented the term "modern sporting rifle" which while being an overly broad, made up term, it does have the advantage of being accurate in that are used for several types of target shooting and hunting.

I could just as easily say that most people have a kitchen drawer full of 'rape knives' (the very same type of knives used in a large number of rapes!) or start referring to a carpenters hammer as a "robbery bludgeon" (the same weapon used in some robberies!)

https://www.policeone.com/the-tacti...ons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/

 

[Behemoth]

Gun crime is more prevalent in the US than other rich, peer countries. This is a fact.

Again we begin with arbitrary distinctions. 'rich, peer countries.' What constitutes a rich, peer country? Are all other factors equal between these countries? Obviously not, so even the argument you make for correlation and causation doesn't work here.

Developed countries with more guns tend to have more homicides. This is a fact.

Again we use the arbitrary distinction of developed, undefined in terms, and the Harvard study doesn't define it either, apparently. Further, again we're falling into a correlation = causation fallacy. I'll address this after.

There is a correlation between high levels of gun ownership and suicide. This is a fact.

Except this makes no sense, because countries like Japan, Russia, and South Korea all have vastly VASTLY larger suicide rates compared to the US, yet have vastly more restrictive gun laws too. Again, correlation does not imply causation.

Living in a house with a gun increases your odds of death. This is a fact.

Except that those most likely to own a gun are also the most likely to need a gun, ie: living in a neighborhood in which violence is more prevalent, and thus you are more likely to have to need the gun. Again, this shows the problem of you making assumptions about these statistics.

Guns impact negatively on domestic violence figures. This is a fact.

Honestly, every single one of these could be listed as correlation does not equal causation, and given that article itself falls into the trap by pretending that gun ownership corresponds to homicide or any other thing, we run into issues. Namely, because if this was the case, the rising availability of guns would, again, have caused rising homicide rates. But it has not. There is no statistically significant correlation between guns owned and homicide rates.

The US averages more than one mass shooting incident a day, the majority of which are perpetrated with a legally owned gun. This is a fact.

Now this is a blatantly lie actually, perpetrated to push a narrative. The mass shooting tracker is a notoriously bullshit system, mainly because it doesn't use any known definition of mass shooting (which, generally speaking when we're talking FBI, means four people killed) and includes not merely people killed, but wounded, including the shooter, and often doesn't even need more than three people (again, including the shooter,) has grouped people killed over the course of several days as one event, has included folks hit with BB and pellet guns as 'shootings,' and so on. Hell, the creator of the tracker has literally openly described it as propaganda.

So no, out of all of these, this is the most egregious non-fact.

It's my opinion that these facts should be enough to make gun ownership more restrictive than it currently is in America. You clearly feel differently. I don't know how to make my stance any clearer so at the risk of going round in circles, I'll make this my final argument and move on.

Again, you're not stating an opinion. You're stating an argument, and a policy to be followed. Stop hiding behind some protection you think 'opinion' provides you. However, as we go over these 'facts,' we see a big issue of claiming that correlation implies causation, ignoring any other factors, and one instance of blatant propaganda. Through all of these, you refused to engage at all with the concept of rights, you refused to engage with the logic about gun control not working, and instead tried to shift the discussion away. You did not make an argument, you steadfastly attempted to avoid making an argument.

Your stance is absolutely clear: you believe an authoritarian state has the power and authority to strip rights from its citizens, and indeed it SHOULD, for their safety. You believe the state has powers and rights more than citizens. That is the implicit truth in your stance, which is abundantly clear, just as is clear your refusal to engage in any sort of rational discussion. You dodge and duck arguments far more than you make them. You engage in personal attacks and appeals to emotion. You now flee rather than try once to engage in any sort of rational debate.

So, I mean, ok, go off then. I'm sure folks will continue to say they 'disagree' with this or 'take a chill pill' to do their virtue signalling and assure themselves their echo chamber is safe. Go for it, I revel in it.

 

[Bocefish]

Why its time to repeal the second amendment
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

I'm really curious where you personally stand on this issue and how/why you defend your beliefs.

If you would like to be taken seriously, it takes more than posting links and facepalms.

 

[Bocefish]

Pathetic that it is... President Obama (CIC) is woefully ignorant as well...

“The shooter was apparently armed with a hand gun and a powerful assault rifle,” he said. “This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

Not only is it an assault rifle, but now it's a "powerful" one at that, which is somehow different than every other weapon that can shoot people.

 

[fandango]

Pathetic that it is... President Obama (CIC) is woefully ignorant as well...

“The shooter was apparently armed with a hand gun and a powerful assault rifle,” he said. “This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

Not only is it an assault rifle, but now it's a "powerful" one at that, which is somehow different than every other weapon that can shoot people.

Your fixation on the semantics of which type of gun is blinding you to the real point he is trying to make. Lets replace that line with the word weapon.

“The shooter was apparently armed with a weapon,” he said. “This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

If it was a hunting rifle, assault rifle or whatever it doesnt change the fact that Crazy Dave can just walk into a store and buy whatever type of weapon he wants with almost nothing to stop or even slow him down slightly and you have to decide if thats the type of country you want to be in. If your answer is yes and the system is fine as it is then that's fine but just say that instead of saying people who think differently are ignorant about guns or dont understand guns. It's not a matter of which gun he had its the fact that he had access to any gun in the first place.

 

[Behemoth]

Your fixation on the semantics of which type of gun is blinding you to the real point he is trying to make. Lets replace that line with the word weapon.

“The shooter was apparently armed with a weapon,” he said. “This massacre is, therefore, a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school or in a house of worship or a movie theater or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.”

If it was a hunting rifle, assault rifle or whatever it doesnt change the fact that Crazy Dave can just walk into a store and buy whatever type of weapon he wants with almost nothing to stop or even slow him down slightly and you have to decide if thats the type of country you want to be in. If your answer is yes and the system is fine as it is then that's fine but just say that instead of saying people who think differently are ignorant about guns or dont understand guns. It's not a matter of which gun he had its the fact that he had access to any gun in the first place.

The answer is yes, I am glad that a citizens with no prior history of violence or crime can go in an buy an object he has a right to own, and won't be dissuaded because someone wants to make an emotional appeal without thinking of the broader consequences of that appeal. The fact you wanna throw out a term like 'Crazy Dave' as if to throw the mentally ill under the bus (as admittedly so many do even on the pro gun side, to their shame,) is its own issue.

The fact is, even though I don't quite agree with how he couched the statements, he's not wrong because folks who oppose this are acting out of ignorance and not thinking critically about what it is they are advocating. Again, this ties into the point I made about rights and the broader basis here. If you accept the premise that the only people who are entitled to have firearms, the greatest force equalizer between individuals ever created, are the state, than you need to understand the fullest extent of what you're saying. You are centralizing ever more authority in a state which has has a vast history of overreach and terrible decisions, and this can extend back to essentially any and all other states that have ever existed.

The fact that folks who advocate this seem ignorant not merely of the greater implications of what they advocate, but also the very items they wish to restrict AND the laws already in place and so on makes it worse, not better. And again, given the statistics and history at play, its DOUBLY worse because we HAD an Assault Weapons ban and it was an abysmal failure. Statistically, gun control hasn't made any other countries safer either, and rifles, most demonized, are not merely the least likely to be used in a crime, but they're incidentally the most useful if you were to, say, exercise your right to resist tyranny. And any argument that somehow you couldn't stand up to the government because they've got so many more tools is not an argument to FURTHER strip arms from the citizenry.

So yes, I'd much rather live in a country where liberty is respected than one where it is not, and given not one person has even bothered to engage with the rights argument in a serious way, aside from linking to a Rolling Stone article where someone seriously attempts to make claim to a right to be 'free from fear' essentially, ignoring the utter subjectivity of fear and not acknowledging at all if that fear is even based in any rational or factual basis. The numbers just don't add up. You are more likely to trip and fall (8.4 per 100,000) or be unintentionally poisoned (10.7 per 100,000) than you are to be shot and killed by someone (3.6 per 100,000).

And this doesn't even get into the fact that there is no logistical way to make it happen. IE: the amount of weapons in the country mean that banning them won't remove folks who wish to obtain one for ill intent from being able to do so, because you'll never be able to round up even a fraction of the weapons even if you somehow could pass an amendment to do so, and you could afford to buy them back either. The simple truth is that none of the proposed bills will DO anything. Nothing proposed by anyone will actually change things, you'll just be putting in empty feel-good stuff for ignorant people to pat themselves on the back for. Which is why all this focus on gun control is a silly answer anyway because you could instead focus on actually solving other causes of crime that you could actually DO, like decriminalizing drug use.

 

[bud9752]

I want a powerful assault rifle too , all I have is the regular model.

 

[fandango]

The answer is yes, I am glad that a citizens with no prior history of violence or crime can go in an buy an object he has a right to own, and won't be dissuaded because someone wants to make an emotional appeal without thinking of the broader consequences of that appeal. The fact you wanna throw out a term like 'Crazy Dave' as if to throw the mentally ill under the bus (as admittedly so many do even on the pro gun side, to their shame,) is its own issue.

The fact is, even though I don't quite agree with how he couched the statements, he's not wrong because folks who oppose this are acting out of ignorance and not thinking critically about what it is they are advocating. Again, this ties into the point I made about rights and the broader basis here. If you accept the premise that the only people who are entitled to have firearms, the greatest force equalizer between individuals ever created, are the state, than you need to understand the fullest extent of what you're saying. You are centralizing ever more authority in a state which has has a vast history of overreach and terrible decisions, and this can extend back to essentially any and all other states that have ever existed.

The fact that folks who advocate this seem ignorant not merely of the greater implications of what they advocate, but also the very items they wish to restrict AND the laws already in place and so on makes it worse, not better. And again, given the statistics and history at play, its DOUBLY worse because we HAD an Assault Weapons ban and it was an abysmal failure. Statistically, gun control hasn't made any other countries safer either, and rifles, most demonized, are not merely the least likely to be used in a crime, but they're incidentally the most useful if you were to, say, exercise your right to resist tyranny. And any argument that somehow you couldn't stand up to the government because they've got so many more tools is not an argument to FURTHER strip arms from the citizenry.

So yes, I'd much rather live in a country where liberty is respected than one where it is not, and given not one person has even bothered to engage with the rights argument in a serious way, aside from linking to a Rolling Stone article where someone seriously attempts to make claim to a right to be 'free from fear' essentially, ignoring the utter subjectivity of fear and not acknowledging at all if that fear is even based in any rational or factual basis. The numbers just don't add up. You are more likely to trip and fall (8.4 per 100,000) or be unintentionally poisoned (10.7 per 100,000) than you are to be shot and killed by someone (3.6 per 100,000).

And this doesn't even get into the fact that there is no logistical way to make it happen. IE: the amount of weapons in the country mean that banning them won't remove folks who wish to obtain one for ill intent from being able to do so, because you'll never be able to round up even a fraction of the weapons even if you somehow could pass an amendment to do so, and you could afford to buy them back either. The simple truth is that none of the proposed bills will DO anything. Nothing proposed by anyone will actually change things, you'll just be putting in empty feel-good stuff for ignorant people to pat themselves on the back for. Which is why all this focus on gun control is a silly answer anyway because you could instead focus on actually solving other causes of crime that you could actually DO, like decriminalizing drug use.

Well then that's where we differ. In order for society to function certain freedoms do have to be given up for the greater good. I don't have the freedom to drive down the highway at whatever speed I want to just because I can, the limit is 70MPH (or whatever it is whereever you are) because it would be too dangerous if everyone just did whatever the max speed of their car is. I believe guns belong in the category of freedoms people can do without. I don't subscribe to the paranoia that the tyrannical government are out to get me and I do accept the premise that the general public should not have access to firearms. Whereas clearly you feel the opposite and that personal freedoms trump all else.

So when the next mass shooting happens at say a mall or maybe a sports arena then that is a price you're willing to pay as a consequence of one of the freedoms you don't wish to give up. I do not feel that is a price worth paying and would happily give up my freedom to own a gun if it also stopped someone who wishes to do these things also having a gun.

I get sickened when after every mass shooting people seem to feel that lighting a candle, saying a few prayers or singing some hymns is all they can do instead of directing their outrage onto the factors that allowed these things to happen in the first place. Sure it may not be possible to stop all of them but I believe we should be doing everything in our power to try and stop them or at least minimize them.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

3 and a half years after Sandy Hook, I am convinced nothing is going to change.

The USA has an unhealthy obsession with its Constitution imo; I would like to see it ripped to shreds and a new constitution written from scratch, on the condition that it be named anything but "constitution".

In the USA freedom and liberty are all too often just embellishments people use when supporting their favorite talking points.

The second amendment means you can shoulder a rifle at a political rally, or you can easily get your hands on a firearm if you want to shoot a bunch of random strangers in public. It may also give you some peace of mind as you sit at your desk doing online petitions against the Patriot Act.

Arm the homeless.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I want a powerful assault rifle too , all I have is the regular model.

I'm not even that lucky. Best I got is just sniper rifles. I has so much sadz.

The second amendment means you can shoulder a rifle at a political rally, or you can easily get your hands on a firearm if you want to shoot a bunch of random strangers in public.

The first amendment is worse, so it needs to be banned too. Free speech and freedom of press has killed so many people in this country it's shocking. It allows people to buy books. Books like Field Expedient Hand Grenades, The Anarchist Handbook, CIA Field Expedient Incendiary Manual, Improvised Munitions from Ammonia Nitrate, Special Forces Demolitions Training Handbook, CIA Field Expedient Methods for Explosives Preparation, Two Component High Explosive Mixtures and Improvised Shaped Charges, Explosives and Propellants, American Engineer Explosive Book...

Forget about the right to bear arms. Hell, that kills a few people here and there. The first amendment killed 168 people, and injured more than 680 others, destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings, shattered glass in 258 buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars, causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage. And that was all at once.

Damn that first amendment and people thinking they have a right to books. Nobody needs books, and if you live in a book culture you need to rethink your life. Get rid of all your books, it will give you peace of mind. Repeat after me, books kill!

Also farming. We definitely need to ban farming. That leads to fertilizer. God help us people should have access to fertilizer.

 

[Guy]

I'm not even that lucky. Best I got is just sniper rifles. I has so much sadz.




The first amendment is worse, so it needs to be banned too. Free speech and freedom of press has killed so many people in this country it's shocking. It allows people to buy books. Books like Field Expedient Hand Grenades, The Anarchist Handbook, CIA Field Expedient Incendiary Manual, Improvised Munitions from Ammonia Nitrate, Special Forces Demolitions Training Handbook, CIA Field Expedient Methods for Explosives Preparation, Two Component High Explosive Mixtures and Improvised Shaped Charges, Explosives and Propellants, American Engineer Explosive Book...

Forget about the right to bear arms. Hell, that kills a few people here and there. The first amendment killed 168 people, and injured more than 680 others, destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings, shattered glass in 258 buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars, causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage. And that was all at once.

Damn that first amendment and people thinking they have a right to books. Nobody needs books, and if you live in a book culture you need to rethink your life. Get rid of all your books, it will give you peace of mind. Repeat after me, books kill!

Also farming. We definitely need to ban farming. That leads to fertilizer. God help us people should have access to fertilizer.

People can still make explosives without reading those books. Most types of fertilizer can't be used for explosives. What about Columbine and Virginia Tech? Those massacres weren't politicaly motivated.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Most types of fertilizer can't be used for explosives.

Actually it's the opposite. Every type of fertilizer can be used bomb making. Every Single One.

Fertilizers contain at least one of three main components (most contain all of them). Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. All three of those components can be isolated from fertilizers and used in high explosives. Books man, i'm telling you they are evil. They pass on knowledge, like chemistry. We need to repeal the first amendment. Look, this one alone has multiple ways of mass killing using the evils of chemistry. And it's put out by the government!!! This could be the very book that led to the bombing in Oklahoma City. Oh the horror of our own military being complicit in the killing of so many US citizens. It's time we put a stop to books.

#FreedomOfSpeechKills

 

[Guy]

Actually it's the opposite. Every type of fertilizer can be used bomb making. Every Single One.

Fertilizers contain at least one of three main components (most contain all of them). Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. All three of those components can be isolated from fertilizers and used in high explosives. Books man, i'm telling you they are evil. They pass on knowledge, like chemistry. We need to repeal the first amendment. Look, this one alone has multiple ways of mass killing using the evils of chemistry. And it's put out by the government!!! This could be the very book that led to the bombing in Oklahoma City. Oh the horror of our own military being complicit in the killing of so many US citizens. It's time we put a stop to books.

#FreedomOfSpeechKills

How large are the traces of those elements in those fertilizers? Also, like I said earlier people can figure out how to make explosives without reading any of those books.

 

[Guy]

People that are ignorant about firearms fall prey to the media's continued use of "assault weapon" all the time. Banning one specific type of weapon solely because it "looks" more dangerous is absolutely ridiculous and a complete waste of time.

'Assault' weapons vs. sporting weapons: What's the difference?

A question posted to Quora asked, “are the differences between assault weapons and sporting weapons merely cosmetic?” It was an interesting question, and one that garnered an array of different responses. Take a look at two of the more thorough responses to the question and add your thoughts in the comments section below! (Also note on the first response that the top rifle does not, in fact, have a pistol grip. These were the photos used to make his argument - and while it's a sound argument, a hunting rifle with a pistol grip would be a preferable example here)

An anonymous Quora user responded with the following:

Yes. 100 percent true.

Here's a test. Tell me what the functional difference is between these two firearms:

View attachment 63870

Time’s up.

This is a test I use on anyone who says we need to ban "assault weapons" but hunting rifles are ok. The firearms above are the Remington 7400 (top) and the DSA SA-58 (bottom). They have the following qualities:

• They are semi-automatic in operation.

• They fire the .308 Winchester cartridge.

• They are fed from a detachable box magazine.

• They are both "black" rifles.

• Both have pistol grips.

In other words, they are functionally identical! Other than the SA-58, a semi-auto civilian version of the FN-FAL, looking "scarier" and military, they're technically equal firearms in terms of lethality and usage. Yet, the one above is fine with most people, and even more so when you get the wood stocked version, but the bottom one they want to ban even if it has a wood stock (and some versions do).

Somehow, the argument is that getting shot by an "assault weapon" is worse than being shot by a hunting rifle. A curious position, because either of these rifles are deadly to deer or human with a single shot. .308 Winchester is not a round you ignore when hurled in your general direction. I've never heard a person hit by .308, assuming they survive, say "I am sure glad I was shot with the Remington! I could've been killed by the evil FN-FAL!".

"Assault weapon" is a marketing term invented by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center (Assault Weapons and Accessories in America). It was coined for the express purpose of public deception and misdirection on policy issues. And it worked because it resulted in a purely symbolic ban from 1994-2004 and the media STILL bleats on, like loyal sheep, about "assault weapons" anytime there is a mass shooting regardless of whether a scary-looking rifle was used or not.

John Fogh, Professional Firearms Instructor, responded:

The title of the link is disingenuous. A better title for the link would have been "Modern 'Assault Weapons' are the equivalent of the hunting rifles used in the American revolution."

The revolutionaries small arms were either on par (smoothbore muskets) or superior (long rifles) to the weapons of the British military. Currently the major difference is that military rifles are capable of firing multiple rounds per trigger pull (either burst or automatic fire) and civilian models are not. An actual military M4 has a slightly shorter barrel than a civilian carbine. Everything else is cosmetic or ergonomic.

Both the military and civilan versions shoot the same ammunition (as well as many traditional styled hunting rifles.) Many consider this ammunition to be drastically less powerful than a traditional deer hunting rifle.

There is a lot of quibbling over the title 'assault weapon' because it was a term invented by the gun control advocates to make for a scary sound bite. It has no technical definition (in a field where everything has a technical definition). The gun rights side invented the term "modern sporting rifle" which while being an overly broad, made up term, it does have the advantage of being accurate in that are used for several types of target shooting and hunting.

I could just as easily say that most people have a kitchen drawer full of 'rape knives' (the very same type of knives used in a large number of rapes!) or start referring to a carpenters hammer as a "robbery bludgeon" (the same weapon used in some robberies!)

https://www.policeone.com/the-tacti...ons-vs-sporting-weapons-Whats-the-difference/

In order for me to believe this it would have to come from an article with information coming directly from a confirmed credible expert, not from an article citing an answer from a guy on Quora.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

How large are traces of elements in those fertilizers? Also, like I said earlier people can figure out how to make explosives without reading any of those books.

"people can figure out how to make explosives"
people can make guns


"without reading any of those books"
without buying a gun from a gun maker



If we need to ban the 2nd amendment for all the reasons mentioned by people in this thread, then we need to ban the first amendment for exactly the same reasons.

300 million guns in America? Pffft i say. Americans used 6.7 BILLION pounds of explosives in one year alone! Guns are nothing, we mostly blow shit up man!

Anyone can walk into a shop and buy a gun? Uh, you can walk into any hardware store and buy everything needed to make a bomb. Ironically that's also true for making a gun. But people don't seem to want to ban hardware stores. Not sure why. It's actually cheaper to make a gun from a hardware store than it is to buy one at a gun store. Go figure.

But wait, you say the majority of those explosives were used in a law abiding manner by every day citizens? Well, you're not allowed to pick and choose what you like. You're only allowed to focus on the minority of bad things related to bombs and overreact based on those, just like the anti-gun nuts do.

It's not the people killing people, it's the guns. So it must also be the bombs, not the people using them. Bombs have killed people. Books teach people how to make bombs. We need to ban bombs. Therefore books must go. It's all very simple using the logic stated prior in this thread.

We live in a bomb culture. It's a sickness that must be stopped. Repeal the 1st amendment.

#FreedomOfSpeechKills

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The first amendment is worse, so it needs to be banned too.

I have some real problems with the first amendment as well, but my complaints about it have nothing to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, or with mounting a weak defense for easy gun availability.

 

[Behemoth]

Well then that's where we differ. In order for society to function certain freedoms do have to be given up for the greater good. I don't have the freedom to drive down the highway at whatever speed I want to just because I can, the limit is 70MPH (or whatever it is whereever you are) because it would be too dangerous if everyone just did whatever the max speed of their car is. I believe guns belong in the category of freedoms people can do without. I don't subscribe to the paranoia that the tyrannical government are out to get me and I do accept the premise that the general public should not have access to firearms. Whereas clearly you feel the opposite and that personal freedoms trump all else.

So when the next mass shooting happens at say a mall or maybe a sports arena then that is a price you're willing to pay as a consequence of one of the freedoms you don't wish to give up. I do not feel that is a price worth paying and would happily give up my freedom to own a gun if it also stopped someone who wishes to do these things also having a gun.

I get sickened when after every mass shooting people seem to feel that lighting a candle, saying a few prayers or singing some hymns is all they can do instead of directing their outrage onto the factors that allowed these things to happen in the first place. Sure it may not be possible to stop all of them but I believe we should be doing everything in our power to try and stop them or at least minimize them.

Yeah, no, you can take your entire argument about 'for society to function, we need to give up freedom' and completely shove it. First off, any appeal to the 'greater good' is inherent subjective to the person who is determining what is the greater good, which inherently gets into an extremely dicey land of authoritarianism.

Comparing speed limits is disingenuous for several reasons. The first being that the person who owns the road can thus set the rules of it, which makes perfect sense. The second is that speed limits don't actually have that great of an effect, hence why you get things like the Autobahn both having no limit and yet being one of the safest roads in the world.

I frankly do not care if YOU think guns are in a category of freedoms folks can do without, and its not your place to dictate that to anyone else EITHER. The fact you have the historical near-sightedness to say you don't subscribe to the 'paranoia' about a tyrannical government out to get you only makes it worse. Do you not realize that you are living under greater authoritarian rule than what caused the original founders to toss a bunch of tea into the ocean? How is it you can see shit like the mass collection of data, the creeping hand of government power in EVERY aspect of our lives, and then say 'yeah, I don't think the government would go TYRANNICAL or anything.' Of course it never seems like its tyrannical to some, right up until the point it is. You say you 'do not accept the premise' but give no reasoned argument why other than 'greater good,' the justification for perhaps the most heinous of tyrannies.

Yes, personal freedom trumps all else. When you can make a reasoned argument why it doesn't, I'll come around to your view.

You also just wanted to dodge that no law you pass would have had an effect on ANY of the mass shootings in the past few years, or really any of them. You are standing on dead bodies trying to make a point, but the point doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. And you're damn right, I'm not going to give up my freedom so you can have a feel good measure because you don't appreciate the gravity of what you're actually saying. Because fundamentally, you giving up your rights and allowing them to be trampled WON'T stop that person from having a gun, and even if it would, you have no place to dictate that anyone else should give up their right in the process. You don't have that power and authority, and no one else does either. You don't have the power to strip rights from people.

What you're really saying is that you need to virtue signal and feel good. You think we need to 'do something,' even if the things we do actually won't do anything. Even if what you're proposing would massively infringe upon peoples rights, but it would make you feel better in that we 'did something.' And it always seems the only 'factor' folks want to focus on is guns, even when folks can show statistically that doing so is not only ineffective, but inaccurate.

In order for me to believe this it would have to come from an article with information coming directly from a confirmed credible expert, not from an article citing an answer from a guy on Quora.

Ok, allow me: Everything in that article is entirely accurate. Source: the fact I've been carrying a firearm for my job for better part of half a decade, have been trained on actual assault rifles, and make it a point to study firearms and their history.

I have some real problems with the first amendment as well, but my complaints about it have nothing to do with the Oklahoma City bombing, or with mounting a weak defense for easy gun availability.

3 and a half years after Sandy Hook, I am convinced nothing is going to change.

The USA has an unhealthy obsession with its Constitution imo; I would like to see it ripped to shreds and a new constitution written from scratch, on the condition that it be named anything but "constitution".

In the USA freedom and liberty are all too often just embellishments people use when supporting their favorite talking points.

The second amendment means you can shoulder a rifle at a political rally, or you can easily get your hands on a firearm if you want to shoot a bunch of random strangers in public. It may also give you some peace of mind as you sit at your desk doing online petitions against the Patriot Act.

Arm the homeless.

All I really get from this is you're an authoritarian with no respect for personal liberty or freedom.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Can people please stop acting like guns aren't items designed specifically for inflicting serious bodily harm to other living things. It's dumb. Guns are scary, they are supposed to be...
Stop treating people like they are stupid for being scared of something that's intended to kill or severly injur living things. It's not helping your case to be so non chalet about the seriousness of owning and handling a deadly weapon. It's a weapon!!! You can not compare a gun to ALL books because books in general are not weapons. Fertilizer is not a weapon, it can only be used incorrectly to its intent AS a weapon if someone knows how but is not manufactured to be so.


A gun is a weapon. It was made to be a weapon. It has no other purpose than shooting living things.
Stop pretending your gun is a spoon

 

[EspiKvlt]

@JoleneBrody "Why spoons???" "Because it will hurt more!!"
i'm sorry but that's all i could think about oh my god lmao
spoons are deadly weapons