In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

[Lethn]

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match with blatantly flawed statistics being constantly cited and silly hypothetical arguments taking place on both ends. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people who felt the same way really and the paranoid side of me does make me think this is the most obvious case of political opportunism towards a massacre I have ever seen.

I'm sure the two sides are bound to try swarming this thread but tell me, what do you think of the whole mess? I'm personally looking forward to laughing at their arrogance and stupidity along with Jon Stewart next year especially with the automatic tax rises and spending cuts around the corner.

[Anon136]

There is no anti-gun position in this debate. Both sides are pro gun the difference being that one side wants the decentralization of gun ownership into the hands of the people and the other side wants the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of a small political elite. Undoubtedly both situations present their own dangers but when put in the proper perspective it becomes clear, at-least to reasonable people, which one of these two situations presents the greater danger.

[Lethn]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

[SgtSpike]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

[FirstAscent]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? Switzerland adheres to our second amendment to be honest. We aren't in any way regulated like they are. And where is our militia anyway, let alone a well regulated one? Do you mean our National Guard? Are you a member of the National Guard?  

[MoonShadow]

I believe that the right to defend myself and my family is a basic human right, and that the possession of the most effective tools to that end (by my own perspectives) are an extension of that right.  The 2nd does not grant such a right, it only recognizes that one exists.  Therefore, the truth of the statistical risks or advantages of private gun ownership are irrelevant.  Human rights are not dependent upon the practical argument.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Furthermore, there really is no debate in this country on gun ownership.  If the attempt to repeal the 2nd were ever to gain traction politically, Texas would secede and several plains states would follow.  Texas still has the right of secession written into their state constitution, and is one of the largest economies on Earth independently of the US at large. The US gun culture is very real, and would not settle for public debate as failed to work in Britain and Australia.  The final argument against repeal of the 2nd is a civil war, and we've still got the weapons.  And don't tell me that US citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the US military, for there are more former US trained military in America just on the pro-gun side than there are active military everywhere in the service of the US government; and we know their capabilities and tactics because we taught them.  A modern civil war in the US would be as bloody as if the Taliban in Afganistan had been trained & equipt by the United States Marine Corps.

[MoonShadow]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? 

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

[FirstAscent]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? 

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

1. Do you support the Selective Service? Are you of an eligible age for the Selective Service?
2. The government will provide you arms in the event of being drafted. So in such a case, it seems you don't necessarily need any yourself.

[MoonShadow]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia?

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

1. Do you support the Selective Service? Are you of an eligible age for the Selective Service?

1) I do not support the Selective Service, but I understand the need for it.  I am too old to register, and never needed too because I was enlisted at 17.  No, I was not drafted.

2. The government will provide you arms in the event of being drafted. So in such a case, it seems you don't necessarily need any yourself.

You didn't bother to look up the legal meanings of those terms, did you?  Let me help you.  "Well regulated" means well trained or well practiced.  There is no doubt that the framers believed that marksmanship training should begin in early childhood and be performed by the family.  Anyone who tells you differently is uninformed.  The term does not refer to the "regular" army as we understand it today, as even the "regulars" during and after the revolutionary war were local and state militia, trained by whomever was willing and none were 'issued' arms by any government at any level.  A militiaman owns his own weapon.  This remained true up until the civil war.

The term "milita" did have a military context to it, but legally refered to, and still does in most states (including Kentucky and Texas) to any able bodied male citizen of the state between the ages of 16 and 55.  Any of them.  If they didn't own a weapon, or know how to use them, they were simply not "well regulated", it did not mean that they were not part of the militia.

And this is the legal justification of the Selective Service.  Not that the federal government actually has a right to draft citizens into combat against their own will, but that it has the obligation to know who the milita actually consists of.

[MoonShadow]

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/guncontrol.htm

Gun control supporters often assume that the acceptability of gun control laws turns on whether they increase or decrease crime rates. The notion that such laws might violate rights, independently of whether they decrease crime rates, is rarely entertained. Nor are the interests of gun owners in keeping and using guns typically given great weight. Thus, a colleague who teaches about the issue once remarked to me that from the standpoint of rights, as opposed to utilitarian considerations, there wasn’t much to say. The only right that might be at stake, he said, was “a trivial right—‘the right to own a gun.’” Similarly, Nicholas Dixon has characterized his own proposed ban on all handguns as “a minor restriction,” and the interests of gun owners in retaining their weapons as “trivial” compared to the dangers of guns.


I believe these attitudes are misguided. I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests, and that it is not overridden by utilitarian considerations. In support of the last point, I shall argue that the harms of private gun ownership are probably less than the benefits, and that in any case, these harms would have to be many times greater than the benefits in order for the right to own a gun to be overridden.

[Herodes]

I think there's no point in pointing fingers and telling who's most stupid in the gun control debate in the us.

I think looking at the core of the issue would give better results, mainly - who is it that commits this awful crimes ?

I think you will find that more often than not, it's the students that are not socially successful. If all teachers paid attention
to their students, they would be able to spot who's falling outside the social circles and give these students some extra
attention and follow up.

Someone that loves to go to school, have a nice family, do a lot of leisure activities, and in general have a good life, has
no incentive to go around killing anyone, on the contrary if you're getting picked on, live in a sucky home, and life in general
just sucks, the chances for mischief are much bigger.

Also, if we see at the incident where a man put a barn on fire and shot the fireworkers when they came rushing to help, he
apparently killed his mother with a hammer some years ago. People who do things like that, perhaps they should just be kept
away from society for the entire reminder of their lives, at least they should be kept in check and receive treatment.

It seems to be that everybody is treating the symptoms and not the root cause. Of course it could be beneficial to upgrade
physical security in all schools, but this will never happen, it's too costly.

Parents and teachers that do care about students however, that can significantly help in preventing things like this happening.

[MoonShadow]

Of course it could be beneficial to upgrade
physical security in all schools, but this will never happen, it's too costly.

Well, there are some things that can be done that shouldn't cost too much.  For example, I have a modern security system for my home that can detect the sound of glass breaking.  Sound sensors placed in most rooms and halls in a public school could be tuned to detect the sound of gunfire.  If you've ever heard real gunfire, it's more distinct than is shown in the movies.  It's got a sharp tone, and an abruptness that firecrackers cannot really approximate; so sound sensors should be able to identify most common firearm reports from 22's up to high powered rifles, although shotguns might be more difficult.  If a security system can rapidly identify gunfire, (or air sniffers can identify the presence of gunpowder, but that would trigger anytime a police officer entered the building) electronic fire doors could be closed and potentially locked in one direction.  I.E. fire doors can let you out of a building on fire, but not let you come back in.  Also, the ability of the automatic security system to call the police computers and inform the dispacter that a firearm has been discharged in the school would shave minutes off of the response time of the police.

The reality is that every gun rampage ends early only one way, with the use of a gun in another person's hands.  The debate really isn't whether or not such guns are necessary in as diverse a society as the United States, the debate is on who should be trusted with said firearms.  If you believe that only agents of the state should be trusted with firearms, then let me ask another question.  Do you also believe that a badge makes a man act morally, or is the badge a recognition (by the state) that the man acts in the state's own interests?

[MoonShadow]

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/fetish_flogger_vz58_9804web.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Hey Lethn, is this the kind of intelligent debate that you intended that a UK subject could interject?

[farlack]

I would not be surprised if its all a tactic to make some money  

I went thru a 50 mile radius of my house in search of guns, and all the stores are empty.

You know how much the government made from people being scared guns are going away?

Edit:
Id like to point out that even though the stores were all empty, before they opened it was like a black Friday buy one get one free. The lines were stupid crazy.

[JoelKatz]

The term "milita" did have a military context to it, but legally refered to, and still does in most states (including Kentucky and Texas) to any able bodied male citizen of the state between the ages of 16 and 55.  Any of them.  If they didn't own a weapon, or know how to use them, they were simply not "well regulated", it did not mean that they were not part of the militia.

See 10 USC 311 for the composition of the militia of the United States:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[deus-ex-machina]

A sociopath managed to legally obtain assault weapons despite his documentation and opened fire on a theatre. That really is the only argument needed.

Second, the Amendment in question only allows a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms. Not people who will just shoot first and ask questions later (though I admit the militia in question does that as well). In fact, if you look closely, it doesn't even restrict the use of said arms for that militia, meaning it either allows for full military dictatorship, or legalizes vigilantism, both of which are among the worst concepts ever thought up.

[farlack]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

[deus-ex-machina]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

[JoelKatz]

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Isn't killing inherently just as ethically neutral as cutting things into useful shapes or eating? Antibiotics are designed specifically for killing.

[MoonShadow]

A sociopath managed to legally obtain assault weapons despite his documentation and opened fire on a theatre. That really is the only argument needed.

First, he did not legally obtain them.  He succeded in defrauding the dealers into believing that he was not prohibited by law, which is itself an illegal act.  Point in case that laws do not compel moral behavior, and therefore cannot be depended upon to have the effects intended by their proponents.

Second, even if that were not so and he actually did purchase his weapons within the legal framework of the state he lived within, that would still not an argument make.  Such people are aberations, for there are at least 10K other law abiding gun owners for every nutter.  Such high profile cases do not make for sound laws.

Second, the Amendment in question only allows a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms. Not people who will just shoot first and ask questions later (though I admit the militia in question does that as well). In fact, if you look closely, it doesn't even restrict the use of said arms for that militia, meaning it either allows for full military dictatorship, or legalizes vigilantism, both of which are among the worst concepts ever thought up.

The second amendment does not effect the government's ability to possess arms in any fashion.  There is no need for the 2nd if that were it's purpose.  Even the hardest anti-gun historian will not claim this.  If you are going to enter into a debate on a topic for which you do not understand, you would be well behoved to read up on the topic.