Gun control

Jesus Christ.. Give up on this 2nd amendment bullshit ok? If there is going to be any improvement it will have to start with people realizing that the Constitution was not handed down by God. You can't just say "it violates the 2nd amendment mmkayy" and blindly not even to question it one bit, or the context in which it was drafted.. It isn't inviolate-- it was written by human beings in a time before electricity when loading your rifle involved a flask of gunpowder and a plunger. YES, there are principles there that are timeless, like the 1st amendment, and YES the basic principle of the 2nd amendment holds true, but are you going to tell me that those that drafted the constitution even imagined the ability to fire twelve rounds from a handgun in under ten seconds? Or armor piercing ammo? Or freaking Assault Rifles??? I'm not even going to go into the whole concept of how a "militia" doesn't really fit in with 21st century USA.

This fruitless bullshit of trying to interpret what the forefathers truly meant with the 2nd amendment is fucking comical. Besides purely academic interest, why does it freaking matter?? They drafted something that made sense in the 18th century that unfortunately unlike some of the other amendments is not timeless, it's something tied to technology which is vastly more advanced than when the document was written. The 2nd amendment needs to be amended to take into account the reality that is the present time..

khalid_sl said:

Too bad the banning of guns goes directly against the 2nd Amendment. Now to your next idea?

Click to expand...

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

OkieDokie
1. The US has 10,000+ gun homicides a year.
2. Other modern civilized nations have in the range of 50-100 gun homicides in a year.
3. Since these other nations have far less guns in circulation, and these homicides are a product of two variables--a) gun quantity and b) humans, then one of two things must hold true: Increased gun proliferation leads to greater gun homicide rate, and/or Americans for whatever reason like shooting people more than people in other countries. Even should you somehow favor the latter as an explanation, nevertheless variable a) gun quantity has a clear mathematical effect on the quantity of gun homicides.
4. Therefore, Some subset of "Guns" should be banned from private ownership, thereby at least in the LONG TERM there will be a diminishing gun homicide rate

Click to expand...

4 doesn't follow from 3, either. I'm not disputing that the delta in gun deaths is directly attributable to increased availability of guns. You can assume that I take your view of the statistics as a given. From that "is" explain where you derive your "ought."

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Begin with a ban on assault weapons. Can't buy them, can't transport them, illegal to fire them. Couple that with an aggressive federal buyback program where the government will give you cold hard cash for your assault rifle. Ban any ammo that is exclusively used by these weapons. Over the years only the gun collector, survivalist, organized crime, and affluent gun owner will still be holding onto them. Not random psycho and not some law abiding mom that "liked guns".

Proceed to institute strict regulations and checks for the purchase of any handgun. Medical record checks, neighbor interviews-- this is the shit other countries do when you want a handgun. Again institute a federal handgun buyback program.

It will take decades, but it will make a material difference, and in a way that does not encroach on a law abiding citizen's ability to own a handgun.

Click to expand...

I love how every now and then this thread gets a new poster who is bound and determined to be the dumbest poster in the history of the thread.

You want to begin with banning guns that are basically never used for crime, so your idea is to start with a complete waste of everyone's time. Then you want to do a bunch of shit that is only an impediment to people who want to purchase a handgun legally. At no point do you address the fact that the vast majority of our gun-related homicides are committed in inner cities by people who don't legally own them and have absolutely zero incentive to turn them in to a buyback program.

Fast forward twenty or thirty years and now we have the exact situation that all those pro-gun yard signs are worried about. Criminals will have guns and law abiding citizens won't.

khalid_sl said:

Too bad the banning of guns goes directly against the 2nd Amendment. Now to your next idea?

Click to expand...

So what? The constitution is mutable. This is a conversation about what the law ought to be, not whatever it currently happens to be.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Jesus Christ.. Give up on this 2nd amendment bullshit ok?

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ.. Give up on the banned bullshit already.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Or armor piercing ammo? Or freaking Assault Rifles???

Click to expand...

Armor piercing ammo and assault rifles? Do you realize that even if you managed to ban both of these things it would do NOTHING to the homicide rate?

I mean, really, you bring up armor piercing ammo as if its a big deal. Please tell me how this is a problem in relation to the shooting of unarmed little kids. As for assault rifle ban, again, there is essentially zero difference between an "assault rifle" and a semi-automatic sporting rifle. So again, no, I am not willing to give up the second amendment "bullshit" to pass feel-good legislation that will do nothing and that you openly admit is the first step to an outright ban.

Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:

So what? The constitution is mutable. This is a conversation about what the law ought to be, not whatever it currently happens to be.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about how to address gun control and gun violence, not a theoretical discussion of shit that will never happen this century. Saying the constitution is mutable completely ignores how it is almost impossible to pass a constitutional amendment of any sort, let alone something like a change to the 2nd amendment. So for the sake of having a conversation with some sort of basis in reality, you just kinda need to deal with the 2nd amendment AT THE LEAST disallowing a complete gun ban.

Not to mention the fact that armor piercing ammo is already illegal pretty much everywhere. I love it when some fucktard who knows absolutely nothing about guns or ammunition comes in and starts spouting off his magical solution to the horrible plague assault weapon crimes that is plaguing this country.

Oh wait, nobody uses 'assault weapons' to commit crimes? Imagine that.

khalid_sl said:

Saying the constitution is mutable completely ignores how it is almost impossible to pass a constitutional amendment of any sort, let alone something like a change to the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

It's doubly impossible people don't think it should be done. That's the point of rational discussion that starts from ethical positions rather than this knuckle-dragging "THE RULES IS ALREADY THIS WAY AND YOU CAINT CHANGE IT YA FAYGUT" bullshit.

Yeah, you make a ton of sense. So we shouldn't ban assault rifles because they aren't use that frequently in criminal murder (just recent mass murders) but yet serve no other practical purpose than to kill people. If something has the potential to do bad, yet serves no practical good, let's just leave it be right? Why not legalize hand grenades too?

Also, how is having a check against a medical database and a confirmation with the neighborhood that you aren't a complete psychopath an impediment? Any particular reason why having to wait a week or two to get your gun is a big deal?

And I dispute your opinion that poor inner city crack heads won't turn in their gun for cold hard cash. Go mug someone for $50 or go turn in my gun for $500. The crack head will convince himself that he can steal himself another gun (to ironically turn in) or that he can mug someone using a knife from now on.

Anyways I'm done. Keep denying that your blessed 2nd amendment has created a mass murder nation and gun laws aren't the cause. The solution is more guns.. Obviously..

Gavinrad_sl said:

I love how every now and then this thread gets a new poster who is bound and determined to be the dumbest poster in the history of the thread.

You want to begin with banning guns that are basically never used for crime, so your idea is to start with a complete waste of everyone's time. Then you want to do a bunch of shit that is only an impediment to people who want to purchase a handgun legally. At no point do you address the fact that the vast majority of our gun-related homicides are committed in inner cities by people who don't legally own them and have absolutely zero incentive to turn them in to a buyback program.

Fast forward twenty or thirty years and now we have the exact situation that all those pro-gun yard signs are worried about. Criminals will have guns and law abiding citizens won't.

Click to expand...

Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:

"THE RULES IS ALREADY THIS WAY AND YOU CAINT CHANGE IT YA FAYGUT" bullshit.

Click to expand...

One of my favourites is, "...but it is illegal!."

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Jesus Christ...2nd amendment needs to be amended to take into account the reality that is the present time..

Click to expand...

I guess since you have no idea about guns you might not be aware of the past 2 landmark supreme court rulings in regards to the second amendment. I suggest you read up onDistrict of Columbia v. HellerandMcDonald v. Chicago.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Yeah, you make a ton of sense. So we shouldn't ban assault rifles because they aren't use that frequently in criminal murder (just recent mass murders) but yet serve no other practical purpose than to kill people. If something has the potential to do bad, yet serves no practical good, let's just leave it be right? Why not legalize hand grenades too?

Click to expand...

They serve plenty of non-practical purposes (like enjoyment). Your position is that the state should use the threat of violence to prevent people, the vastVASTmajority of whom will never commit any crimes with them from owning them because of the potential threat of a tiny minority. That position requires more justification than this handwavey bullshit.

Hey Zodiac. Perhaps you weren't aware of some of the scary statistics coming out of the U.S. with regards to gun violence, not even getting into what the global arms trade has helped inflict upon people all over the world.

Zodiac_sl said:

I guess since you have no idea about guns you might not be aware of the past 2 landmark supreme court rulings in regards to the second amendment. I suggest you read up onDistrict of Columbia v. HellerandMcDonald v. Chicago.

Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that Heller and/or McDonald held that the 2nd amendment could not be amended?

I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be, only that your sentence is in no way responsive to that which you quoted.

if something written two hundred years ago cannot be changed, I truly worry for this country.

khalid_sl said:

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about how to address gun control and gun violence, not a theoretical discussion of shit that will never happen this century. Saying the constitution is mutable completely ignores how it is almost impossible to pass a constitutional amendment of any sort, let alone something like a change to the 2nd amendment. So for the sake of having a conversation with some sort of basis in reality, you just kinda need to deal with the 2nd amendment AT THE LEAST disallowing a complete gun ban.

Click to expand...

Zodiac_sl said:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Click to expand...

You have to understand though, that outside of the US, very few people consider permissive gun ownership an "essential liberty". People outside the US can't understand how/why Americans are so enamored with their gun rights, and people in the US can't understand how other nations aren't up in arms that purchasing most fire arms (outside of shot guns and hunting rifles) is difficult to impossible.

There's a fundamental disconnect there. And as I've said before, I don't expect opinions to change within the US any time soon, if ever.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

Yeah, you make a ton of sense. So we shouldn't ban assault rifles because they aren't use that frequently in criminal murder (just recent mass murders) but yet serve no other practical purpose than to kill people. If something has the potential to do bad, yet serves no practical good, let's just leave it be right? Why not legalize hand grenades too?

Also, how is having a check against a medical database and a confirmation with the neighborhood that you aren't a complete psychopath an impediment? Any particular reason why having to wait a week or two to get your gun is a big deal?

And I dispute your opinion that poor inner city crack heads won't turn in their gun for cold hard cash. Go mug someone for $50 or go turn in my gun for $500.

Click to expand...

Well if you're going to be a complete fucking dumbshit and imply that my argument has a single thing to do with hand grenades, I'll go the other direction and suggest that driving cars should be outlawed, because more people are killed by cars every year than with guns. Lets punish the 99.99% of people who own and operate something completely within the confines of the law because of the actions of the .01%

Handguns already have a waiting period, there is no magical mental health database to search, and exactly who the hell is going to pay for all these additional background checks you think should be done?

Your comment about the crackhead just confirms how pathetically ignorant you are. If a dude is addicted to the point that he's pawning off his shit to pay for his habit, he probably already sold his gun. Regardless, random crackheads aren't the ones responsible for America's gun related homicides, semi-organized crime is.

Eomer_sl said:

You have to understand though, that outside of the US, very few people consider permissive gun ownership an "essential liberty".

Click to expand...

That is not even remotely the way that the burden of justification goes.

Mikhail Bakunin_sl said:

That is not even remotely the way that the burden of justification goes.

Click to expand...

I wasn't intending that to be an argument for stricter gun control in the US. I realize that Wombat is arguing for that, but I'm not. It's pretty much a lost cause in the US at this point, and culturally it's just not possible nor likely to change any time soon.

Eomer_sl said:

You have to understand though, that outside of the US, very few people consider permissive gun ownership an "essential liberty". People outside the US can't understand how/why Americans are so enamored with their gun rights, and people in the US can't understand how other nations aren't up in arms that purchasing most fire arms is difficult to impossible.

There's a fundamental disconnect there.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that people outside and a large minority inside the U.S. are concerned about weapons that can easily cause mass casualties, rather than saying very few people consider permissive gun ownership an essentially liberty. I don't think anyone thinks hunters in general are dangerous to society because they use guns.