|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 7, 2017 12:57:52 GMT -5
Serious questions - considering how flooded the US is with guns*, what can realistically be done outside of doing like Australia and ban guns and then have a gun amnesty collection? I can already imagine the hyperventilation on Fox News if this would ever be suggested. It's basically impossible. No new laws are going to change it, and mass-shootings will continue with the guns that are already in circulation. Isn't a new law basically doing something for the sake of appearing to do something, even if the doing has no real effect? * In 2016 there were about 330 million guns in circulation, owned by about a third of the population. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
If you ban guns and have a gun amnesty collection, you would in effect be eliminating the 2nd amendment, so it's certainly not going to pass. Remember, the majority of the Dems who talk gun control always start off their spiel with, "I support the 2nd amendment, but..."
Also, the argument will be, and I believe it has merit, that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. If there are guns in the hands of people who legally shouldn't have them, figure out a way to effectively remove them first. If you can, gun deaths plummet, and then you can make a case that taking away all guns won't leave a population defenseless against people with illegal guns.
So you're left with looking at other laws that can reduce letting guns into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. When these tragedies happen, we usually hear about how we need to pass this law or that law while they're still counting bodies. Then when the facts come out, those laws would not have prevented the crime.
Also keep in mind, all parties want the fight. Not the debate and real action, just the fight.
It keeps plenty of anti gun lobbys in business, and gives a great platform to the right and left to attack each other. And Gun Dealers love it. Why? Because talk of new gun regulation makes business boom. I had a customer a few weeks ago, after the Vegas shooting. He missed Obama. Not that he liked his politics, but people bought guns. He called sales these days the Trump Slump. Trump is not looking for new gun regs, so gun people aren't looking to stockpile should there be a ban on new sales.
There's resistance to any national registry because the pro gun side believes that's just a prelude to confiscating guns. And let's be honest, the people who call for it are the ones that want to ban guns. If we could eliminate the debate on eliminating the 2nd amendment so gun people honestly don't believe anti gun people want to take their guns, we might have a more productive discussion.
Lawsuits against gun makers/sellers or huge taxes are just an defacto ban. If you're discussing it, you're not reaching anyone who isn't for the defacto ban.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 7, 2017 13:01:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 7, 2017 13:30:02 GMT -5
Serious questions - considering how flooded the US is with guns*, what can realistically be done outside of doing like Australia and ban guns and then have a gun amnesty collection? I can already imagine the hyperventilation on Fox News if this would ever be suggested. It's basically impossible. No new laws are going to change it, and mass-shootings will continue with the guns that are already in circulation. Isn't a new law basically doing something for the sake of appearing to do something, even if the doing has no real effect? * In 2016 there were about 330 million guns in circulation, owned by about a third of the population. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
If you ban guns and have a gun amnesty collection, you would in effect be eliminating the 2nd amendment, so it's certainly not going to pass. Remember, the majority of the Dems who talk gun control always start off their spiel with, "I support the 2nd amendment, but..."
Also, the argument will be, and I believe it has merit, that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. If there are guns in the hands of people who legally shouldn't have them, figure out a way to effectively remove them first. If you can, gun deaths plummet, and then you can make a case that taking away all guns won't leave a population defenseless against people with illegal guns.
So you're left with looking at other laws that can reduce letting guns into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. When these tragedies happen, we usually hear about how we need to pass this law or that law while they're still counting bodies. Then when the facts come out, those laws would not have prevented the crime.
Also keep in mind, all parties want the fight. Not the debate and real action, just the fight.
It keeps plenty of anti gun lobbys in business, and gives a great platform to the right and left to attack each other. And Gun Dealers love it. Why? Because talk of new gun regulation makes business boom. I had a customer a few weeks ago, after the Vegas shooting. He missed Obama. Not that he liked his politics, but people bought guns. He called sales these days the Trump Slump. Trump is not looking for new gun regs, so gun people aren't looking to stockpile should there be a ban on new sales.
There's resistance to any national registry because the pro gun side believes that's just a prelude to confiscating guns. And let's be honest, the people who call for it are the ones that want to ban guns. If we could eliminate the debate on eliminating the 2nd amendment so gun people honestly don't believe anti gun people want to take their guns, we might have a more productive discussion.
Lawsuits against gun makers/sellers or huge taxes are just an defacto ban. If you're discussing it, you're not reaching anyone who isn't for the defacto ban. Let's be clear - the majority of shootings are with guns that were owned illegally, not illegal guns. Very few guns are outright illegal to own, period. Even fully automatic weapons are not illegal per se - you just need a very expensive license to own them, and follow some onerous regulations about their safekeeping. To answer Max's question, I think you're mostly correct that even if we repealed the 2nd Amendment and banned private possession of all firearms tomorrow, it would take a generation or two to for society to change and for a critical mass of guns to be rounded up and confiscated. What pragmatic gun control laws could be enacted? I am honestly not sure, which is why as someone who is against banning guns, I tend to oppose all laws suggested because they tend to be of the "Congress wants to be seen doing something" sort. I am coming around to stricter licensing and regulation - unlike a lot of Second Amendment supporters, I have never felt there is anything inherently wrong with requiring a license to own a firearm. The fear with registration is that the government could then come and round up all the guns, but that's vastly unlikely, and would only happen in a civil war scenario anyway. But, there are some legitimate drawbacks to that even aside from paranoid "Gummint gonna get mah guns" objections. License and registration means delegating a gatekeeper function to the government. We have that with cars and medications, for example, with mixed results - it both increases the cost (more of a burden on poor people) and opens up the possibility of selecting certain communities that are disproportionately affected. Is a black woman living in the hood going to be able to get a gun license as easily as a middle-aged white guy in a small Texas town? I leave it to the reader to consider the thorny implications of that. It's also not clear that stricter licensing and regulation would decrease either the number of guns in circulation, or the ease with which people can obtain them illegally. It would mostly just be an additional tool for prosecutors.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 7, 2017 14:09:25 GMT -5
Anyone who seriously advances any argument that a few civilians (or even many civilians) stand a chance against a modern military force is so delusional that anything that person says can be disregarded, even if they comment on the spherical nature of the world. Without capturing a sizeable part of a country's armed forces, no civilian can match the sheer firepower of a modern military. That military doesn't even need to show up - they can just obliterate the civilians from 10 000 meters using drones.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 7, 2017 14:50:18 GMT -5
Anyone who seriously advances any argument that a few civilians (or even many civilians) stand a chance against a modern military force is so delusional that anything that person says can be disregarded, even if they comment on the spherical nature of the world. Without capturing a sizeable part of a country's armed forces, no civilian can match the sheer firepower of a modern military. That military doesn't even need to show up - they can just obliterate the civilians from 10 000 meters using drones. No one thinks that private citizens vs. the U.S. Army is a realistic conflict. The scenarios more typically envisioned are a general breakdown/collapse, or the U.S. fracturing. I am not saying that's likely, but it may or may not be more likely that the U.S. simply turning into a dictatorship that unilaterally disarms the civilian population. Also note that even in the latter situation, private citizens with guns can stage guerilla actions against local police forces, if not so much against national militaries with drones. We are of course talking about various fictitious dystopian scenarios, but if you accept the premise that one or more of them is within the realm of possibility, then it's not unreasonable to object to the government moving towards general disarmament.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 15:00:51 GMT -5
That may be, but then it's not really a strong argument--that civilians with guns could stand up to a modern military--and not really germane, anymore. Because let's be honest: a volunteer military like that of the United States is not going follow orders to obliterate the civilian population, is it? You're not really capturing the "safeguard" idea by strawmaning it, max. Let me flesh it out a little, from its two directions: 1) An armed populace represents a bulwark against tyranny because it can tip the scales significantly. It doesn't need to be able to go toe-to-toe with the entire military because the entire military won't be arrayed against it. Consider the far-fetched (to put it mildly) scenario of, say, a general staging a military coup. Even assuming support from key military leaders, this isn't going to translate all the way down, 100%. Not even close. One can assume--for starters--that most every State's national guard, most every city's police force, most every veteran org would stand against such a coup, right? And in such a situation, carpet bombing cities is just not going to work, because it's a sure-fire way to lose what support there is for the coup among the rank-and-file. 2) But more to the point, one of the reasons why something like a coup is so far-fetched is the gun culture of America. It--along with other things--just makes the idea of someone in power contemplating a coup patently ridiculous. Imagine trying to work through the planning of such a coup, imagine you were the general. You have all this military might that might let you conquer a region, win every battle, but you won't be able to secure jack shit. You'd lose most everything you gained in short order. Because remember, the United State is fucking huge (another reason). It's not Sweden, it's not Venezuela, it's not Iraq, and it's not Afghanistan. And really, those last two tell the tale here. Who is going to engage in a coup, who is going to try to even invade the US, given the costs and likely time frame needed to bring the population to heel? It's a fool's errand and the seemingly well-considered opinion of "well, citizens with guns can't stand up to the military" is actually no such thing. That said, I think there is an argument to be made that other factors--like the size of the US, like the existence of armed police forces, like the extensive networks of local and state governments, like the overall culture of the US--are now sufficient in and of themselves that an armed populace is no longer necessary (there's also an argument to be made that undoing this may do no harm now, but might matter generations down the road). I don't necessarily disagree with that, in fact. But undoing this means undoing the Second. There's no way around it, imo. If there's sufficient support for such a move, that's the path forward. For my part, I'll note that most people killed by guns in the US are killed by handguns. It's not even close, really. Imo, getting rid of handguns--along with concealed and open carry permits--is something that can be done without repealing the Second.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 7, 2017 15:11:45 GMT -5
Your country already had a vicious civil war once where there were no-holds-barred on either side. You are relying too much on a sense of honour. That the military will be genteel and reserved against civilian rebels. It could be that the military view a civilian group that rebels with enough contempt that they would swallow that old strange euphemism of "collateral damage". You are also ignoring the high likelihood that those civilian rebels will commit atrocities that will erode their standing. And you're discounting that an attempt by civilians to rebel could be extremely unpopular.
And it's not straw manning when I adress an actual point made. Granted, it was not the main point, but I have nothing to add to or dispute with the other points.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 7, 2017 15:21:32 GMT -5
Your country already had a vicious civil war once where there were no-holds-barred on either side. You are relying too much on a sense of honour. That the military will be genteel and reserved against civilian rebels. It could be that the military view a civilian group that rebels with enough contempt that they would swallow that old strange euphemism of "collateral damage". You are also ignoring the high likelihood that those civilian rebels will commit atrocities that will erode their standing. And you're discounting that an attempt by civilians to rebel could be extremely unpopular. I doubt anyone thinks that in our hypothetical military coup scenario, that the armies involved would be any more "genteel" or honorable than armies historically have been towards civilian populations. But the point is that in this scenario, for any given soldier, some of those civilians would be their civilians. The U.S. military is made up of people from all over the country, so if the general(s) staging a coup start talking about carpet-bombing New York, presumably that is going to get some resistance from soldiers from New York.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 15:27:09 GMT -5
The booze example was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do think comparing guns to booze, in terms of consequences, is absurd. But that said: 1) What qualifies as "misusing booze" is a matter of opinion. Alcohol is a drug. There is an addictive component and alcohol companies--like tobacco companies--count on that element, dispite their investment in "responsible use" advertising. 2) Imo, the "power" of a gun is largely inconsequential, with regard to purpose. A simple handgun, for instance, is made to kill people, even moreso than any sort of rifle, since it's completely useless for hunting. Okay. What constitutes too much isn’t the point. But drinking and driving certainly isn’t intended use, and that’s all I meant - I clarified that. The only point I was making is that the difference, in terms of liability and litigation, between guns and the others is that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. That’s not true of the others. If you find that point absurd, okay. It was an example in a non-essential aspect of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 15:51:37 GMT -5
The booze example was a little tongue-in-cheek. I do think comparing guns to booze, in terms of consequences, is absurd. But that said: 1) What qualifies as "misusing booze" is a matter of opinion. Alcohol is a drug. There is an addictive component and alcohol companies--like tobacco companies--count on that element, dispite their investment in "responsible use" advertising. 2) Imo, the "power" of a gun is largely inconsequential, with regard to purpose. A simple handgun, for instance, is made to kill people, even moreso than any sort of rifle, since it's completely useless for hunting. Okay. What constitutes too much isn’t the point. But drinking and driving certainly isn’t intended use, and that’s all I meant - I clarified that. The only point I was making is that the difference, in terms of liability and litigation, between guns and the others is that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. That’s not true of the others. If you find that point absurd, okay. It was an example in a non-essential aspect of the discussion. You misunderstand. I was agreeing with you. It's absurd to compare alcohol and guns, as if they were the same sort of thing. They're very different, for as you say, guns are meant for killing.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 7, 2017 16:09:30 GMT -5
You misunderstand. I was agreeing with you. Ah, that would explain why it seemed strange. My playbook didn’t have that page! Fortunately it’s a ring binder. *SNAP* Ow.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 7, 2017 18:04:59 GMT -5
Your country already had a vicious civil war once where there were no-holds-barred on either side. You are relying too much on a sense of honour. That the military will be genteel and reserved against civilian rebels. It could be that the military view a civilian group that rebels with enough contempt that they would swallow that old strange euphemism of "collateral damage". You are also ignoring the high likelihood that those civilian rebels will commit atrocities that will erode their standing. And you're discounting that an attempt by civilians to rebel could be extremely unpopular. And it's not straw manning when I adress an actual point made. Granted, it was not the main point, but I have nothing to add to or dispute with the other points. Nah, I'm not relying on honor, at all. I'm just taking the theoretical logistics of the coup, along with assuming general self-interest. I'm not discounting the other points you've just raised, either. Well, aside from the last--that a rebellion against some sort of military coup would be extremely unpopular--because that's ridiculous and perhaps points to a lack of understanding of the very culture I'm talking about, when it comes to why a successful coup in the US is a next-to-impossible thing. And the United States is not the same country that it was in 1859, regardless. Indeed, the impact of the Civil War is big part of the story, when we consider the here and now. As to strawmanning, your counter to the idea that the Second is a safeguard against tyranny, that (paraphrasing) an armed populace is meaningless against a modern army, is a pretty common retort in the word of Second Amendment debates. And I'm saying that talking about how the military could lay waste to the civilian population is wrongly supposing that the argument for the Second is that an armed populace could defeat the military. It's really not. That's the strawman version of the argument, as I have explained.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 7, 2017 22:22:44 GMT -5
Well...if people get drunk, then the liquor is being used as intended. And when people get drunk, they can do stupid things. I, for one, would like to be able to sue Anheuser-Busch for 35 years of embarrassing moments... The booze example was a little tongue-in-cheek. Tongue-in-cheek? These were 26 human beings from ages 17 months to 77 years old slaughtered in a house of worship and you want to be flippant TWO DAYS after a massacre? If it's too early to discuss gun control then it's too early to crack wise about dead babe. A car is meant to drive, but not to drive into people as happened last week in NYC. A gun is meant to shoot, not to commit murder, mass or otherwise. The idea of allowing lawsuits seems to be an end run around the 2nd amendment. We can't take away someone's 2nd amendment, so we'll just litigate them out of existence. That's seems to be the intent behind lawsuits of that nature. And that kind of arguments make someone like me, an non gun owner who would be open to reasonable laws, non sympathetic to new gun regs. And yes, the booze is tongue in cheek, but to make the point. Many things can be used to hurt or kill, but guns are singled out where the person using the weapon isn't the sole person responsible for the use of it in an illegal way. This is such a crock of utter shit. WHY should gun manufacturers enjoy a protection NO OTHER BUSINESS IN AMERICA has? Because of the fucking 2nd Amendment or because of the fucking NRA? A gun is not meant to shoot. A gun is meant to kill. You don't use it to hammer nails or club a deer. You buy a gun because you either really enjoy target-shooting or you may want to use it to kill someone. That's ALL a gun is for. I don't give a damn about what a non-gun owner who wants to blow off the next killing spree because he thinks Colt deserves to be lawsuit-free thinks is a "reasonable law" and who needs your sympathy? If you have none for those dead kids at Sandy Hook back in 2012, why would you have any for the dead kids at Sutherland Springs. Serious questions - considering how flooded the US is with guns*, what can realistically be done outside of doing like Australia and ban guns and then have a gun amnesty collection? I can already imagine the hyperventilation on Fox News if this would ever be suggested. It's basically impossible. No new laws are going to change it, and mass-shootings will continue with the guns that are already in circulation. Isn't a new law basically doing something for the sake of appearing to do something, even if the doing has no real effect? * In 2016 there were about 330 million guns in circulation, owned by about a third of the population. I think the majority of shootings are dealing with illegal guns. There's also a culture which outlawing guns isn't going to change.
More Than 80 Percent of Guns Used in Mass Shootings Obtained LegallyBut what? Here. I'll finish your sentence. "I support the 2nd Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean you need an arsenal or you should be allowed to buy a gun if you're fucking nuts or you've committed violent acts against your own family like cracking your stepson's skull." Yeah, that's really extreme, Vince. it's also a crap argument. NOBODY is seriously proposing eliminating the 2nd Amendment because it isn't going to happen. What is happening is the same old, tired-ass, reactionary scare tactics rhetoric, gun defenders like you barf up, but you're do it over an ever-growing stack of bullet-riddle corpses. You know you're real quick to criticize any idea to end the shield from legal liability of gun manufacturers and even faster to say even discussing it isn't reaching anyone who isn't for a defacto ban. Which it's not. Gun manufacturers faced lawsuits all the way until 2005 and somehow they survived. Now you're all worried that an $8 billion dollar business that makes a killing out of Americans killing each other is going to fold up and blow away if they lose a special protection they never should have been given? I submit its you who is unreasonable and you who isn't interested in a more productive discussion. It's easy for you shit all over a reasonable proposal. It's impossible for you to come up with a better one.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 8, 2017 7:34:08 GMT -5
Tongue-in-cheek? These were 26 human beings from ages 17 months to 77 years old slaughtered in a house of worship and you want to be flippant TWO DAYS after a massacre? If it's too early to discuss gun control then it's too early to crack wise about dead babe. Oh, please. Nowhere have I said anything about it being too early to discuss something. And my comment had nothing to do with the people who were killed. If you're so emotionally feeble that you can't separate such things, then perhaps you should avoid all human contact for a week or two, until you can manage to process things. A pathetic attempt to pat yourself on the back for your superior empathy, even as you shit on anyone else who dares to show their empathy by offering thought and prayers. Newsflash, NT: it's true that thoughts and prayers aren't changing anything, but neither are your--and others--faux outrage fests on that subject. This is the company you're keeping, models of compassion all: Side note: you know what's funny? A lot of the people I see who are all ragey over "thoughts and prayers" seem to really like hashtag activism, which strikes me as not all that removed from an expression of sympathy ("thniking of you," "sending positive thought," etc.), more often than not
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 8, 2017 8:35:37 GMT -5
A car is meant to drive, but not to drive into people as happened last week in NYC. A gun is meant to shoot, not to commit murder, mass or otherwise. The idea of allowing lawsuits seems to be an end run around the 2nd amendment. We can't take away someone's 2nd amendment, so we'll just litigate them out of existence. That's seems to be the intent behind lawsuits of that nature. And that kind of arguments make someone like me, an non gun owner who would be open to reasonable laws, non sympathetic to new gun regs. And yes, the booze is tongue in cheek, but to make the point. Many things can be used to hurt or kill, but guns are singled out where the person using the weapon isn't the sole person responsible for the use of it in an illegal way. This is such a crock of utter shit. WHY should gun manufacturers enjoy a protection NO OTHER BUSINESS IN AMERICA has? Because of the fucking 2nd Amendment or because of the fucking NRA? A gun is not meant to shoot. A gun is meant to kill. You don't use it to hammer nails or club a deer. You buy a gun because you either really enjoy target-shooting or you may want to use it to kill someone. That's ALL a gun is for. I don't give a damn about what a non-gun owner who wants to blow off the next killing spree because he thinks Colt deserves to be lawsuit-free thinks is a "reasonable law" and who needs your sympathy? If you have none for those dead kids at Sandy Hook back in 2012, why would you have any for the dead kids at Sutherland Springs. Because, nobody is looking to put other businesses out of business for doing their job by the rules. If a gun seller doesn't follow the law, you have a case. If a gun maker makes a defective weapon, that's different.
If a man legally buys a gun then uses it to knock over a store, kill their ex or shoot up a church, the guy who followed the law in making the gun or selling the gun isn't at fault. If you allow that, you allow an end run around the 2nd amendment. That's the reason why people want to sue the gun makers and sellers, isn't it? To stop the making and selling of guns that are legal. Have a case why that particular gun shouldn't be legal to make or sell, change the law. Don't punish the guy following the law.
|
|