The Second Amendment

[bruno2000]

Ok. So what's your point then as far as that relates to gun regulation or trying to get rid  of guns? Are you saying that if we magically got rid of all guns we would see the same rate of death by other means? (and by that i mean the deaths currently by guns)

No change because people would use planes and cars instead?

We would probably see a drastic reduction of deaths caused by gangs / thugs, and probably suicides, but when it comes to terror attacks, I don't know if it would make much of a difference.  Crazy people and people who believe in a "cause" can always find a way.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bluebird]

Your argument should really be "I want guns, and if other people die because of gun violence that's ok with me, because it's more important that I get my freedom and sports enjoyment through using guns." That's all you need to say.

This is interesting and I had to think about it. Many many things we use in society have grave consequences to other people in developing countries. From people jumping off buildings at foxconn to the conflict diamond mines fuel in Africa. Its more important we have iPhones and jewelry.

I'm not saying iPhones are indirectly more deadly than guns, but it would be hard for anyone to admit they are ignoring someone else's pain,  suffering, and death simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced. But we all as Americans do to some degree.

 

[bruno2000]

This is interesting and I had to think about it. Many many things we use in society have grave consequences to other people in developing countries. From people jumping off buildings at foxconn to the conflict diamond mines fuel in Africa. Its more important we have iPhones and jewelry.

I'm not saying iPhones are indirectly more deadly than guns, but it would be hard for anyone to admit they are ignoring someone else's pain,  suffering, and death simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced. But we all as Americans do to some degree.

Very thought provoking.  Thanks for the comment.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Tubetec]

Hectic discussion earlier for sure, comments flying back and forth like metaphorical bullets,but if were brave enough to see the discussion out ,there has to be a middle ground to be reached , an element of compromise  will be required on both sides of the equation .

Its a wonder how really sucessfull  designs stands the test of time ,be it for  better or worse, Leo's Bassman or Brownings liquid cooled man mowing machine.

Ian's point chimes a bell with me too ,theres a hidden cost to technology that the advertising wizards slather up with a glossy top coat ,the monetary cost to us cant be compared to the cost to the man at the coal face with the pick and the shovel ,and to be truly human we cant continue to turn a blind eye .



 

 

[mattiasNYC]

This is interesting and I had to think about it. Many many things we use in society have grave consequences to other people in developing countries. From people jumping off buildings at foxconn to the conflict diamond mines fuel in Africa. Its more important we have iPhones and jewelry.

I'm not saying iPhones are indirectly more deadly than guns, but it would be hard for anyone to admit they are ignoring someone else's pain,  suffering, and death simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced. But we all as Americans do to some degree.

That's a good point, and it applies to many westerners. It's the result of a system that makes transactions largely anonymous (or rather, a society in which nobody has the time to research all sources of goods and services).. Pretty much the only cases where we have better knowledge are initiatives where organizations try to certify origin.

 

[mattiasNYC]

We would probably see a drastic reduction of deaths caused by gangs / thugs, and probably suicides, but when it comes to terror attacks, I don't know if it would make much of a difference.  Crazy people and people who believe in a "cause" can always find a way.
Best,
Bruno2000

Yeah, but this isn't about just terrorist attacks. This is about all crime and negligence using firearms and similar weapons. So really the question I'm asking you is that considering what you concede above - that a drastic reduction of deaths would happen in such a hypothetical scenario - what is then the point of talking about alternate means for killing people? If the net isn't zero, then why are we talking about the ability to kill people with a car?

 

[mattiasNYC]

if were brave enough to see the discussion out ,there has to be a middle ground to be reached , an element of compromise  will be required on both sides of the equation .

Why?

 

[Tubetec]

Hi Mattias,
Well isnt that the way reasonable people reach a solution to an impasse?
On one extreme you have the people who want full unfettered access to any weapon they want ,on the other you have the people who simply want to ban all guns. I think everyone would agree that something needs to change to save innocent lives and stop a situation thats spiraling out of control .Until both sides are prepared to compromise to some degree the situation remains deadlocked ,and if the current trend continues were just going to see more and more attrocities.

 

[bruno2000]

Yeah, but this isn't about just terrorist attacks. This is about all crime and negligence using firearms and similar weapons. So really the question I'm asking you is that considering what you concede above - that a drastic reduction of deaths would happen in such a hypothetical scenario - what is then the point of talking about alternate means for killing people? If the net isn't zero, then why are we talking about the ability to kill people with a car?

Because the car / airplane / fertilizer / hammer can be used as an alternative to the firearm.
Your desire to ban all firearms may be noble, but it ain't gonna happen.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Hi Mattias,
Well isnt that the way reasonable people reach a solution to an impasse?
On one extreme you have the people who want full unfettered access to any weapon they want ,on the other you have the people who simply want to ban all guns. I think everyone would agree that something needs to change to save innocent lives and stop a situation thats spiraling out of control .Until both sides are prepared to compromise to some degree the situation remains deadlocked ,and if the current trend continues were just going to see more and more attrocities.

I'm afraid that the flaw in your argument is "reasonable people"........
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[bruno2000]

Here's part of the problem......
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-database-for-gun-buyers-missing-millions-of-records/ar-BBEPuJB?ocid=sf
Notice it's from MSN, too?
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[Tubetec]

Those stats are scary ,

 

[mattiasNYC]

Hi Mattias,
Well isnt that the way reasonable people reach a solution to an impasse?

I don't think that has to be true though. I think it's dependent on the situation and issue. I can think of a million issues where people who are on the opposite side shouldn't compromise. To be crude let me give you a hypothetical example. I'll use the US to illustrate this because it is a de facto two-party state: Suppose one of the parties turned towards anti-"something" and wanted to implement rules discriminating against [ethnicityX]. Their proposed policies would include everything from visually marking people to internment camps etc. The other party would oppose it.

Now, the two being at an impasse, would a "middle ground" on that issue be the only way reasonable people would find a solution the opposing views?

I know you probably think "no" and most of would agree with that. My point is simply that it isn't a given that one always should reach a middle ground.  Sometimes the issues are grave enough to warrant one or the other position, and the only way we can realize if that's the case is by talking about it. So an 'automatic' call for a middle ground isn't reasonable. It might be reasonable after having evaluated the issue.

PS: I actually see this as a general 'defect' of US media, where on certain issues we should debate the issue as if both sides had equal support. So in the case of global warming the US population gets the wrong impression because every time there's a discussion on TV you get a pretty equal amount of representatives from 'both sides' of the issue, whereas in reality the overwhelming majority of scientists say global warming is happening. Same with teaching evolution. Teaching the controversy or whatever it's called is implying that there's this big controversy among those who are actually scientifically educated on biology etc, where in fact there is no big controversy. Again the overwhelming amount of scientists accept evolution as being true. But in both cases I find that there's this underlying feeling that we need to be moderate and balanced and show balance when talking about this, when that balance actually isn't a true reflection of reality. I think that's sort of related.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Because the car / airplane / fertilizer / hammer can be used as an alternative to the firearm.

But it's beside the point!

The point isn't to advocate less guns just because it's guns that kill, the point is that by doing so we'd hopefully end up with fewer deaths - something you admit. That is the point, and it isn't refuted by claiming that people can kill others using pillows, screwdrivers or cars.

Your desire to ban all firearms may be noble, but it ain't gonna happen.
Best,
Bruno2000

Maybe not, you don't know. There is some ability to change legislation. But an argument against "We should do this" can't be "it's not going to happen" if the latter assumes that there won't be enough people that agree. It's a bad argument because people do change their minds actually.

 

[bruno2000]

But it's beside the point!

The point isn't to advocate less guns just because it's guns that kill, the point is that by doing so we'd hopefully end up with fewer deaths - something you admit. That is the point, and it isn't refuted by claiming that people can kill others using pillows, screwdrivers or cars.

Maybe not, you don't know. There is some ability to change legislation. But an argument against "We should do this" can't be "it's not going to happen" if the latter assumes that there won't be enough people that agree. It's a bad argument because people do change their minds actually.

1.  But your position seems to be "no guns" rather than "less guns".

2.  The process for removing (or repealing) an amendment to the constitution is the very same one as amending the constitution. This makes sense, as an amendment to the constitution, by definition, means that now the constitution includes that amendment.  The process would begin by the amendment being proposed by either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

i.e.  Not much of a chance.

 

[mattiasNYC]

1.  But your position seems to be "no guns" rather than "less guns".

First of all I think that on the path to "no guns" you'll pass "less guns", and thus one could aim for either. It's more important to walk a path to less gun violence than not walk one at all. I don't care if it's one or the other myself.

Secondly, I actually could see exceptions to the rule if they're properly implemented. There's an argument to be made for some people in either law enforcement or the military to be able to own or store guns, and there's likewise an argument for legit hunters to have them. In some western European this is exactly the case: If you're a police officer you might be allowed a weapon if licensed, and the same goes for legitimized hunters. They get to own specific weapon types and use them within specific situations (i.e. on a range or while hunting). So I'm not entirely opposed to it.

2.  The process for removing (or repealing) an amendment to the constitution is the very same one as amending the constitution. This makes sense, as an amendment to the constitution, by definition, means that now the constitution includes that amendment.  The process would begin by the amendment being proposed by either 2/3 of both Houses of Congress or by a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the State legislatures. It would then need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

i.e.  Not much of a chance.

Not now. And of course being that selling weapons is a capitalist endeavor the media and politics are bombarded with pro-gun ownership propaganda, so there's an uphill battle to get people to think differently. But who knows, a few more massacres and maybe the American people will wake up. I understand that people wanted guns to protect themselves against Socialist Muslim Obama, but now that their guy is in office they should be good.....

 

[Matador]

How did this thread fall off the front page?  There's been dozens of school shootings and hundreds of children dead as a result...maybe the discussion is just redundant at this point?

 

[JohnRoberts]

How did this thread fall off the front page?  There's been dozens of school shootings and hundreds of children dead as a result...maybe the discussion is just redundant at this point?

Attacking the second amendment is the standard team politics knee jerk (easy) answer to this. This has been well discussed every time events like this hit the news cycle. The thing about simple answers is they often can't be used so it just becomes another divisive political rallying call to separate us (never let a crisis go to waste).

I won't presume to know details about the FL case, and we are just now learning about what meds the Reno shooter was using (or not).

I do not like how modern video games seem to glorify violent behavior perhaps desentizing people (not like "pong"). When I was a kid I had a cap pistol, but still haven't shot anybody (yet).  I did just order a pellet gun so I can hopefully reduce the squirrel population in my yard, who eat my apples and pecans before I can.

Right now the dominant mental health crisis is opiate addiction, but preventing unstable people access to weapons is right up there needing systemic improvement to be more effective. We can't control modern culture and I wish media didn't make these unbalanced losers famous, that all too often inspires copycats (the wrong kind of me too).

JR

PS: For an economic observation, private gun sales seem to ebb and flow inversely with the government's inclination about taking them away. Under president Obama gun sales increased, now under president Trump, gun sales have quieted down again to the point where gun maker Remington is declaring bankruptcy (while they have other problems too).  I guess we should thank President Trump for slower gun sales.  :

PPS: I usually review the rising gun shooting deaths in Chicago when these threads come around. The mostly good news in Chicago is that gun homicides are trending down, but carjackings are now spiking up.  Losing a car is better than losing your life, but still criminal.

 

[kambo]

I did just order a pellet gun so I can hopefully reduce the squirrel population in my yard, who eat my apples and pecans before I can.

JR

what u gonna do when couple of kids start eating your apples, before u!
get an AR-15 too

 

[Gene Pink]

what u gonna do when couple of kids start eating your apples, before u!
get an AR-15 too

12 gauge, rocksalt load.

Gene