Gun Control in the US

[Hurlshort]

On a local level, the US is very much a democracy.  You vote directly for what is happening in your local community.  On State and Federal, we rely more heavily on representatives.  It's not some conspiracy, most citizens don't have the time to constantly vote on everything that happens in the country.  

[obyknven]

Millions of licenseless drivers?  No, try again.  Most of the illegal immigrant drivers stick to the backroads and drive super slow to avoid ever getting pulled over, by the way.  I live in an agricultural community in California, I see them quite regularly.  But on my typical commute to work and back on the freeway, I'm dealing with licensed and insured folks at a very high rate.  

 

I agree a license doesn't equate to driving skill, but it does create a system of accountability.  There is no reason that guns can't have the same accountability.

 

 

Annual United States Road Crash Statistics

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year

An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled

Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year

Really don't understand, how driver license can protect you from road accidents. At least these licenses purely useless for 37 000 peoples who die every year in crashes.

[Luridis]

On a local level, the US is very much a democracy.  You vote directly for what is happening in your local community.  On State and Federal, we rely more heavily on representatives.  It's not some conspiracy, most citizens don't have the time to constantly vote on everything that happens in the country.  

 

But the problem is that once they're voted into office by and large they serve only the interests of corporate lobbyists. Sure, if the public makes enough stink they'll act to avoid being called out during the next election, but day-to-day they're far more interested in who's giving away dollars.

[Hurlshort]

 

On a local level, the US is very much a democracy.  You vote directly for what is happening in your local community.  On State and Federal, we rely more heavily on representatives.  It's not some conspiracy, most citizens don't have the time to constantly vote on everything that happens in the country.  

 

But the problem is that once they're voted into office by and large they serve only the interests of corporate lobbyists. Sure, if the public makes enough stink they'll act to avoid being called out during the next election, but day-to-day they're far more interested in who's giving away dollars.

 

Oh I completely agree.  Far too many of our representatives suck at actually representing the people who vote them in office.  I just don't know what would be a better system.  I mean I'd love to limit lobbying powers, but there already is quite a bit on the books to do that, and yet big business still finds a way.  

 

As for a true democracy, it's just unfeasible.  I don't have time to sit on committees and read through a bunch of federal stuff to make informed decisions on public policy and budgeting.  Unfortunately the people we vote to do that don't seem to have the time either

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

On a local level, the US is very much a democracy.  You vote directly for what is happening in your local community.  On State and Federal, we rely more heavily on representatives.  It's not some conspiracy, most citizens don't have the time to constantly vote on everything that happens in the country.  

 

 

But the problem is that once they're voted into office by and large they serve only the interests of corporate lobbyists. Sure, if the public makes enough stink they'll act to avoid being called out during the next election, but day-to-day they're far more interested in who's giving away dollars.

 

Oh I completely agree.  Far too many of our representatives suck at actually representing the people who vote them in office.  I just don't know what would be a better system.  I mean I'd love to limit lobbying powers, but there already is quite a bit on the books to do that, and yet big business still finds a way.  

 

As for a true democracy, it's just unfeasible.  I don't have time to sit on committees and read through a bunch of federal stuff to make informed decisions on public policy and budgeting.  Unfortunately the people we vote to do that don't seem to have the time either

Well, we could always decrease the monetary rewards for elected officials, institute term limits, and crack down much harder on lobbyists and corporate influence. Most likely will not happen though, because the ones who could do those things are the ones who would be negatively impacted by them.

[Zoraptor]

 

 

To certain Individuals, yes.

Sorry, I disagree with the idea that there's both micro and macro perspectives of tyranny.

 

 

I have to in large part disagree with your disagreement- fundamentally in exactly the same way as you can always find someone thinking they live in a tyranny you will also always find people who think they live in untrammelled freedom/ everything is fundamentally fine, or simply don't care about stuff that doesn't effect them- the sort of people who use "if you have nothing to hide..*" as an argument if they can be bothered to argue at all. Lots of extremely dodgy legislation gets passed with little criticism or oversight because it's For The Children! or Stopping Terrorists! People are easy to stampede and it's easy enough to find significant support for what we- or at least a significant number- might call tyrannies; Mubarak's proxy made it to the final round of the Egyptian presidential elections and an Islamist got elected, Hamas got elected, Chavez (one I certainly don't agree with on the tyrant front) got elected, some in Russia pine for the Russia Strong! soviet days and every dictator from Pinochet to Franco has had significant, maybe in some cases even majority support because they weren't tyrants, the alternatives were. People who support that don't think of themselves as "anti liberty", they think of themselves as "pro stability" or "pro [countryname]" or "pro security" in other words, and do not consider themselves to be supporting 'tyranny'.

 

(Ultimately of course the problem is that 'tyranny' is subjective, not objective and even if you could come up with a list of criteria for a tyranny there'd be no agreement on the interpretation of those criteria. I'd consider having to carry ID papers little t tyrannical for example- it doesn't happen here, is pretty much essential for a totalitarian system yet is also used in some places which obviously aren't totalitarian)

 

*"if you have nothing to hide then it's none of our business" is the correct completion not "..you have nothing to fear"

[Luridis]

There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

 

You really did give me pause and make me think about it; interpretations of law, legal experts and professors. I was really curious as to whether or not it might not mean what we have come to understand it to mean. I wasn't quite sure what to think until I considered the times.

 

I cannot imagine colonial leaders would have ever expected early Americans to enter or live on the frontier unarmed. And, there are still places in this country where it is dangerous to go unarmed. (If you've ever seen a Grizzly Bear in real life, you know what I'm talking about.) There are places now where it can take police an hour to get to you, what then? When I think about all the pictures of paintings I've seen from Colonial America, men carrying arms appeared to be a common and ordinary occurrence. Arms were a part of every day life to these people and to think they would specifically pencil in a law to state, "You have the right to bear arms so long as you're part of, and only if you're a part of, an approved militia." Such is nonsensical to me in the context of the place and time that was Colonial America.

 

Weapons of War: Right to bear arms. Not the right to bear cannons, rockets, artillery, and/or ships-of-the-line. There was a clear distinction between a gun and military hardware at the time. Comparisons of a musket to surface-air-missile launchers are just plain silly. Not being able to own Apache Gunships is not an "infringement" of the right to bear arms because nothing was written about owning warships of that era. People are grabbing at straws there...

 

Professors can argue points on the diction of deceased people all they want and it still won't matter. The generally accepted classical and modern interpretation is that citizens have the right to own firearms. I don't believe in altering that anymore than I believe in changing freedom of speech or trial by jury. Infringements of The Constitution have already been made on multiple occasions and I against any further restriction. If anything I'd like to see some things expanded, like allowing gay marriage and gay adoption. What goes on in other people's bedrooms is their business and I've never really understood what the big deal is with it.

 

Want to close the gun-show loophole? Fine. Want to be more thorough with background checks? Fine. Summarily discard the right to bear arms? No! Because next we'll need licenses to buy butcher knives and chainsaws because someone lost their cool and chopped someone up.

 

Oh, and for the record... I don't own a gun.

Edited February 1, 2013 by Luridis

[Hurlshort]

 

Millions of licenseless drivers?  No, try again.  Most of the illegal immigrant drivers stick to the backroads and drive super slow to avoid ever getting pulled over, by the way.  I live in an agricultural community in California, I see them quite regularly.  But on my typical commute to work and back on the freeway, I'm dealing with licensed and insured folks at a very high rate.  

 

I agree a license doesn't equate to driving skill, but it does create a system of accountability.  There is no reason that guns can't have the same accountability.

 

 

>Annual United States Road Crash Statistics

Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year

An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled

Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year

Really don't understand, how driver license can protect you from road accidents. At least these licenses purely useless for 37 000 peoples who die every year in crashes.

 

 

You'd have to compare those numbers to a similar country without a licensing process to have them mean anything, Oby.

 

As an aside, numbers have declined quite a bit (close to 10%) over the last 7 years or so.  California is crediting a much more difficult licensing program for teenagers for their decline, which extends the length of time they use a learner's permit.  Because of this most teenage drivers are closer to 17 in California before they can drive alone or with young friends.  

[Calax]

 

 

There have also been plenty of law professors to support his arguments. When reading the US constitution you have to take in to account that at the time it was written, there was no universally accepted rule on how to use commas correctly.

 

You really did give me pause and make me think about it; interpretations of law, legal experts and professors. I was really curious as to whether or not it might not mean what we have come to understand it to mean. I wasn't quite sure what to think until I considered the times.

 

I cannot imagine colonial leaders would have ever expected early Americans to enter or live on the frontier unarmed. And, there are still places in this country where it is dangerous to go unarmed. (If you've ever seen a Grizzly Bear in real life, you know what I'm talking about.) There are places now where it can take police an hour to get to you, what then? When I think about all the pictures of paintings I've seen from Colonial America, men carrying arms appeared to be a common and ordinary occurrence. Arms were a part of every day life to these people and to think they would specifically pencil in a law to state, "You have the right to bear arms so long as you're part of, and only if you're a part of, an approved militia." Such is nonsensical to me in the context of the place and time that was Colonial America.

 

 

Ah, but here is the kicker. Right now you are unlikely to have that Bear, or any bobcats come smacking at your front door. In colonial times, your back yard could kill you. Now? Not so much unless you live a very violent life to begin with. As to the Militia thing, it wasn't that they weren't allowed to have arms if they weren't part of the Milita, it was that they were forced to be a part of the militia as part of their normal life. Similar to how American Citizens are signed up for the draft and are a part of the social security program no matter what. Therefor there was nobody who would fall outside the "part of a militia" requirement to own a weapon.

Want to close the gun-show loophole? Fine. Want to be more thorough with background checks? Fine. Summarily discard the right to bear arms? No! Because next we'll need licenses to buy butcher knives and chainsaws because someone lost their cool and chopped someone up.

See, this is where you're ignoring what the other side is saying. Nobody I've seen has proposed just outright banning guns. The VP owns and loves him some shotguns, and all they are doing is limiting how much killing power a single person can own/use at any one time. They're mainly attempting to push through the background checks thing, and limit the amount of firepower that can be taken anywhere at any given time.

[Luridis]

Ah, but here is the kicker. Right now you are unlikely to have that Bear, or any bobcats come smacking at your front door. In colonial times, your back yard could kill you. Now? Not so much unless you live a very violent life to begin with.

 

You must live somewhere very urban... Not everyone does. For a lot of citizens of this country the backyard can still very much kill them. In Texas, it's not hard for this to show up in your back yard.

 

 

They're not protected, in fact, they're an invasive and destructive species. They're also extremely dangerous... They were introduced with settlers in the 1500's. (Some believe descended from Columbus' stock as a few went on the record as missing.) 300lbs with tusks and not shy about poking around garbage cans.

 

As for the rest, replacing an 8 round magazine with a larger one is more trivial than making a semi-auto fully automatic. People who obey the law won't of course, the gangsters however, will. To me that puts the guy who want's to comply at a disadvantage.

[Calax]

 

 

Ah, but here is the kicker. Right now you are unlikely to have that Bear, or any bobcats come smacking at your front door. In colonial times, your back yard could kill you. Now? Not so much unless you live a very violent life to begin with.

 

You must live somewhere very urban... Not everyone does. For a lot of citizens of this country the backyard can still very much kill them. In Texas, it's not hard for this to show up in your back yard.

 

 

They're not protected, in fact, they're an invasive and destructive species. They're also extremely dangerous... They were introduced with settlers in the 1500's. (Some believe descended from Columbus' stock as a few went on the record as missing.) 300lbs with tusks and not shy about poking around garbage cans.

 

 

Yeah, but how many deaths have occured in the past 12 months from those boars? That's my point. For the most part, a backyard is much more easily protected and if something waddles in, you call the authorities and they come out and kill it/deal with it. And it's not like you need an M4 to kill it, a 22 rifle is good enough (or a 12 guage). I live in friggin Iowa, hunting is kinda big here. I don't begrudge my friends their rifles and pistols, but I do think that an AK-47 is kind of overkill.

As for the rest, replacing an 8 round magazine with a larger one is more trivial than making a semi-auto fully automatic. People who obey the law won't of course, the gangsters however, will. To me that puts the guy who want's to comply at a disadvantage.

Well, those same gangsters aren't exactly going to follow the rules about killing either are they? To steal Jon Stewarts joke "If the logic is 'those who break the law won't follow the rule, so we shouldn't enact it', why not just get rid of this 'thou shalt not kill' thing?"

 

And the idea is that if you ban larger mag's, you'll slowly see the amount of mag's larger than the legal amount start disappearing because it's much easier to attain a "legal" magazine than a bigger one.

 

And how does it put the "legal" citizen at a disadvantage? He has an Assault rifle, so he's probably gonna be popping that sucker off like crazy and having 0 accuracy, while you just shoot him properly with your 38 saturday special or whatever.

 

You seem to act as if there's some sort of equity required in a gunfight for both sides to have an equal chance of winning. As far as I can tell, your average home invasion doesn't include kevlar body armor and is NEVER outside the effective range of a shotgun. So a gangster just shows up and you have about the same chance as him at hitting/killing the guy. He just has a LOT more recoil to deal with, and drains his magazine much faster.

[NOK222]

Gang bangers invading an average joe's house are armed with tactical vests, M-4s, a side arm and a combat knife. 

 

True story

[alanschu]

 

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics. 

 

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

 

 

Just to be clear, the US is a democratic republic.  Simply stating that the United States is a representative republic is ambiguous, since a country can be a representative republic but not hold any sort of election for the representatives.

 

 

Democracy is straight up defined as:

 

Democracy – A form of government in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.^[1] Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws

 

A country does not need to be a direct democracy in order to be classified as a democracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

 

 

The US is both a democracy and a republic.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics.

 

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

 

 

 

 

Just to be clear, the US is a democratic republic.  Simply stating that the United States is a representative republic is ambiguous, since a country can be a representative republic but not hold any sort of election for the representatives.

 

 

Democracy is straight up defined as:

 

Democracy – A form of government in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.^[1] Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws

 

A country does not need to be a direct democracy in order to be classified as a democracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

 

 

The US is both a democracy and a republic.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

I think the technical term is a "Republican Democracy".

[alanschu]

Eh, I'm not familiar with that term.  Could be a cultural language thing, but a google search in my neck of the woods returns "Democratic Republic" when I search for "Republican Democracy."

[Calax]

Eh, I'm not familiar with that term.  Could be a cultural language thing, but a google search in my neck of the woods returns "Democratic Republic" when I search for "Republican Democracy."

I may have it backwards then... although when I see "democratic republic" I always think of "Communist" states.

[Luridis]

Yeah, but how many deaths have occured in the past 12 months from those boars? That's my point. For the most part, a backyard is much more easily protected and if something waddles in, you call the authorities and they come out and kill it/deal with it. And it's not like you need an M4 to kill it, a 22 rifle is good enough (or a 12 guage). I live in friggin Iowa, hunting is kinda big here. I don't begrudge my friends their rifles and pistols, but I do think that an AK-47 is kind of overkill.

AK-47's are not all that is on the list or I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But, it's way too broad, and includes models like the Remington 750 hunting rifle. It requires registration of weapons that are not machine guns as machine guns, including hand guns. It will inundate a system that will need to hire thousands of people to handle the workload when we're already bankrupt. (Far more important to me.)

 

Now, if you would like to take on a 300lb boar with a 22 rifle, I'd love to see that. I know people who would pay to see it, but at least one person near by would need to have a rifle capable of killing the animal before it mauled you to death.

 

If they came back and said we've got a law that targets semi automatic rifles where making them fully automatic is trivial and requires extensive modification then I might support that. I might also support the removal of weapons that look military in nature, simply because they alarm people. But what is being proposed now, under no circumstances would I support. Once the bill is drafted, if it's still in the current form, I'll be sending letters to reps ask for a no.

 

What I don't understand is why people are okay with all the money being spent on this when adding armed security to schools is probably less expensive. (Considering the paperwork costs in this.)

Edited February 2, 2013 by Luridis

[Calax]

Politically they're probably doing the "Come out with the most extreme bill, to give yourself negotiation space" tactic. One of the things mentioned was a forgrip on weapons being banned, and I totally agree that's a bit overkill. However something like the "easily modified" situation would end up being way to open ended to be worth much because lawyers could easily make any action seem complicated.

 

As to the boar, I admit a .22 is probably a bit small, but you certainly don't need an AK or M4 to actually pull it off. Hell, the guys on moonshiners did it with a simple rifle (hog size may be smaller than the ones you're talking about).

 

As to the security guards: I think you're missing one important point about the "security guards at schools" thing. If the Feds were to put into law the mandate that they be stationed in every single school, where do you think the bill would end up being charged? Right now school districts are floundering because of budget cuts (education is a big part of any budget, but doesn't have concrete results), and they'd have to pay the salaries for these security guards to be at the school. Meaning less money for school supplies, and/or more negotiations with the unions. Also this doesn't cover situations like Aurora Colorado, or the Clackamas Town Center shootings, as they weren't at a school.

 

Increased background checks and tighter regulation of more powerful firearms would seriously curtail the amount of guns sold. I know that the pro-guns crowd is declaring that all it'd do is make law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves (which is a total fallacy), but the reality is that the guns are so prevalent because they're legal. Once something becomes illegal it becomes much harder to get due to expenses attached to the illegal arms trade, and the reduced numbers of guns around (as manufactures would no longer produce things like the Bushmaster .223). Basically, Capitalism would drastically reduce the number of guns around once the regulations hit.

[alanschu]

 

Eh, I'm not familiar with that term.  Could be a cultural language thing, but a google search in my neck of the woods returns "Democratic Republic" when I search for "Republican Democracy."

I may have it backwards then... although when I see "democratic republic" I always think of "Communist" states.

 

 

There's no shortage of governments that are decidedly NOT democratic that call themselves so simply because it's a term that people consider "ideal."

 

It's not like we should expect a political entity call themselves "The Oppressive Inhuman Police State of Absolute Rule" or anything.  What countries may call themselves is often not very useful.

[Calax]

 

 

Eh, I'm not familiar with that term.  Could be a cultural language thing, but a google search in my neck of the woods returns "Democratic Republic" when I search for "Republican Democracy."

I may have it backwards then... although when I see "democratic republic" I always think of "Communist" states.

 

 

There's no shortage of governments that are decidedly NOT democratic that call themselves so simply because it's a term that people consider "ideal."

 

It's not like we should expect a political entity call themselves "The Oppressive Inhuman Police State of Absolute Rule" or anything.  What countries may call themselves is often not very useful.

Was it Carlin who made the joke that as the Congo's name gets bigger, the worse off the country is?

[obyknven]

 

 

Stop using term "Democracy" for representative Republics. 

 

There are few signs as tell tale that someone is brainwashed or uninformed than someone using that term.

 

 

Just to be clear, the US is a democratic republic.  Simply stating that the United States is a representative republic is ambiguous, since a country can be a representative republic but not hold any sort of election for the representatives.

 

 

Democracy is straight up defined as:

 

Democracy – A form of government in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.^[1] Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws

 

A country does not need to be a direct democracy in order to be classified as a democracy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy#Types_of_democracy

 

 

The US is both a democracy and a republic.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

 

 Such nonsense! In fact, the government of the United States is based on Spartan Republic and the Roman Republic model. But these states are pure Oligarchy.  Because this US can't be Democratic.

[NOK222]

It's a corporate state, really. 

[alanschu]

 

Was it Carlin who made the joke that as the Congo's name gets bigger, the worse off the country is?

 

Haha I hadn't heard that, but I could see it.

[alanschu]

 

 Such nonsense! In fact, the government of the United States is based on Spartan Republic and the Roman Republic model. But these states are pure Oligarchy.  Because this US can't be Democratic.

 

If you wish to argue that the government process is undermined due to things like Lobby groups and whatnot, and that the US is truly a financial oligarchy based on the influence money has on US politics that's a different matter altogether and not relevant to the democracy vs republic discussion.  Although some of the authors that put forth the oligarchical criticism actually state that both oligarchy and democracy operate within the US system.

 

The government system and electoral process of the United States is a democracy.  And a republic.  Which is what the smug bastards always try to make a distinction about when they state that the US isn't a democracy, it's a republic!  If you don't feel the US is a democracy, it's place as a republic is irrelevant to that.  You can have an oligarchical republic or a democratic republic.  Both are republics, or "representative republics" if you will.

[obyknven]

 

 Such nonsense! In fact, the government of the United States is based on Spartan Republic and the Roman Republic model. But these states are pure Oligarchy.  Because this US can't be Democratic.

 

 Although some of the authors that put forth the oligarchical criticism actually state that both oligarchy and democracy operate within the US system.

 Oligarchy - a system of rule by a few persons. Democracy is rule of the people. US  can't be  Democracy and Oligarchy  in same time.