Gun Control in the US

[Guard Dog]

A common-sense approach that one would hope conservatives would accept (they wouldn't,) would be to treat guns the same way we treat and regulate cars. (the key difference being that guns are meant to kill people, that's why they were invented, and cars are not.) But with mental health screenings mandatory every time you want your gun license renewed. 50 years ago nobody cared that the mentally ill had no rights and could be imprisoned and "treated" against their will indefinitely, and it certainly didn't help when Ronald Reagan made massive cuts to mental health care spending. Conservatives would rather see the mentally ill go untreated until they commit a crime as a result of their illness and then call them bad people who should be put in prison or executed on account of their being fundamentally evil.

 

If responsible gun owners don't want their rights threatened, they shouldn't support far-right groups like the NRA. They should do that thing conservatives hate most.

Compromise.

 

 

I believe there are comprimises to be made but I have a real problem with everyone having to ask permssion (get a license) to exersize a right. The Constitution of the US and the SCOTUS as recently as DC v Heller have confirmed that firearm ownership is an individual right. Having to ask the government for permission puts the government in a position to deny for no reason whatsoever other than politics, incompetence or carpice. Just look how many people who have no terrorist affiliation somehow ended up on the no fly list. That said I do think a system can be worked out for quick background checks. We do it with credit scores I'm sure we can do it with this but in MUST be automated. NOT government run. Quite simply I do not trust that the federal government will fairly administer something like this.

 

You guys need to understand something here... private gun ownership in the US is not going to go away. Ever. There are limitations we will accept but if it ever comes to outright confiscation I suggest they send well armed men with no families to worry about when they come for me. Some things are worth fighting for. And the fight would not be over lost guns, or lost private property but over lost freedom. Nothing... nothing on this earth not even life itself is more important than individual liberty. I see a lot of scenarios where it could be lost forever and they all start with total gun control.

[Calax]

"IMO, that might be because schools have slowly become more vicious over the years, in terms of bullying and social status, due to the increase in social media and the level of social interaction."

 

Oh, come on. Schools have always been 'vicious'. Bullying has been the very fabric of school social liekly for as long as schools existed and it was the etachers were the ones bullying people. The only difference is we actually have a word for 'bullying' now and 'bullying' news is spammed 24/7.

 

Except that before you could get away from the bullying schtick by changing locations, now you're still followed via internest.

 

 

How are they followed, exactly?

Facebook & Twitter mainly. It also allows them to figure out who the persons new friends are and start badmouthing them.

[Rostere]

You guys need to understand something here... private gun ownership in the US is not going to go away. Ever. There are limitations we will accept but if it ever comes to outright confiscation I suggest they send well armed men with no families to worry about when they come for me. Some things are worth fighting for. And the fight would not be over lost guns, or lost private property but over lost freedom. Nothing... nothing on this earth not even life itself is more important than individual liberty. I see a lot of scenarios where it could be lost forever and they all start with total gun control.

This all sounds so alien to me. I cannot possibly comprehend why people would WANT to have guns. From my perspective the debate starts from the other end - it would be rational to ban all weapons, however the military and some policemen would still reasonably need guns. I mean, what is it that you do with your guns that is so important?

[Guard Dog]

This all sounds so alien to me. I cannot possibly comprehend why people would WANT to have guns. From my perspective the debate starts from the other end - it would be rational to ban all weapons, however the military and some policemen would still reasonably need guns. I mean, what is it that you do with your guns that is so important?

 

Well lets start with the fact that the vension I'm cooking for Christmas did not volunteer to be here. I enjoy hunting and sport shooting but that is far from the issue. I live in a rual area. VERY rual. There is no help for me from police. If the need ever arose to defend myself from animal or man I am totally alone and I need the tools to do it with.

 

But more than that I've been telling you for years the mindsets between American and Europeans are very different. You guys forget that because we do have so much in common that there is so much that is different. Euopeans have learned to accept whatever malfeasence their governments thrust on them. You don't need me to list examples.You live in a free country Ros but imagine what you would do if you woke up tomorrow and that were no longer so? An armed citizenry is the last check on government tyranny. As unlikely that is would ever happen here I still would not surrender that last check. All of our founding fathers (with the possible exception of Hamilton) wrote at length about this. This country was forged by revolution. George Washington himself wrote that an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

 

We (at least many of the people I know) do not look at our federal government as a friend, or a parental figure like many of you guys in Europe seem to. It is a like tiger in the room that needs to be there but also needs to be closely watched. Just because the tiger does not seem inclined to eat you now does not mean it will always be so. It might sound crazy but just about everyone I know feels this way.

 

Like I posted Ros, individual liberty is more important than anything. The moment they can take away any of it is the moment they can take away ALL of it. Either we are completely free or we are not free at all, just enjoying what rights the current body politic will suffer us to have.

[Volourn]

"This all sounds so alien to me. I cannot possibly comprehend why people would WANT to have guns. From my perspective the debate starts from the other end - it would be rational to ban all weapons, however the military and some policemen would still reasonably need guns. I mean, what is it that you do with your guns that is so important?"

 

But, if citizens don't have guns then why do police need guns? Do you really trust the police so bliudnly yet don't trust your fellow citizens? That's evil.

 

Why does the army need guns? Aren't we living in a Happy Happy World Where everyone Gets Along?

 

Why do people feel it's okay for gov't to have guns but not private citizens/ What makes gov't more innately good guys who can be trusted with weapons? LMAO

 

You sound like that stupid RFA guy who wants to limit my right to watch movies, tv, and read bok syet gets whiny when his right to ownw eapons are threatened? People shouldn't be crying abotu protecting their freedom onyl when they themselves are threatened.

 

In a real civilized land, it is those who look to ban stuff that need to prove why banning said stuff is beneficial. Nothing I've hard about banning guns sounds to me is beneficial. It would not have saved those children. Period.

[alanschu]

Facebook & Twitter mainly. It also allows them to figure out who the persons new friends are and start badmouthing them.

 

Those two things can be easily deactivated (and outright deleted, if necessary). I remember hearing about that girl that killed herself, after the sad video she posted online about being tormented and people followed her via online. At one point should someone (and more importantly, a child's parents) interject?

 

It's also trivial to prevent access from unwanted individuals on both Twitter and Facebook. Heck, one of my best friends only allows me to see her "mutual friend" list.

 

I'm skeptical that this is actually an unavoidable issue.

[alanschu]

An armed citizenry is the last check on government tyranny.

 

At this stage, in 2012, is it really?

 

I liked Zoraptor's point: the last check is keeping the military grounded in reality so that they won't obey BS orders.

[Calax]

Facebook & Twitter mainly. It also allows them to figure out who the persons new friends are and start badmouthing them.

 

Those two things can be easily deactivated (and outright deleted, if necessary). I remember hearing about that girl that killed herself, after the sad video she posted online about being tormented and people followed her via online. At one point should someone (and more importantly, a child's parents) interject?

 

It's also trivial to prevent access from unwanted individuals on both Twitter and Facebook. Heck, one of my best friends only allows me to see her "mutual friend" list.

 

I'm skeptical that this is actually an unavoidable issue.

I'm not saying that it's unavoidable, jsut that it's there and schools have slowly become more rough because ofi t.

 

Also, did a guy on the day of the shootings really say "I wish the principal had an M4 in her office to just blow the guys head off"? How is having a gun in the hands of an educator who's got no emotional protection going to save anyone?

 

 

... Is PTSD from killing somebody covered by the health plan the principals have?

[Hurlshort]

Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else.

[Calax]

Also, From a Lawyer of the ACLU we have a discussion on guns/gun control.

 

[Valsuelm]

Also, From a Lawyer of the ACLU we have a discussion on guns/gun control.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOrNgxm4lYQ

 

This was really a bad video. It went nowhere and there was nothing objective in this video, it was largely just right v. left BS. Though a few clips were doozies. Such as the Fox News anchor calling an automatic handgun a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' as well as implying the weapons were made for law enforement and military primarily. Propaganda propaganda propaganda, and BS BS BS.

 

If the author of this video really is a lawyer for the ACLU, he's not one of their better ones. He's blinded by the left right paradigm of thinking as his whole video stayed within the bounds of that paradigm, and his final question was based on the false duality of Republicans vs. Democrats.

 

That said, it is very clear that some in this thread think along those lines. Indeed a majority of westerners do (and this is one of our primary problems).

 

Tip: If you consider yourself a 'liberal' and generally think 'conservatives' got it all wrong, or think you're a 'conservative' and generally think the 'liberals' got it all wrong: you're either brainwashed (if you hate either you're definitely brainwashed) or just haven't paid enough attention to what goes on around you. Either way you've got some waking up to do.

[Gorth]

We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else.

 

Which is why a 'democracy' will always be a pipe dream just as much as 'communism'. The latter failed spectacularly and the former replaced ideals with consumerism in such insidious ways that most people don't even realize they have been 'bought' (because the fiction of control seems to calm the masses). Currently guns is 'big business' and therefore you will be up against insurmountable odds on the propaganda and lobbying side. Somebody showed some interesting research from Harvard, might have been here, might have been BBC, but the interesting observation was that gun ownership was on the decline. Who knows, maybe it dies out by itself some day and it becomes a manageable factor, like the tobacco industry (who once wielded similar power).

[Calax]

Also, From a Lawyer of the ACLU we have a discussion on guns/gun control.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOrNgxm4lYQ

This was really a bad video. It went nowhere and there was nothing objective in this video, it was largely just right v. left BS. Though a few clips were doozies. Such as the Fox News anchor calling an automatic handgun a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' as well as implying the weapons were made for law enforement and military primarily. Propaganda propaganda propaganda, and BS BS BS.

Really? You're going to say that a .223 buschmaster that was used in the attacks in Connecticut is a weapon NOT designed for a military? Even though others in this thread have pointed out that the gauge isn't conducive for self defense (nor is the size of the weapon), nor is it conducive to hunting.

 

And what purpose does an automatic handgun serve anyway?

Tip: If you consider yourself a 'liberal' and generally think 'conservatives' got it all wrong, or think you're a 'conservative' and generally think the 'liberals' got it all wrong: you're either brainwashed (if you hate either you're definitely brainwashed) or just haven't paid enough attention to what goes on around you. Either way you've got some waking up to do.

In general I'm pretty sure most people will say that they understand the intentions of what the other party want, and even agree with what they're trying to do. It's just that how they go about doing it is entirely counter to what they want.

 

I mean, you're falling into your own trap, where anyone who is "pro-gun" is correct, and anyone who is "anti-gun" is incorrect. Even though several of the people on the "Anti-gun" side aren't really anti gun. They're against guns that can be used to cause these sorts of massacres with ease. Your only solution to the problems presented (inadequate mental health care, lack of training, lack of restrictions, ease of modification etc) seems to be "THROW MORE GUNZ AT IT! If everyone is armed, then when one yahoo starts shooting, 12 people will kill him dead yeeeeha!".

 

Guns have their place. Handguns are for self/home defense, as has been recognized by the supreme court. Rifles have a specific role as hunting weapons (same with shotguns), and these are recognized too. Where people get uncomfortable is that .223, and it's siblings who are built to put a lot of rounds out in a short amount of time, are mid-ranged, and aren't built for either of the two above roles. Same thing with a .50 cal sniper rifle.

 

Realistically, if your worst nightmare[dream] comes true, and your home is under attack by the United States Army, you know what's gonna happen? You'll attack with your little AK47, wound two guys, then have a tank round shoved down your throat for your trouble. There is no feasible way that you can say that the weapons that people are asking for a ban and controls on, are going to save you from what you're stating is their reason.

 

After all, it's not like other amendments aren't limited by the government and legislatures on what you can do with the powers they grant.

Examine all the limitations on "Free Speech", as protected by the first amendment.

[Rostere]

I'm not trying to say that people's reasons for wanting to have a gun are evil or something like that. I'm just completely thrown off by the starting premises of the discussion. Where I live people would start this debate by asking "Why should all guns not be against the law?". A gun is a tool for harming people, I see no reason why guns should not be treated by society the same way as nukes and nerve gas are treated by the international community.

 

But more than that I've been telling you for years the mindsets between American and Europeans are very different. You guys forget that because we do have so much in common that there is so much that is different. Euopeans have learned to accept whatever malfeasence their governments thrust on them. You don't need me to list examples.

 

We (at least many of the people I know) do not look at our federal government as a friend, or a parental figure like many of you guys in Europe seem to. It is a like tiger in the room that needs to be there but also needs to be closely watched. Just because the tiger does not seem inclined to eat you now does not mean it will always be so. It might sound crazy but just about everyone I know feels this way.

 

I don't look upon the government as a friend or as a parental figure. I see it as a professional organization, where many people work including people who are my personal acquaintances.

 

You live in a free country Ros but imagine what you would do if you woke up tomorrow and that were no longer so? An armed citizenry is the last check on government tyranny. As unlikely that is would ever happen here I still would not surrender that last check. All of our founding fathers (with the possible exception of Hamilton) wrote at length about this. This country was forged by revolution. George Washington himself wrote that an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

 

I've a bit hard to see in which circumstance you would use guns against the government. Are you referring to John Wilkes Booth? Lee Harvey Oswald? In my personal opinion, political differences should be handled by the machinery of democracy.

 

A country is only composed of it's citizens. Unless you have a very divided society, democracy won't cease to exist. You seem to have a fear that some unknown other will usurp power in your country and take away your right to vote. Could you be more specific here? Are you afraid that a foreign country might have undemocratic influence over your government? A popular revolution? A huge conspiracy? Personally, I think all of the above sound extremely unlikely.

 

My country is composed of me, and of people like me. The notion that someone would somehow end democracy is therefore ridiculous. I find it interesting that you do not feel the same way about your country.

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm not trying to say that people's reasons for wanting to have a gun are evil or something like that. I'm just completely thrown off by the starting premises of the discussion. Where I live people would start this debate by asking "Why should all guns not be against the law?". A gun is a tool for harming people, I see no reason why guns should not be treated by society the same way as nukes and nerve gas are treated by the international community.

 

I don't understand people like you. You treat the world like an aquarium that only goldfish swim in. When a barracuda comes you can only gape in horror as it chews you up. And yet you still continue to argue that we should all be goldfish as though that would make the barracuda go away.

 

If there was but one more armed person in Norway they might not have had a Breivik.

 

Is that an excuse to arm everyone to the teeth? No. But start living in the real world please. If self defense wasn't a necessity, guns would not exist in the first place.

 

The notion that someone would somehow end democracy is therefore ridiculous.

 

Edited December 24, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Raithe]

I guess one element of trouble I have with the idea of guns being freely available to most people... Is that most people seem to be morons. I wouldn't trust them with my finances, with looking after my kids (if I had any), so why should I trust them with actually learning correct and proper gun safety and control and a roomfull of lethal weaponry?

 

I can see how you can approach it with the whole "gun control is like insurance. You probably won't ever need to use it, but if you do and don't have it, you'll regret it."

 

But I'm also thinking of some of the utter idiots I've been exposed to in my life, and just whether I'd be happy knowing they could be armed.....

[Guard Dog]

Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else.

 

This goes to Alan's comment as well. Yes, I think armed citizens ARE an effective force against the modern military. Here is why. In Tennessee in 2009 (that is the latest data I could find online) 497,348 hunting licenses were sold. In Alabama is was 567,299, in Mississippi it was 509,996, in Arkansas is was 362,541, in South Carolina it was 421,675. Most hunting hoseholds have multiple fire arms but only one hunting license. Those five states alone have more armed citizens (just counting the ones who have hunting licesnes, not the one who have weapons and don't hunt) than the entire muster of all five branches of the US military including reserves. Hunters practice with their weapons and are proficient in their use. Now look up two more states, Missouri & Texas and you get 509,121 and 667,834 respectively. That is by a factor of 2 the largest armed force in the world. Just seven states. Forty three more to go.

 

Now granted not even a fraction of these are capable of acting as a cohesive military force but history is replete with examples of partisan effectiveness.

[Guard Dog]

I've a bit hard to see in which circumstance you would use guns against the government. Are you referring to John Wilkes Booth? Lee Harvey Oswald? In my personal opinion, political differences should be handled by the machinery of democracy.

 

A country is only composed of it's citizens. Unless you have a very divided society, democracy won't cease to exist. You seem to have a fear that some unknown other will usurp power in your country and take away your right to vote. Could you be more specific here? Are you afraid that a foreign country might have undemocratic influence over your government? A popular revolution? A huge conspiracy? Personally, I think all of the above sound extremely unlikely.

 

My country is composed of me, and of people like me. The notion that someone would somehow end democracy is therefore ridiculous. I find it interesting that you do not feel the same way about your country.

 

Oh I grant it is unlikely it would ever come to that but armed citizens are a further insurance against it. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is well armed sheep contesting the vote. I don't find it difficult at all to imagine a situation where the government does something we simply will not live with.

 

@Hurlshot: I simply do not understand this paranoia about megacorporations. The largest, most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny out of my checking account that I did not freely give it. The smallest government right here in Tennessee can seize my home, my entire life's savings, and my freedom and and array such a treasure against me it would bankrupt me to defend myself even if I were successful. Who should we really be afraid of here?

Edited December 24, 2012 by Guard Dog

[alanschu]

@Hurlshot: I simply do not understand this paranoia about megacorporations. The largest, most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny out of my checking account that I did not freely give it.

 

You think this is actually the case? Not only do the megacorporations utilize their huge amounts of capital to influence governments themselves (the cynical perspective is that the governments only represent the will of said corporations), they can also use their huge capital to attack and remove individuals and smaller companies. They are able to destroy competition and innovation simply because a smaller upstart is incapable of affording the fight.

 

Lets see how successful you are when a megacorporation decides it wants to impose its will on you. What are you going to do if they decide your isolated neck of the woods is a convenient place to dump toxic wastes.

 

It's easy to sit there in your decidedly freer country that has such constraints in place (put their by your government), while megacorporations make arrangements to purchase vast swaths of land in other countries, displacing those that lived on the land and ultimately undermining their abilities to take care of themselves.

Edited December 24, 2012 by alanschu

[Guard Dog]

Megacorporations, governments, criminals, foreign others, all out to get me. I think I need to buy a gun!

 

Oh c'mon, that was funny!

[Drowsy Emperor]

@Hurlshot: I simply do not understand this paranoia about megacorporations. The largest, most powerful corporation in the world could not take one penny out of my checking account that I did not freely give it. The smallest government right here in Tennessee can seize my home, my entire life's savings, and my freedom and and array such a treasure against me it would bankrupt me to defend myself even if I were successful. Who should we really be afraid of here?

 

Lol, tell that to the hundreds of american farmers who were systematically bullied, threatened, sued and ultimately destroyed by Monsanto using legal and illegal (or borderline illegal, like terrorizing people in the middle of the night by hired goons) methods.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

Since I get to vote, that basically makes me a board member in our government. Yeah, my vote is only one among a ton, but I can lobby for more, and on a local level I can have a good deal of influence.

 

With corporations I vote with my dollars, but that means someone with more money is more important. Sure, our politicians rely way too heavily on campaign contributions and the like, but my vote is still as valuable as a wealthy individual.

 

I'm not saying I fully trust either, but I do see the government as serving the interests of all people more effectively.

[Gorgon]

Every time a school shooting happens gun sales go up because people are afraid the gov't is going to come take what they hadn't gotten around to buying yet. A thriving gun industry is the most important part of the lobbying effort.

 

In a non related example aspestos remained legal 10 years after the link with cancer had been established. It still is, although it can only be sold to countries with no safty regulatons at all. If you have an industry behind you, if lots of jobs are at stake and if you spend the money you can wield an almost godlike influence over the legislature.

[terryrayc]

I'm still lost why people have a problem with AWs?

 

In 2011 there were 12,664 reported murders in the US. 323 of them were done with AWs. In fact 728 murders were done with people's bare hands. Twice as many people were murdered by (As the FBI puts it) with Hands, fist and feet. 1,694 were murdered by knifes. 356 with shotguns and 6,220 with handguns. Heck 1,659 were killed by other weapons (That include everything from 2x4s to dump trucks). Out of all Murder by types AWs were the smallest number. But because they look cool and Assault Weapon sounds cool people focus on it.

[Calax]

Because AR's have no self defense purposes or hunting purpose.