27.6% of them were when a person was home = 1,021,200
26% of those above ended with a violent crime = 265,512
12% of the invasions with an occupant present had a burglar armed with a firearm = 122,544
Number of burglarly-related homicides = 430
Number of incidents where firearms were stolen from the household = 148,000
I see this and I wonder how many of the 143,000 violent crimes committed by a burglar with no firearm could have been prevented if the victim had one.
How many of the million ended with no violence because the homeowner was armed.
I see this and I wonder how many of the 122,544 home invasions with an armed burglar would have been prevented had burglars not been able to get arms so easily...
How come "gun rights" people ALWAYS make the error of assuming the innocent householder will have a gun and the burglar will be unarmed? It is much more likely to be the other way around, even if the householder does own a gun, because the householder will wake up groggy and confused, while the armed burglar is awake, alert, and has his hand on his gun, and is mentally prepared to use it.
From these numbers it's not necessarily more likely at all... that sounds like pure projection on your part. Only 12% of break-ins where the homeowner was present also feature a burglar with a gun.
From these numbers, if you're home and a violent crime happens you're more likely to be victimized, violently, by a burglar armed with nothing or with some non-gun weapon than you are with a gun-wielding burglar.
So, why do you need guns in the first place if the chance of death in home invasions is so spectacularly low?
All having a gun at home does is put more guns on the black market where they do end up killing people. Statistically, home-invasion murders are a margin of error within a margin of error, yet firearms stolen from homes account for 4% of all burglaries, or roughly 500 times a day.
that's an argument for gun safes or trigger fingerprints, not disarmament.
But that won't happen, because the pro-gun side says it won't.
There is literally no compromise with the pro-gun lobby and NRA. Every restriction is unconstitutional.
Actually if you don't want to get shot the best way to avoid it is not to own a gun, or live in a house with one.
You're more likely to shoot yourself than you are to shoot anyone else. So is everyone else in the house. Want to protect your family? Don't own a gun.
This ecological fallacy needs to be nipped in the bud because it has gone on this entire thread and happens any time this subject comes up except, ironically, in the chat thread. Under no other topic would people in this forum attempt to make statistical inferences about individuals from aggregate statistics in good faith arguments.
It has nothing to do with making inferences about individuals. You have it backwards. People make decisions based on statistics all the time. They refrain from playing the lottery because it is statistically unlikely that they will win, even if they feel personally lucky. And the only negative outcome of playing the lottery and losing is that they are a few dollars poorer.
The negative outcomes of gambling against gun statistics are much nastier.
Actually if you don't want to get shot the best way to avoid it is not to own a gun, or live in a house with one.
You're more likely to shoot yourself than you are to shoot anyone else. So is everyone else in the house. Want to protect your family? Don't own a gun.
This ecological fallacy needs to be nipped in the bud because it has gone on this entire thread and happens any time this subject comes up except, ironically, in the chat thread. Under no other topic would people in this forum attempt to make statistical inferences about individuals from aggregate statistics in good faith arguments.
It has nothing to do with making inferences about individuals. You have it backwards. People make decisions based on statistics all the time. They refrain from playing the lottery because it is statistically unlikely that they will win, even if they feel personally lucky. And the only negative outcome of playing the lottery and losing is that they are a few dollars poorer.
The negative outcomes of gambling against gun statistics are much nastier.
The quoted post literally made a statistical inference on the likelihood of an individual to be or do X based on aggregate statistics of X.
When you say "based on the statistics" or "statistically you/them/he/she/it are" you're making a statistical inference.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Let's ban bump stocks.
Oh no wait that's just a liberal ploy to take all of our guns.
This literally just happened.
honest question - is that suggestion dead in the House? I know the NRA is being a bitch about it, but is the proposal now entirely dead?
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Let's ban bump stocks.
Oh no wait that's just a liberal ploy to take all of our guns.
This literally just happened.
honest question - is that suggestion dead in the House? I know the NRA is being a bitch about it, but is the proposal now entirely dead?
Only 9 republicans have signed off on it.
It'll go to committee and die.
Republicans and NRA supporters will not consider the meekest, mildest restrictions on guns.
27.6% of them were when a person was home = 1,021,200
26% of those above ended with a violent crime = 265,512
12% of the invasions with an occupant present had a burglar armed with a firearm = 122,544
Number of burglarly-related homicides = 430
Number of incidents where firearms were stolen from the household = 148,000
I see this and I wonder how many of the 143,000 violent crimes committed by a burglar with no firearm could have been prevented if the victim had one.
How many of the million ended with no violence because the homeowner was armed.
I see this and I wonder how many of the 122,544 home invasions with an armed burglar would have been prevented had burglars not been able to get arms so easily...
How come "gun rights" people ALWAYS make the error of assuming the innocent householder will have a gun and the burglar will be unarmed? It is much more likely to be the other way around, even if the householder does own a gun, because the householder will wake up groggy and confused, while the armed burglar is awake, alert, and has his hand on his gun, and is mentally prepared to use it.
From these numbers it's not necessarily more likely at all... that sounds like pure projection on your part. Only 12% of break-ins where the homeowner was present also feature a burglar with a gun.
From these numbers, if you're home and a violent crime happens you're more likely to be victimized, violently, by a burglar armed with nothing or with some non-gun weapon than you are with a gun-wielding burglar.
So, why do you need guns in the first place if the chance of death in home invasions is so spectacularly low?
All having a gun at home does is put more guns on the black market where they do end up killing people. Statistically, home-invasion murders are a margin of error within a margin of error, yet firearms stolen from homes account for 4% of all burglaries, or roughly 500 times a day.
that's an argument for gun safes or trigger fingerprints, not disarmament.
No it isn't because gun safeties and trigger fingerprints don't prevent intentionally using a gun at all, which accounts for 97.5%+ of gun deaths
Regarding my last post, it’s why it’s always astounding to me when people bemoan the lack of a gun in certain situations. “I gambled on gun statistics and I should have had a gun instead!”
It’s like someone going bankrupt and complaining that they should have played the lottery.
It isn’t an either/or proposition. The addition of something with potential negative effects into a negative situation could simply exacerbate it further!
+7
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
27.6% of them were when a person was home = 1,021,200
26% of those above ended with a violent crime = 265,512
12% of the invasions with an occupant present had a burglar armed with a firearm = 122,544
Number of burglarly-related homicides = 430
Number of incidents where firearms were stolen from the household = 148,000
I see this and I wonder how many of the 143,000 violent crimes committed by a burglar with no firearm could have been prevented if the victim had one.
How many of the million ended with no violence because the homeowner was armed.
I see this and I wonder how many of the 122,544 home invasions with an armed burglar would have been prevented had burglars not been able to get arms so easily...
How come "gun rights" people ALWAYS make the error of assuming the innocent householder will have a gun and the burglar will be unarmed? It is much more likely to be the other way around, even if the householder does own a gun, because the householder will wake up groggy and confused, while the armed burglar is awake, alert, and has his hand on his gun, and is mentally prepared to use it.
From these numbers it's not necessarily more likely at all... that sounds like pure projection on your part. Only 12% of break-ins where the homeowner was present also feature a burglar with a gun.
From these numbers, if you're home and a violent crime happens you're more likely to be victimized, violently, by a burglar armed with nothing or with some non-gun weapon than you are with a gun-wielding burglar.
So, why do you need guns in the first place if the chance of death in home invasions is so spectacularly low?
All having a gun at home does is put more guns on the black market where they do end up killing people. Statistically, home-invasion murders are a margin of error within a margin of error, yet firearms stolen from homes account for 4% of all burglaries, or roughly 500 times a day.
that's an argument for gun safes or trigger fingerprints, not disarmament.
No it isn't because gun safeties and trigger fingerprints don't prevent intentionally using a gun at all, which accounts for 97.5%+ of gun deaths
It would help prevent a large swath of thefts, or how a lot of criminals in America get their guns in the first place.
Regarding my last post, it’s why it’s always astounding to me when people bemoan the lack of a gun in certain situations. “I gambled on gun statistics and I should have had a gun instead!”
It’s like someone going bankrupt and complaining that they should have played the lottery.
It isn’t an either/or proposition. The addition of something with potential negative effects into a negative situation could simply exacerbate it further!
And for some reason nobody ever goes "i'm glad i chose not to bring a gun and accidentally blow my nuts off".
+6
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Actually if you don't want to get shot the best way to avoid it is not to own a gun, or live in a house with one.
You're more likely to shoot yourself than you are to shoot anyone else. So is everyone else in the house. Want to protect your family? Don't own a gun.
This ecological fallacy needs to be nipped in the bud because it has gone on this entire thread and happens any time this subject comes up except, ironically, in the chat thread. Under no other topic would people in this forum attempt to make statistical inferences about individuals from aggregate statistics in good faith arguments.
Uh, people use aggregate statistics to make inferences about individuals all the time. It's like half of how preventive healthcare in general works.
Being around guns all the time specifically increases your chance of being hurt by one, even experts hurt themselves with guns sometimes. We've all seen YouTube videos of supposed responsible experts shooting themselves in the legs or feet
If I'm never around guns, it's going to be pretty hard for me to get hurt by one.
But no one is ever total free from guns, sometimes people around you are carrying without you knowing so everyone's carrying some chance for catching a bullet, but decreasing your time near guns does in fact reduce their chance to hurt you.
Kinda like if i never use a power saw i have a far lower likelihood of chopping off one or more of my fingers.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
I'll raise my hand here. I do not accept that it is a right.
Let me be clear what I mean. I'm not speaking on constitutional rights. I'm honestly not well-versed enough in Constitutional law on the 2nd to credibly say one way or another on that. I know a lot of people in this thread have mentioned Heller, I think, as redefining the meaning of the 2nd to mean personal gun ownership like we have now, and I know you've disagreed with that. I don't really know who's correct there.
When I say "guns are not a right," what I mean are moral, ethical, or humane rights. I strongly believe in freedom! You should be able to do whatever the heck you want to do, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's safety, security, well-being, etc. to a reasonable degree. That's where most of the other constitutional rights come from, I believe. They intend to ensure everyone has a good chance for happiness & security. (It's not always written perfectly, of course, but the idea is there.)
Not so for the 2nd in modern times, and it does infringe greatly on people's safety, security, and well-being.
@spool32, specifically I think this was called out days ago. And you were going to write up a piece explaining why the right to guns should be a fundamental right. ie why should the Constitution protect it without just saying "it does, so it should." At the time, I think you said you were busy, and would get to it when you could. Did that get posted and I missed it?
I was very eager to see it. Because from what I can see, I'm basically coming from the position of "get rid of all guns because they hurt a lot of people, and so far no one has a credible reason why we should have them to balance that out." Obviously I'd expect some compromise from that, because I'm not (yet) dictator of the world :P, but it would be really nice to understand the other side better.
"Protect people from the government" and "self-defense" are two arguments that I will not accept because they do not come from a position of rationality or data. If that's all you have, then I don't think I will ever agree with you (barring new data coming to light, of course! That's how science works). So I'm really hoping you have something else, because I'd really like to come meet in the middle
Edit: I mean, I admit here to being the "liberal boogyman that wants to take away all your guns!" I'm literally asking you to help convince me otherwise
The thread deserves a positive defense of the right to bear arms but I haven't done it. Turned out to be a lot bigger than I expected, but I think it's time to really sit down and e f f o r t p o s t.
For clarification, Heller is accused of redefining the 2nd, but I argue that it's a reaction to an overly-restrictive regime that finally drove the Court to clarify and recognize (then later in McDonald to apply to the States) that the 2nd is an individual Right of the People. Saying that Heller "redefines" is begging the question... it implies that there was a previous clear definition when that is not the case.
Actually if you don't want to get shot the best way to avoid it is not to own a gun, or live in a house with one.
You're more likely to shoot yourself than you are to shoot anyone else. So is everyone else in the house. Want to protect your family? Don't own a gun.
This ecological fallacy needs to be nipped in the bud because it has gone on this entire thread and happens any time this subject comes up except, ironically, in the chat thread. Under no other topic would people in this forum attempt to make statistical inferences about individuals from aggregate statistics in good faith arguments.
Uh, people use aggregate statistics to make inferences about individuals all the time. It's like half of how preventive healthcare in general works.
Being around guns all the time specifically increases your chance of being hurt by one, even experts hurt themselves with guns sometimes. We've all seen YouTube videos of supposed responsible experts shooting themselves in the legs or feet
If I'm never around guns, it's going to be pretty hard for me to get hurt by one.
But no one is ever total free from guns, sometimes people around you are carrying without you knowing so everyone's carrying some chance for catching a bullet, but decreasing your time near guns does in fact reduce their chance to hurt you.
Kinda like if i never use a power saw i have a far lower likelihood of chopping off one or more of my fingers.
Yes people do statistics wrong all the time. Even educated and trained people.
What health care professionals don't likely do is look at a set of aggregate statistics and then make inferences about individual patients without any other diagnostic attention to said individual.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
I'll raise my hand here. I do not accept that it is a right.
Let me be clear what I mean. I'm not speaking on constitutional rights. I'm honestly not well-versed enough in Constitutional law on the 2nd to credibly say one way or another on that. I know a lot of people in this thread have mentioned Heller, I think, as redefining the meaning of the 2nd to mean personal gun ownership like we have now, and I know you've disagreed with that. I don't really know who's correct there.
When I say "guns are not a right," what I mean are moral, ethical, or humane rights. I strongly believe in freedom! You should be able to do whatever the heck you want to do, as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's safety, security, well-being, etc. to a reasonable degree. That's where most of the other constitutional rights come from, I believe. They intend to ensure everyone has a good chance for happiness & security. (It's not always written perfectly, of course, but the idea is there.)
Not so for the 2nd in modern times, and it does infringe greatly on people's safety, security, and well-being.
@spool32, specifically I think this was called out days ago. And you were going to write up a piece explaining why the right to guns should be a fundamental right. ie why should the Constitution protect it without just saying "it does, so it should." At the time, I think you said you were busy, and would get to it when you could. Did that get posted and I missed it?
I was very eager to see it. Because from what I can see, I'm basically coming from the position of "get rid of all guns because they hurt a lot of people, and so far no one has a credible reason why we should have them to balance that out." Obviously I'd expect some compromise from that, because I'm not (yet) dictator of the world :P, but it would be really nice to understand the other side better.
"Protect people from the government" and "self-defense" are two arguments that I will not accept because they do not come from a position of rationality or data. If that's all you have, then I don't think I will ever agree with you (barring new data coming to light, of course! That's how science works). So I'm really hoping you have something else, because I'd really like to come meet in the middle
Edit: I mean, I admit here to being the "liberal boogyman that wants to take away all your guns!" I'm literally asking you to help convince me otherwise
The thread deserves a positive defense of the right to bear arms but I haven't done it. Turned out to be a lot bigger than I expected, but I think it's time to really sit down and e f f o r t p o s t.
With reference to other countries than the USA, please. The right to bear arms is easy to defend if you approach it as if the USA is the only free country in the world. But the whole issue gets more complicated when you include Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia. How does the lack of the right to bear arms affect freedom in these countries, when the practical effect is to reduce violent crime?
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Dude
I proposed my own slate of regulations back on page 16. wtf are you even saying here?
My first reply in this thread is acknowledging that restrictions are not only OK but inextricably linked to Rights. Other people are talking openly about repealing the 2nd and I'm supposed to react to that by thinking their desire to repeal the 2nd isn't an attempt to take away a right?
It could be nothing other than that. The only possible outcome of rewriting or removing the 2nd Amendment is a reduction in or removal of the right.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Dude
I proposed my own slate of regulations back on page 16. wtf are you even saying here?
My first reply in this thread is acknowledging that restrictions are not only OK but inextricably linked to Rights. Other people are talking openly about repealing the 2nd and I'm supposed to react to that by thinking their desire to repeal the 2nd isn't an attempt to take away a right?
It could be nothing other than that. The only possible outcome of rewriting or removing the 2nd Amendment is a reduction in or removal of the right.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Dude
I proposed my own slate of regulations back on page 16. wtf are you even saying here?
My first reply in this thread is acknowledging that restrictions are not only OK but inextricably linked to Rights. Other people are talking openly about repealing the 2nd and I'm supposed to react to that by thinking their desire to repeal the 2nd isn't an attempt to take away a right?
It could be nothing other than that. The only possible outcome of rewriting or removing the 2nd Amendment is a reduction in or removal of the right.
Regulating a right is not taking away a right.
You say this like it's going to be news to me
instead, it's a thing I already said myself
so
I agree? With myself?
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Dude
I proposed my own slate of regulations back on page 16. wtf are you even saying here?
My first reply in this thread is acknowledging that restrictions are not only OK but inextricably linked to Rights. Other people are talking openly about repealing the 2nd and I'm supposed to react to that by thinking their desire to repeal the 2nd isn't an attempt to take away a right?
It could be nothing other than that. The only possible outcome of rewriting or removing the 2nd Amendment is a reduction in or removal of the right.
Come on. I've been more than reasonable.
Except that when people agreed with your regulations, you turned around and accused them of secretly wanting to ban all guns. You then said that anyone that wants to regulate guns should be looked on with suspicion, in case their real goal is to ban guns.
What you've effectively done every time is turn this thread from discussing regulations into people trying to defend themselves from your accusations.
Which is the tactic of the GOP in making sure no regulations ever get passed.
The GOP can say they're all for reasonable regulation, but any regulation that gets proposed is shot down as an unforgivable assault on the people's rights. So even though they may say one thing, their actions, and your actions, speak louder.
Actually if you don't want to get shot the best way to avoid it is not to own a gun, or live in a house with one.
You're more likely to shoot yourself than you are to shoot anyone else. So is everyone else in the house. Want to protect your family? Don't own a gun.
This ecological fallacy needs to be nipped in the bud because it has gone on this entire thread and happens any time this subject comes up except, ironically, in the chat thread. Under no other topic would people in this forum attempt to make statistical inferences about individuals from aggregate statistics in good faith arguments.
This topic demands that we make statistical inferences about individuals because many gun owners believe that guns make them more a safe, contrary bit of evidence put forward! They then repress the ability of the government to do research because funnily enough it turns out that there is a connection between the vast amount of people killed in America by guns each year, and firearm legislation!
To be absolutely clear, it is not the pro-legislation side here which puts forward baseless, emotive, ridiculous arguments to support their points! The position "I need guns to protect my family" is clearly statistically bollocks! People feel more safe with guns. Their blind, unreasoning fear is stopping legislation that could, I would argue would, save innocent lives!
There's literally only one reason to disapprove of the CDC doing thorough research and information collection on gun-related incidents in this country, and that's the fear that the conclusions of those findings would provide strong evidence that refutes the claims of pro-gun lobbyists and would be strong evidence for introducing more gun regulation.
There's literally only one reason to disapprove of the CDC doing thorough research and information collection on gun-related incidents in this country, and that's the fear that the conclusions of those findings would provide strong evidence that refutes the claims of pro-gun lobbyists and would be strong evidence for introducing more gun regulation.
It's entirely possible it wouldn't, though. We need to test the scientific hypothesis.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
Even more absurd is that those same guys were smart enough to realize that the needs of society change with time and intended for the constitution to be updated to better reflect societies needs.
And hey: 225 years ago when the US had just gained independance it made a lot of sense for everyone to have a gun; You didn't know when/if britain or other european powers were going to attack, the indians could be aggressive and/or unpredictable and it was entirely possible that the states would collapse into infighting so having a large body of troops to call on was super important to the stability of the nascent nation.
But that isn't the situation that the US is in now; you have the most expensive and powerful army on the planet, a well armed and trained police force, are protected from potentially hostile powers by two oceans and a serious issue with gun violence.
It's well past due for the 2nd to be critically reviewed and either abolished as a bizzare hold over law (like how you can't fish for trout from the back of a giraffe in Maryland on Tuesdays) or brought closer in line to it's original meaning (you can have a gun but you need to be registered with the local militia and compliant with all of it's standards).
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
@spool32 I am also still looking forward to your positive defense of the right from a human/moral perspective (not a legal one).
I will say you have a bad tendency of seeing one or two posters saying “we should remove the 2nd” and extrapolating that position to everybody else in the thread and/or country arguing for gun control
But, I mean, fundamentally we are trying to restrict a right, and that would be easier if it weren’t in the Constitution. And that sounds scary! Which is why we should be talking about the merits of the goal, not the methods.
What is mystifying that people in 21st century are so eager to follow a set instructions from a 18th century without considering that maybe we might be in a different situation now, and new rules might be necessary.
Even more absurd is that those same guys were smart enough to realize that the needs of society change with time and intended for the constitution to be updated to better reflect societies needs.
And hey: 225 years ago when the US had just gained independance it made a lot of sense for everyone to have a gun; You didn't know when/if britain or other european powers were going to attack, the indians could be aggressive and/or unpredictable and it was entirely possible that the states would collapse into infighting so having a large body of troops to call on was super important to the stability of the nascent nation.
But that isn't the situation that the US is in now; you have the most expensive and powerful army on the planet, a well armed and trained police force, are protected from potentially hostile powers by two oceans and a serious issue with gun violence.
It's well past due for the 2nd to be critically reviewed and either abolished as a bizzare hold over law (like how you can't fish for trout from the back of a giraffe in Maryland on Tuesdays) or brought closer in line to it's original meaning (you can have a gun but you need to be registered with the local militia and compliant with all of it's standards).
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
There's literally only one reason to disapprove of the CDC doing thorough research and information collection on gun-related incidents in this country, and that's the fear that the conclusions of those findings would provide strong evidence that refutes the claims of pro-gun lobbyists and would be strong evidence for introducing more gun regulation.
It's entirely possible it wouldn't, though. We need to test the scientific hypothesis.
Exactly! What if it turns out that gun ownership, combined with proper education and safety measures, actually does make people safer? I would certainly like to know!
Even as a progressive myself, yet one that has done plenty of shooting, hunting, and learning about guns (but the only gun i own is a .22 given to me by my grandfather and is thousands of miles away in a gun safe) there has been a number of posts in here I felt were personally combative to myself or any point i was trying to make. I cant really blame Spool, NSFDRand, and a few others for kinda sorta being overly defensive. After all there is maybe 4 or 5 people on this forum who would even dare wade in here and defend an opposing side to something like gun control. I know people don't like to admit it, but this place is a heck of an echo chamber and since a majority of people on the forum are pretty well spoken/written it becomes a battle of nuance and eventually devolves into skirting personal attacks.
Stuff like "you have chosen to support the position that allows spree shooters" or "if you support gun rights you are directly responsible for Vegas" and etc.
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about.
Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
There HAS been plenty of sideways dog whistling about straight up gun bans in this thread. Like it or not, that's what it has been, dog whistles about anything from out right bans, to laws so restrictive it might as well be a ban, to repealing of the second amendment, which....seriously....is understandably confused with an out right ban. (saying it isn't is roughly the same as saying Trump removing the first amendment because of freedom of the press isn't an attempt to out right control the press and legislate a freedom away).
I think some folks also wind up confusing a more nuanced approach to gun control for outright support of the NRA. Which is nonsense. Also people seem to talk past other folks with the conflated idea that an individuals ideals or opinions on gun control with the frozen and awful approach that's been happening in Washington. Look, i'm for a nuanced approach to gun control (as i put forth earlier in thread) and i think some more licensing and regulation is HEALTHY for the hobby, and better for responsible gun owners. But....goddamn i am not the fucking NRA or representative that opposed shit like bump stocks.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
As long as we can chip away at each of our key points on both sides I think this is a fine state.
You can have an extreme view like "I can own any weapons whatsoever" or "no guns allowed" as long as you acknowledge that it's pretty damned impossible to get there so what can you do.
I don't believe there shouldn't be engagement with someone even if their ultimate goal is expressly opposite yours and I think that is the frustration the "no gun'ers" have with some pro-gun folks, specifically the NRA.
They see any inches given and any compromise as a fundamental threat and it destroys negotiation.
Just want to be clear I am not lumping you into this camp Spool as I've mentioned there was a good policy discussion a while back.
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about.
Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
It happened once already, but just because people are pro-gun control doesn't mean they don't know anything because the "proper" name wasn't dropped.
I'd put my experience up against anyone here who is a hobbyist.
Why is people disagreeing with the NRA, an "echo chamber"?
That's not even what was said.
The point is seemingly that there is a habit here to dogpile on outsiders who don't come into the thread on the unofficially agreed upon position of the majority of posters in said thread. And that this habit of dogpiling keeps otherwise reasonable people who disagree from the thread, or causes them to minimize participation in a thread on a given topic.
I think it's fine to call for unrealistic things like total gun bans or repeal of the 2nd.
It's also fine to say don't touch anything with regulations.
People should not have to hide their preferences as long as we can still talk.
Is anyone saying Spool etc al. is wrong to view suggestions or people with suspicion given their position on the 2nd & legislation?
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
As long as we can chip away at each of our key points on both sides I think this is a fine state.
You can have an extreme view like "I can own any weapons whatsoever" or "no guns allowed" as long as you acknowledge that it's pretty damned impossible to get there so what can you do.
I don't believe there shouldn't be engagement with someone even if their ultimate goal is expressly opposite yours and I think that is the frustration the "no gun'ers" have with some pro-gun folks, specifically the NRA.
They see any inches given and any compromise as a fundamental threat and it destroys negotiation.
Just want to be clear I am not lumping you into this camp Spool as I've mentioned there was a good policy discussion a while back.
Ty
And I'll say that I came away from the back and forth regarding engagement feeling like I was wrong and it's worth doing so even with people who want to wipe your position away completely.
These are intractable issues not easily navigated.
+1
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I think it's fine to call for unrealistic things like total gun bans or repeal of the 2nd.
It's also fine to say don't touch anything with regulations.
People should not have to hide their preferences as long as we can still talk.
Is anyone saying Spool etc al. is wrong to view suggestions or people with suspicion given their position on the 2nd & legislation?
I think it's perfectly fine...
The bolded.
C'mon.
We basically have to hide the fact that rampant gun ownership, we feel, is bad for the nation or nobody on the pro-gun side will ever come to the table for anything.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
+2
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
So, what? Just stop trying to regulate guns and accept thousands of deaths a year?
How about: accept that it's a right, and work on restrictions that are reasonable just like all the other Rights have.
You have the right to Speak, but not to lie on the stand or threaten to kill someone
The right to Assemble, but not to riot
The right to bear arms, but not to own a tank / a machine gun / [insert more things]
The right to an attorney, but not The Best Attorney Ever
and so on. I don't think any credible person is arguing for Literally No Gun Laws At All Ever. At least here, even the most staunch gun rights supporter recognizes that Rights come with attendant Responsibilities.
Isn't that what most legislative efforts have been?
I mean, just because we think the legal right to own and bear arms is fucking moronic, does not mean we don't recognice that it exists, and try to work within the legal framework.
We might discuss here about 2nd amendment, but i don't think anyone has suggested we should spend our efforts on gun regulation to try to abolish 2nd amendment.
You should abolish it, sure, but it can't be done at the moment so no point wasting effort for now.
which just wraps us around to a point from many pages ago:
if the gun rights supporters believe that your ultimate goal is to disarm the populace, and they're right because it actually is your goal to do that, it's perfectly rational and sensible to subject every single proposal to heightened scrutiny.
They believe it because they're being lied to?
I dunno, when I see a bill that says "we'd like to ban armor piercing bullets", I assume it's to ban armor piercing bullets and not some long-game 12th dimensional chess bullshit the pro-gun side says it is.
wtf are you talking about long game 12th dimensional chess
People are blatantly up front about deleting from the Constitution the entire right underpinning gun possession, or failing that reversing the rulings that finally recognized and incorporated the individual right, and in the meantime restricting it as much as legislatively possible.
It's no secret, no super complex hidden agenda.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
Why is people disagreeing with the NRA, an "echo chamber"?
That's not even what was said.
The point is seemingly that there is a habit here to dogpile on outsiders who don't come into the thread on the unofficially agreed upon position of the majority of posters in said thread. And that this habit of dogpiling keeps otherwise reasonable people who disagree from the thread, or causes them to minimize participation in a thread on a given topic.
This type of more concise eloquence is what i need to learn more of.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Yeah, that's one for the ages.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Thanks, Founding Fathers who didn't know that inflation exists.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
Posts
But that won't happen, because the pro-gun side says it won't.
There is literally no compromise with the pro-gun lobby and NRA. Every restriction is unconstitutional.
It has nothing to do with making inferences about individuals. You have it backwards. People make decisions based on statistics all the time. They refrain from playing the lottery because it is statistically unlikely that they will win, even if they feel personally lucky. And the only negative outcome of playing the lottery and losing is that they are a few dollars poorer.
The negative outcomes of gambling against gun statistics are much nastier.
The quoted post literally made a statistical inference on the likelihood of an individual to be or do X based on aggregate statistics of X.
When you say "based on the statistics" or "statistically you/them/he/she/it are" you're making a statistical inference.
Only 9 republicans have signed off on it.
It'll go to committee and die.
Republicans and NRA supporters will not consider the meekest, mildest restrictions on guns.
No it isn't because gun safeties and trigger fingerprints don't prevent intentionally using a gun at all, which accounts for 97.5%+ of gun deaths
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It’s like someone going bankrupt and complaining that they should have played the lottery.
It isn’t an either/or proposition. The addition of something with potential negative effects into a negative situation could simply exacerbate it further!
It would help prevent a large swath of thefts, or how a lot of criminals in America get their guns in the first place.
Here we go again.
Spool, it's abundantly clear you're not being honest.
You oppose everyone who suggests anything related to gun control legislation. Even the people who agree with your suggested regulations get accused, by you, of secretly wanting to take away your rights.
You are the perfect example of what is going wrong with the debate. You have chosen a side that is okay with spree killings and you're incredibly dishonest about doing so.
Uh, people use aggregate statistics to make inferences about individuals all the time. It's like half of how preventive healthcare in general works.
Being around guns all the time specifically increases your chance of being hurt by one, even experts hurt themselves with guns sometimes. We've all seen YouTube videos of supposed responsible experts shooting themselves in the legs or feet
If I'm never around guns, it's going to be pretty hard for me to get hurt by one.
But no one is ever total free from guns, sometimes people around you are carrying without you knowing so everyone's carrying some chance for catching a bullet, but decreasing your time near guns does in fact reduce their chance to hurt you.
Kinda like if i never use a power saw i have a far lower likelihood of chopping off one or more of my fingers.
The thread deserves a positive defense of the right to bear arms but I haven't done it. Turned out to be a lot bigger than I expected, but I think it's time to really sit down and e f f o r t p o s t.
For clarification, Heller is accused of redefining the 2nd, but I argue that it's a reaction to an overly-restrictive regime that finally drove the Court to clarify and recognize (then later in McDonald to apply to the States) that the 2nd is an individual Right of the People. Saying that Heller "redefines" is begging the question... it implies that there was a previous clear definition when that is not the case.
Yes people do statistics wrong all the time. Even educated and trained people.
What health care professionals don't likely do is look at a set of aggregate statistics and then make inferences about individual patients without any other diagnostic attention to said individual.
With reference to other countries than the USA, please. The right to bear arms is easy to defend if you approach it as if the USA is the only free country in the world. But the whole issue gets more complicated when you include Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia. How does the lack of the right to bear arms affect freedom in these countries, when the practical effect is to reduce violent crime?
Dude
I proposed my own slate of regulations back on page 16. wtf are you even saying here?
My first reply in this thread is acknowledging that restrictions are not only OK but inextricably linked to Rights. Other people are talking openly about repealing the 2nd and I'm supposed to react to that by thinking their desire to repeal the 2nd isn't an attempt to take away a right?
It could be nothing other than that. The only possible outcome of rewriting or removing the 2nd Amendment is a reduction in or removal of the right.
Come on. I've been more than reasonable.
Regulating a right is not taking away a right.
You say this like it's going to be news to me
instead, it's a thing I already said myself
so
I agree? With myself?
Except that when people agreed with your regulations, you turned around and accused them of secretly wanting to ban all guns. You then said that anyone that wants to regulate guns should be looked on with suspicion, in case their real goal is to ban guns.
What you've effectively done every time is turn this thread from discussing regulations into people trying to defend themselves from your accusations.
Which is the tactic of the GOP in making sure no regulations ever get passed.
The GOP can say they're all for reasonable regulation, but any regulation that gets proposed is shot down as an unforgivable assault on the people's rights. So even though they may say one thing, their actions, and your actions, speak louder.
This topic demands that we make statistical inferences about individuals because many gun owners believe that guns make them more a safe, contrary bit of evidence put forward! They then repress the ability of the government to do research because funnily enough it turns out that there is a connection between the vast amount of people killed in America by guns each year, and firearm legislation!
To be absolutely clear, it is not the pro-legislation side here which puts forward baseless, emotive, ridiculous arguments to support their points! The position "I need guns to protect my family" is clearly statistically bollocks! People feel more safe with guns. Their blind, unreasoning fear is stopping legislation that could, I would argue would, save innocent lives!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's entirely possible it wouldn't, though. We need to test the scientific hypothesis.
Even more absurd is that those same guys were smart enough to realize that the needs of society change with time and intended for the constitution to be updated to better reflect societies needs.
And hey: 225 years ago when the US had just gained independance it made a lot of sense for everyone to have a gun; You didn't know when/if britain or other european powers were going to attack, the indians could be aggressive and/or unpredictable and it was entirely possible that the states would collapse into infighting so having a large body of troops to call on was super important to the stability of the nascent nation.
But that isn't the situation that the US is in now; you have the most expensive and powerful army on the planet, a well armed and trained police force, are protected from potentially hostile powers by two oceans and a serious issue with gun violence.
It's well past due for the 2nd to be critically reviewed and either abolished as a bizzare hold over law (like how you can't fish for trout from the back of a giraffe in Maryland on Tuesdays) or brought closer in line to it's original meaning (you can have a gun but you need to be registered with the local militia and compliant with all of it's standards).
I will say you have a bad tendency of seeing one or two posters saying “we should remove the 2nd” and extrapolating that position to everybody else in the thread and/or country arguing for gun control
But, I mean, fundamentally we are trying to restrict a right, and that would be easier if it weren’t in the Constitution. And that sounds scary! Which is why we should be talking about the merits of the goal, not the methods.
The longer a founding document remains active, the less relevant to modern conditions. It's almost impossible to find any modern day relevance to the Magna Carta of 1215 in the UK's modern governance, but it doesn't stop people trying! In 500 years time, the US constitution will be as obsolete as the Magna Carta is now, if it isn't kept current.
Exactly! What if it turns out that gun ownership, combined with proper education and safety measures, actually does make people safer? I would certainly like to know!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Stuff like "you have chosen to support the position that allows spree shooters" or "if you support gun rights you are directly responsible for Vegas" and etc.
I have no doubt that most people around here are reasonable (been here for 4 years today! woo!) but this is one of those issues that is so polarizing its almost impossible to talk about.
Gun owners and hobbyists get irritated because non-gun owning individuals wind up saying stuff that doesn't make sense when you know about guns, and pro-control folks get understandably irritated when people feel like they don't want to budge and awful shit like Vegas keeps happening.
There HAS been plenty of sideways dog whistling about straight up gun bans in this thread. Like it or not, that's what it has been, dog whistles about anything from out right bans, to laws so restrictive it might as well be a ban, to repealing of the second amendment, which....seriously....is understandably confused with an out right ban. (saying it isn't is roughly the same as saying Trump removing the first amendment because of freedom of the press isn't an attempt to out right control the press and legislate a freedom away).
I think some folks also wind up confusing a more nuanced approach to gun control for outright support of the NRA. Which is nonsense. Also people seem to talk past other folks with the conflated idea that an individuals ideals or opinions on gun control with the frozen and awful approach that's been happening in Washington. Look, i'm for a nuanced approach to gun control (as i put forth earlier in thread) and i think some more licensing and regulation is HEALTHY for the hobby, and better for responsible gun owners. But....goddamn i am not the fucking NRA or representative that opposed shit like bump stocks.
As long as we can chip away at each of our key points on both sides I think this is a fine state.
You can have an extreme view like "I can own any weapons whatsoever" or "no guns allowed" as long as you acknowledge that it's pretty damned impossible to get there so what can you do.
I don't believe there shouldn't be engagement with someone even if their ultimate goal is expressly opposite yours and I think that is the frustration the "no gun'ers" have with some pro-gun folks, specifically the NRA.
They see any inches given and any compromise as a fundamental threat and it destroys negotiation.
Just want to be clear I am not lumping you into this camp Spool as I've mentioned there was a good policy discussion a while back.
I don't think this is accurate. Spool has said he's suspicious of people pushing for gun legislation and would be very critical of some things as potentially leading to serious infringement on the 2nd amendment.
To me this is different than flat out refusing to entertain any restrictions whatsoever (NRA).
It happened once already, but just because people are pro-gun control doesn't mean they don't know anything because the "proper" name wasn't dropped.
I'd put my experience up against anyone here who is a hobbyist.
That's not even what was said.
The point is seemingly that there is a habit here to dogpile on outsiders who don't come into the thread on the unofficially agreed upon position of the majority of posters in said thread. And that this habit of dogpiling keeps otherwise reasonable people who disagree from the thread, or causes them to minimize participation in a thread on a given topic.
It's also fine to say don't touch anything with regulations.
People should not have to hide their preferences as long as we can still talk.
Is anyone saying Spool etc al. is wrong to view suggestions or people with suspicion given their position on the 2nd & legislation?
I think it's perfectly fine...
Ty
And I'll say that I came away from the back and forth regarding engagement feeling like I was wrong and it's worth doing so even with people who want to wipe your position away completely.
These are intractable issues not easily navigated.
The bolded.
C'mon.
We basically have to hide the fact that rampant gun ownership, we feel, is bad for the nation or nobody on the pro-gun side will ever come to the table for anything.
Why can't we play with the same ruleset?
This is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights lays down general rights and, because it is not specific, will always be relevant.
It doesn't say "if you are suspected of embezzling corporate funds in a company you work for the police need to obtain a warrant before searching through your financial records to obtain evidence in a case they are building against you", it says that you are secure against unreasonable search.
We add laws that provide specific interpretations to rights laid down by the constitution (a judge needs to authorize a warrant to wiretap your cellphone, you will be offered the option of a public defender for your embezzling charge, you must go through a mandatory two week waiting period before buying a handgun, etc), but the broad strokes of each amendment exist to make it a document that is valid no matter what changes in society or technology occur over the past two hundred years or the next two hundred years.
Times change, but individual rights do not. Five hundred years from now in an ideal reality you will still be protected from unreasonable search and seizure through whatever methods have been defined as constitutional by the people of the time, just as you will still be afforded the right to keep and bear arms throuh whatever method has been deemed constitutional by the people of that time.
He's not flat out refusing. That was my point. Spool is very reasonable with his suggested legislation.
The problem is that when people agree with him, he accuses them of having an agenda and he has no choice but to oppose them. They're forced to defend themselves. It happened a few days ago in this thread, and it just happened again.
To be honest, though, the last few days have absolutely convinced me there will never, ever be any effective legislation at the federal level in the United States. Between this thread, and how the NRA spoke out both sides of its mouth and not a single media personality took them to task, the fight is over.
This type of more concise eloquence is what i need to learn more of.
"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Yeah, that's one for the ages.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Thanks, Founding Fathers who didn't know that inflation exists.
nevermind
I would also be curious for you, and any other pro-gun-people, to share your side like spool said he would. Why should guns be a right?
Not, "because the Constitution says so," because that's the point of me asking :P. You should be able to positively defend a right on the Consitution without citing the document itself, it should have a reason for existing. "Self-defense" and "to protect against the government" are the only two positive defenses I've ever heard, but both of those are grounded more in fantasy than reality so they ring very hollow to me.
I really really would like to understand an actual valid reason for guns. I am sincerely asking and trying to understand you.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile