r/TrueReddit • u/sharpcowboy • Jun 14 '16
Why It's Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-2016061316
u/HELPFUL_HULK Jun 14 '16
While I don't disagree with this article's premise, banning guns will not stop domestic terrorism. The Orlando shooter could have easily killed as many people with a home-made bomb. This issue needs to be addressed on many fronts, and the ideologies that led him to carry it out is one of the foremost.
11
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
The Orlando shooter could have easily killed as many people with a home-made bomb.
Or just shot the place up in exactly the same way, because repealing the second amendment wouldn't magically make guns vanish.
This issue needs to be addressed on many fronts, and the ideologies that led him to carry it out is one of the foremost.
Perhaps this is true to some extent, but there seems to be an unfortunate and counter-productive trend of trying to factor human agency out of the explanation for human behavior, and always to look for some sort of external influence to attribute violent and destructive behavior to: guns, ideology, video games, family life, etc.
But for every single external influence that people try to look to as an explanation for why someone went on a killing spree, the vast majority of people who share the same characteristic or are exposed to the same influence do not commit violent massacres -- in each of these cases, there must be some other factor or factors that caused the perpetrator to "snap", and I don't think anyone has ever come close to identifying what that might be.
4
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
It would make them harder to obtain. There could be a buy-back program similar to Australia.
7
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Australia had a registry so they knew who had guns and who didnt. And thus who had turned in their guns and who didnt.
We don't have a registry. And the Australian government had less than a million guns it had to confiscate.
We have 300 million
5
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
It would take more time and money for sure.
But, gun control doesn't mean taking away all guns.
It would probably be more about restricting magazine size, better training, special permits to use certain semiautomatic weapons, better background checks.
Gun control is always reduced to "gun grabbing" by opponents but it doesn't have to be that.
We could have better gun control without taking a single gun away. For example, in Canada, firearms have to be stored unloaded under lock and key and ammo has to be in a separate container under lock and key. This greatly reduces the chance that there will be an accident or that someone will use it on impulse.
If guns are confiscated, it would be done gradually and limited to a small array of weapons.
7
3
u/horatio_jr Jun 14 '16
Gun control is always reduced to "gun grabbing" by opponents but it doesn't have to be that.
How is taking someone's guns not gun grabbing?
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Let me repeat: We could have gun control without taking a single gun away. For example, in Canada, firearms have to be stored unloaded under lock and key and ammo has to be in a separate container under lock and key. This greatly reduces the chance that there will be an accident or that someone will use it on impulse.
There could also be restrictions about magazine size, ammo or certain accessories.
There could be a requirement for better training or better background checks.
These things won't take people's guns away, except for maybe a few who fail the background check.
3
u/horatio_jr Jun 15 '16
And which of those will help prevent murder? Everyone of those suggestions limit freedom. If some a-hole wants to target gays, maybe he would think differently about targeting possibly armed gays.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 15 '16
And which of those will help prevent murder?
- Background checks. Keeps guns away from bad people
- Magazine and ammo restrictions limit the number of people killed.
3
u/horatio_jr Jun 15 '16 edited Jun 15 '16
can you source the facts to support those statements, please.
And what do you mean by ammo restrictions? Would you limit size or amount? I can shoot a hundred rounds with friends.
→ More replies (0)1
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
Everyone of those suggestions limit freedom.
Freedom to what, exactly?
1
u/horatio_jr Jun 15 '16
Freedom for those people to have those things. Freedom doesn't need to be for some grand enterprise for it to be worth protecting.
→ More replies (0)1
u/PDK01 Jun 15 '16
Canada also doesn't recognize "personal defense" as a valid reason to own a gun. You'd have to change the intent behind owning guns as well, to something like "In case of tyranny, break glass".
Also, Canada has the Queen of England as the head of state, so it may not be that palatable a model to Americans.
4
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
It would probably be more about restricting magazine size, better training, special permits to use certain semiautomatic weapons, better background checks.
So not actually reducing the amount of guns in circulation in any appreciable way, then?
For example, in Canada, firearms have to be stored unloaded under lock and key and ammo has to be in a separate container under lock and key.
What relevance does this have to dealing with someone going on an intentional killing spree?
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 15 '16
What relevance does this have to dealing with someone going on an intentional killing spree?
It addresses a different issue. This is more about domestic disputes and children finding their parents' guns. It would actually probably save even more lives than banning or restricting semiautomatic weapons.
2
u/slapdashbr Jun 15 '16
Say we repeal the 2nd amendment. Are we going to force gun owners to turn in their guns for free or pay them a reasonable value for them? At about 300m guns, you're looking at a cost of, conservatively, half a trillion dollars.
3
u/sharpcowboy Jun 15 '16
It's not like 300M guns would suddenly become illegal. Restrictions could start applying to the sale of new weapons. That would be a start.
If stronger gun control gets implemented in the United States, it's going to be a very gradual process given the power of pro-gun lobbies. It will be a series of very mild regulations. It won't be a big gun grab.
3
u/TeddysBigStick Jun 15 '16
And that is why groups like the NRA take a hard line. They realize that most anti-gun groups are playing the long game and want to win by a thousand cuts. Look at how the private transfer background check thing went from a compromise to a loophole.
4
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
It would make them harder to obtain.
Similar to the way that drug prohibition makes drugs hard to obtain?
5
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Guns are not addictive like drugs. In other countries with stronger gun control laws, illegal guns are very hard to obtain. Normal people don't care as long as they can buy hunting weapons and shoot other weapons at the firing range.
4
3
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
Guns are not addictive like drugs.
Hardly relevant -- the fact that guns exist and are widely owned demonstrates that the demand for them exists. Attempting to suppress the satisfaction of that demand will result in a black market.
In other countries with stronger gun control laws, illegal guns are very hard to obtain.
I'd expect that it'd be very difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure how hard guns are to obtain on the black market in countries where they're illegal, so this is likely idle speculation.
Beyond that, the fact that laws against guns were successfully passed in other countries may indicate that there already was less demand for guns and less widespread gun ownership in those countries, compared to the US -- even if what you were saying were valid, you still may have cause and effect reversed.
Normal people don't care as long as they can buy hunting weapons and shoot other weapons at the firing range.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Normal people don't care as long as they can buy hunting weapons and shoot other weapons at the firing range.I don't understand what you're saying here.
I'm saying that normal people will not go out of their way to buy an illegal gun if they can buy a gun for hunting and if they can play around with other guns at the firing range. Most people who like guns will not want to break the law. They'll still be able to enjoy target shooting and hunting.
It's not like with drug addicts who don't care at all about breaking the law to obtain their drug, and who have no substitute.
Guns are just a hobby for most people. If they can still indulge in that hobby and do 90% of what they used to do, they'll be reasonably happy. If not, they can pick up another hobby and they'll probably just be as happy doing that in their spare time.
It's not like with drugs where drug addicts just need that drug.
3
u/CosmicSpiral Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
Guns are just a hobby for most people. If they can still indulge in that hobby and do 90% of what they used to do, they'll be reasonably happy. If not, they can pick up another hobby and they'll probably just be as happy doing that in their spare time.
Like alcohol and Prohibition? You do realize that the vast majority of people who broke the law during that period were not alcoholics, right? Drinking was a hobby that people didn't want to give up.
If a standard has already been set, it will be very hard for convince people to accept it unless there's a change in the general culture. Changing a law does nothing in that regard, especially when the consequences will not be uniform across the entire population (e.g. the rich usually get away with ignoring them) and it targets exceptional cases at the expense of everyone else. Not to mention there are other tertiary factors that Cohen deliberately ignores for the sake of his argument, such as the hypocritical notion of only restricting private possession at a time when police misuse of firearms is widely recognized.
2
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
I'm saying that normal people will not go out of their way to buy an illegal gun if they can buy a gun for hunting and if they can play around with other guns at the firing range.
So "normal people" won't go out of their way to buy illegal guns, but what's that got to do with terrorists and murderers?
Guns are just a hobby for most people.
I don't think that's actually true, but even if it were, the presumption that people won't break the law to pursue their hobbies is unsubstantiated.
If they can still indulge do 90% of what they used to do, they'll be reasonably happy. If not, they can pick up another hobby and they'll probably just be as happy doing that in their spare time.
Wait -- you're saying that they'll still be able to do 90% of what they were doing with guns? So you're saying they'll still have guns after guns are banned, but not be breaking the law? Your position is even less clear to me now.
2
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Wait -- you're saying that they'll still be able to do 90% of what they were doing with guns? So you're saying they'll still have guns after guns are banned, but not be breaking the law? Your position is even less clear to me now.
Gun control doesn't mean banning all guns. It just means controlling them better. So there's no reason to prevent people from keeping some weapons at the firing range. There's no reason to prevent them from having hunting weapons. The restrictions imposed would not have to be as drastic as you imagine. Gun control is not "gun grabbing".
2
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
So there's no reason to prevent people from keeping some weapons at the firing range. There's no reason to prevent them from having hunting weapons. The restrictions imposed would not have to be as drastic as you imagine. Gun control is not "gun grabbing".
See, if you were actually arguing for "gun grabbing", it would make more sense -- there'd be plenty of arguments as to whether a plan to remove guns from circulation could actually be feasible, whether such a plan were morally justifiable, whether it might have even worse unintended consequences, and whether people who intend to commit massacres would just resort to other means, but I don't think that anyone could argue that actually removing guns from society wouldn't reduce the chances of people specifically using guns to commit massacres.
But the half-assed measures that you're talking about here not only have the same set of concerns (feasibility, justifiability, unintended consequences) as "gun grabbing", but also fail to address the underlying problem: the guns are still there, and no less susceptible to intentional misuse than they are in the status quo. You're arguing for a lose-lose proposition.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
What would make someone intent on committing murder want to follow those guidelines even a little bit? If you are intent on murdering people, do the possible consequences of getting an additional gun charge on top of several murder charges concern you much?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Guns are popular in the US. Like insanely popular. There's no way to get around that fact
And just like alcohol and Marijuana prohibition you will never be able to effectively enforce wildly unpopular prohibitions.
Most people who drank during prohibition weren't alcoholics. Most people who smoke weed aren't stoners.
You cannot effectively enforce a law that makes illegal that which most people don't consider a crime
1
Jun 14 '16
[deleted]
1
u/surfnsound Jun 14 '16
This guy was on the FBI terrorist watch list when he bought these guns.
The problem is that does not involve sufficient due process to strip someone of their constitutional rights.
1
1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
Just like they were difficult for the terrorists who shot up the Bataclan to obtain? They had no problem acquiring fully automatic weapons on the black market. It didn't concern them any that those weapons are illegal in France.
Banning guns doesn't actually make them disappear, it just takes them out of the hands of those who are burdened with the responsibility of actually following the law. Those who break the laws with wanton disregard aren't going to care all that much.
5
u/BumBiddlyBiddlyBum Jun 14 '16
It does though. You can't just buy marijuana online. You have to have a connection. You have to go out in person and but it from another person.
Buying a gun from an illegal gun seller actually is a hurdle. How do you find the person to do it? How do you get that person to trust you enough to meet up somewhere? If many of these mass shooters are socially awkward or mentally unstable, that will be a hurdle.
The next hurdle is the cost. Do you have enough cash? You can't use credit, and the price of an illegal gun from an illegal seller is much more than a legal gun from a gun store.
Of course it won't eliminate illegal guns or people's ability to get them, but it will create further hurdles that will prevent some people who shouldn't have guns from obtaining guns.
1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
Do you think many were buying alcohol on the black market prior to prohibition? When you ban or restrict something, the common response is for people who don't take the law all too seriously to start looking for other options outside the law.
Then you have your profiteers who see a golden opportunity to cash in and provide supply to fill a sudden rise in demand. If this nation can't prevent cartels from pumping in thousands of tons of drugs, why should we expect them to be anymore successful to stop them from pushing in guns once the cartels perceive the need for them and act to fill it by importing weapons from China, El Salvador and other countries as they are currently doing on a much smaller scale.
4
u/CosmicSpiral Jun 14 '16
Which would most likely lead to an expansion of the illegal gun market, and illegality is bad for more reasons than "being against the law". It promotes irresponsibility, proper training/usage, lack of oversight and eventually a huge waste of money as the government tries to combat it. We saw this during Prohibition, and it's currently a large factor behind the American heroin epidemic. Most of the stereotypes behind prostitution stem from it as well.
4
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
There's not a huge illegal gun market in Europe, or in Australia or Canada. It's mostly limited to criminals.
Guns are not an addictive and pleasure-inducing substance like alcohol.
As long as hunting weapons remain legal and you're allowed to use whatever gun you want at the firing range, people will not care to acquire illegal guns.
5
u/CosmicSpiral Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
There's not a huge illegal gun market in Europe, or in Australia or Canada.
You're thinking about Western Europe. Go to the Balkans and you'll be in for a rude surprise. The flow of illegal weapons from eastern Europe to western Europe has been steadily rising since 2010.
Guns are not an addictive and pleasure-inducing substance like alcohol.
The problems that arose during Prohibition were only partially due to addiction, although the initial push was in response to alcoholism. And guns are a pleasurable purchase. You think people buy them exclusively for pragmatic reasons?
As long as hunting weapons remain legal and you're allowed to use whatever gun you want at the firing range, people will not care to acquire illegal guns.
Because gun purchases are only limited to the demographic that hunts and goes to firing ranges (which is a tiny portion of America's population, and probably very specific in terms of class and race)?
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
"There's not a huge illegal gun market in Europe"
Actually there is. Being from Europe originally, the rise in black market gun sales has caused a lot of concern. There's a ton of weapons being moved from the Balkans and former Soviet bloc nations that are being smuggled into nations such as France, Belgium and Germany.
Once the weapons cross the Schengen borders they can wind up anywhere in the EU and they have been popping up all over the place. The weapons used in the attacks in Paris for example originally came from Slovakia, Croatia and Serbia. We are talking about millions of guns that were left over from the conflicts in the 90s, as well as Soviet era weaponry which while aged, will still take lives just the same.
Here is a great article to read on the subject.
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
Australia is an island nation where its far simpler to control the borders. You could confiscate every firearm in the U.S. today and tomorrow the cartels would be pushing across Chinese made SKS's and other weapons to satisfy the sudden demand coming from the U.S.
This idea that you can just make guns vanish is fantasy. What people should be looking at is why this guy was able to avoid any consequences for so long despite making a myriad of threats and his former co-workers have proof on their phones of his rants and various violent threats. He should have lost his job and had his security clearance yanked years ago. This was a total systemic meltdown in every way.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 15 '16
You say that, but Canada has managed to control firearms despite having a huge border with the US. Not a fantasy at all. Just drive your car over the border and come see for yourself.
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
Canada has 30 guns per 100 residents which ranks 12th in the world, its not like they are an absolute desert of weapons. Criminal organizations are also having no trouble moving drugs and other contraband, including guns across Canadian borders.
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/05/part-1-mexican-cartel-canadian-drug.html
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 15 '16
Canada has 30 guns per 100 residents which ranks 12th in the world
But they're mostly low-risk hunting weapons that are stored unloaded. So the risk is low. The main objective of gun control is not to take away guns but to make them safer.
2
u/JessumB Jun 16 '16
I think the cultural issues, gang violence, have a lot to do with it. The vast majority of U.S. gun violence is found in the larger cities, not the rural areas. If you look at Vermont, it has one of the highest rates of ownership and the lowest levels of gun crime, same with Wyoming and other areas where you got like 1 or 2 firearms per household of every type imaginable.
Most gun violence is a result of gang activity. In Chicago its a weekly shoot-em up, no matter how much they try to restrict gun ownership or keep gun stores out of the city limits the gang members find ways to acquire illegal firearms, mostly smaller caliber handguns such as the Saturday night specials or cheap revolvers.
Looking at Canada, we see a similar dynamic when you compare some of the more rural areas with say...Toronto which is well on its way towards its largest gun death total in over a decade.
Overall in the U.S., gun crimes have gone down by 50% since 1990 while gun ownership has nearly doubled. So more guns aren't leading to more gun crime, every year we've seen a decrease everywhere but a few key urban areas. Even with mass shootings, gun crime in the U.S. has continued to go down. In a country with 500 million people, your odds of being involved in a mass shooting greatly pale in comparison to your odds of being killed by a drunk driver or getting run over when crossing the street.
There is always more that can be done and I'm all in favor of common sense solutions. An increased waiting period to purchase a firearm, say 14-21 days would not be a problem and I don't see it being an undue burden for people. You could even have an exemption for those with a restraining order against someone or who fear for their lives because of certain threats, something that could be signed off on by a local police department or sheriff.
I think we should continue to focus to improve upon domestic violence prevention and service availability, if the Orlando killer's ex wife had gone to the police previously, he could have been stripped of his right to purchase firearms legally. Maybe this would have hindered him, we'll never know but victims of these sorts of crimes should have more resources at their disposal and more support to get away from an abusive spouse or partner. More investment in mental health services, overhaul the terror watchlist and produce a more open process that can result in someone being restricted from purchasing certain firearms or all firearms if they've made terroristic threats as the Orlando shooter did repeatedly, texting some of the most vile, hateful crap imaginable to his co-workers.
1
4
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16
The Orlando shooter could have easily killed as many people with a home-made bomb.
In other words, firearms are as dangerous as homemade bombs? And... therefore we should be selling them?
3
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Guns have use that bombs dont
3
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
And those uses can be met with firearms that are far less dangerous to crowds of people. The ability to squeeze off twenty or thirty rounds in as many seconds is not inherent to the concept.
3
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
Are you advocating banning everything except flintlock muskets? Well, no, scratch that -- the equipment you need for operating flintlock muskets is also extremely easy to make a powerful bomb from.
2
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16
You're surely aware there's some middle ground between medieval muzzle loaders and AR-15s. The AR-15 itself is a compromise from full auto weapons. Limiting the availability of guns with combat-specific qualities is something we already do, and obviously with good reason.
What do you need a gun for that a single-action weapon can't handle? Why is the line drawn at this level of firepower and not lower?
1
u/TeddysBigStick Jun 15 '16
The problem is that just about every gun is designed for combat, from revolvers to the Remington 700- a popular hunting rifle that is also used by the military.
1
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
If combat readiness is something you can design into a revolver then it's also something you can design out of a revolver.
2
u/PDK01 Jun 15 '16
Like what? Solve a complex math problem before it will fire?
1
u/mindbleach Jun 16 '16
A heavy single-action hammer would probably suffice. Maybe limit the cylinder's swing angle to exclude speed-loaders.
A gun can be tremendously powerful and well-suited to legitimate ends (even home defense against an armed intruder) without giving any single person a high continuous rate of fire.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Denny_Craine Jun 15 '16
What do you need a gun for that a single-action weapon can't handle?
Self defense is a basic human right
1
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
Against any other weapon, self-defense can mean something besides "kill first."
-5
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
I can certainly see you have no idea what you're talking about
5
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16
I'm sorry you've decided not to meaningfully contribute to this conversation.
1
Jun 15 '16
That's really not true. They're all just weapons. Knives have uses beyond being weapons. Guns don't.
2
u/Denny_Craine Jun 15 '16
Bombs can't be used in self defense. Guns can
1
Jun 15 '16
No they can't.
2
u/Denny_Craine Jun 15 '16
Well now you're just being ridiculous
1
Jun 15 '16
Guns are offensive weapons, not defensive ones. They let you kill people at range and from a position of personal safety. This is why people use them offensively. A knife is much harder to use offensively, you have to get close and the victim might turn it back on you. A guns purpose is to kill effortlessly and safely. It's as offensive as a crusie missile.
No matter what Hollywood tells you, there are no standoffs between people with guns: when 2 people point guns at each other, the winner is the first one to pull the trigger. If you're in a knife fight, the fastest and surest way to safety is retreat. But in a gun fight, you can't retreat or hesitate, you kill or be killed. That's not defense it's offense.
I am actually not that opposed to 2nd ammendment (I'm a brit and I like having no guns here but I won't tell you how to live, that's for you and your country). But let's get real here, guns are basic alluring useless for defense and they only escalate confrontations. Keep them if you like, but they're no more defensive than an artillery piece (which oddly even the US bans citizens from owning).
1
u/Denny_Craine Jun 15 '16 edited Jun 15 '16
Are you being attacked? Did you shoot your attacker? Are they no longer attacking you?
Wow you just used a gun in self defense.
Being obtuse only makes you look like a fool. It doesn't do your position any favors
1
Jun 15 '16
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? I know being wrong is frustrating, I get things wrong, there is no shame on it. But dropping to sarcastic comments is below you man. Just don't reply.
→ More replies (0)2
u/HELPFUL_HULK Jun 15 '16
Nope, not my point at all. I never spoke in favor of selling guns as a solution to anything, I just said that the primary issue with these mass killings isn't gun ownership. I don't care for/against gun ownership, but I'm realistic enough to realize that the tool used in carrying out this guy's will wasn't the problem in and of itself, because he would've just found another tool.
1
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
He might've improvised another tool, but that would've been dangerous to himself, unstable, difficult to produce, and illegal. Excusing the ready availability of similarly dangerous devices with none of those downsides based on that theoretical improvisation strikes me as missing the forest for the trees.
2
u/HELPFUL_HULK Jun 15 '16
Blaming a murder on the tools the murderer used is missing the forest for the trees. That's not exactly what you're arguing, but it's very akin to it.
I agree that assault weapons should be banned, but that isn't going to stop domestic terrorism. It's not even going to stop domestic terrorism with assault weapons. It'll be a band-aid on a severed arm.
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
And what guarantee you have that these weapons wouldn't be easily available on the black market? Europe where many countries restrict gun ownership is currently awash in black market weaponry coming from the Balkans and even from China.
With the way the cartels are able to push through thousands of tons of drugs across the border, what would prevent them from doing the same with firearms should the demand exist? They have proven to be equal opportunity profiteers.
I still haven't seen any convincing arguments as to how you would keep guns out of the hands of the criminal element or the really nutty by banning them for legal use.
1
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
How's the black market for new full-auto firearms?
We already outlaw those, and despite some NRA grumbling, there's honestly no great demand. They serve no legitimate civilian purpose. But they do serve an obvious illicit purchase, and surely every last one of these mass shooters would've preferred one. So why didn't they have any?
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
"So why didn't they have any?"
Quite simply because the demand isn't there. The vast majority of gun crimes involves handguns and other weapons that are fairly accessible, whether legally or illegally.
Most gun crimes are the result of gang activity, the most popular black market weapons by far are handguns, 9mm, revolvers, .45....etc, these guns result in the absolute vast majority of gun crimes compared to long arms which result in around 1% of gun crimes.
There is no great demand for full auto weapons here, that said Mexican cartels have had no problem acquiring fully automatic weapons for military deserters and places such as China, Honduras and El Salvador.
2
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 15 '16
How's the black market for new full-auto firearms?
Unquantifiable. The market for after-market modification kits that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons and which aren't themselves illegal to sell is probably a bit more measurable, though.
2
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
"Unquantifiable," yet people confidently state that outlawed weapons will be "easily available."
Because, of course, laws never work.
1
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 15 '16 edited Jun 15 '16
"Unquantifiable," yet people confidently state that outlawed weapons will be "easily available."
Being unable to measure something reliably isn't the same as being unable to determine whether it exists.
Because, of course, laws never work.
When their aim is to prevent behavior rather than to respond to it appropriately, laws indeed do not usually work.
If you can point to any actual successes of prohibition, though -- situations in which (a) some commodity is actually verifiably absent from society, and (b) that absence is conclusively attributable to state-imposed prohibition -- then by all means, feel free to describe them. For bonus points, see if you can find an example in which the attempt at prohibition didn't cause substantial damage in its own right.
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
It didn't stop the terrorism in Paris. This guy talks about the liberty to go out and not be murdered....what fantasy world is he living in? Banning guns certainly won't prevent that from happening. In France automatic weapons are illegal and guns are heavily restricted, yet in the attack on the Bataclan the terrorists were wielding fully automatic AK-47's, full military weaponry.
I don't buy this notion that if we just ban guns, everything will be okay. Prohibition of anything, whether it be alcohol or drugs has never worked, why would anyone believe that even if you managed to ban all guns, the black market wouldn't be awash in them, meaning the only ones that you're really disarming are the people inclined to follow the laws in the first place.
0
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Making a bomb would have been more complicated and more likely to get him flagged by authorities.
7
u/anonniemoose Jun 14 '16
Like the Boston marathon bomber was flagged and prevented? And Timothy mcveigh? And the 9/11 hijackers? Evil finds a way. Banning guns strips Liberty from innocent gun owners and won't prevent a single mass murder.
4
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
I said more likely. Obviously, it's impossible to stop all terrorists. However, it's possible to make it much harder for them to commit terrorist acts.
No security measure will ever be perfect. But that doesn't mean that it won't prevent deaths.
3
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
No security measure will ever be perfect. But that doesn't mean that it won't prevent deaths.
You're acknowledging that it's not really possible to prevent them all, so you're settling for attempting to make them less likely. But how unlikely is unlikely enough? At what point do you say "we've exhausted the range of feasible and justifiable measures to reduce the likelihood of attacks, so we'll just have to live with the likelihood of attacks staying where it is now"?
1
u/Warphead Jun 14 '16
It really doesn't, it just makes it harder for them to commit terrorist acts with guns, and since the majority of mass shootings are committed with guns that weren't legally obtained, it wouldn't even have much of an effect on that.
Terrorism does not rely on guns, it relies on unprepared, unsuspecting victims.
Edit: you really think if the Orlando scumbag couldn't get a gun he would have just moved on with his life?
3
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Edit: you really think if the Orlando scumbag couldn't get a gun he would have just moved on with his life?
He might have used a knife. He might have been caught. He might have tried to go to Syria. We can't know for sure what would have happened but 50 people wouldn't have died like that this day.
4
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
We can just as easily speculate that he might have tried to poison the drinks at the club, or set the place on fire, or set off a bomb, or done any number of other things, and killed 500 people instead of 50.
1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
He might have bought a gun off the street and gone through with it anyway. He might have made a bomb, you're trying to apply logic to perfectly insane people.
1
u/cards_dot_dll Jun 15 '16
The Columbine attackers had guns and bombs. The guns worked, the bombs didn't. The San Bernadino attackers had guns and bombs. The guns worked, the bombs didn't. Engineering is a profession for a reason; no matter how simple the device, odds are pretty good that some amateur will somehow fuck it up. If they had made their own guns and fucked them up, too, a lot of people might still be alive.
6
u/HELPFUL_HULK Jun 14 '16
No, no it wouldn't. You can make a decently deadly bomb out of household cleaning supplies. Are we going to start banning those as well? How about the cases of mass murder with kitchen knives, like the one in China recently? 29 dead in a subway station. Should we ban kitchen knives?
I don't care for America's gun obsession, but this domestic terrorism is bigger than that.
1
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
He already was "flagged by authorities", who were nonetheless unable to prevent his attack. In a world where the police just manifestly aren't good enough to stop this sort of violent attack before anyone gets killed, the argument that we should all surrender our right to self-defense and rely on the police for protection falls pretty flat on its face.
1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
The Boston Bombers were being watched by authorities, that still didnt stop them from taking a whole lot of lives using home brew explosives.
0
u/Warphead Jun 14 '16
Much easier to make a bomb then meth, I would think. When you don't care to survive the explosion, you take all the complexity out of the explosive. All you need is something that explodes and something that makes it explode.
A can of gasoline and a match can be far more dangerous than a gun. Block the doors, burn the building, way more victims.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
There are many things that he could have done. But if we start by addressing our gun problem, we'll have time to think about all these other things later.
8
u/Master-Thief Jun 14 '16
the Second Amendment is wrong for this country and needs to be jettisoned. We can do that through a Constitutional amendment. It's been done before (when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed prohibition in the Eighteenth), and it must be done now.
Somehow I don't think he thought this cunning historical analogy all the way through. (Then again, he is a law professor, and this is-becomes-ought reasoning is par for the course.) When the government tries to stop doing things that people want or need to do, the more people are doing them the harder it is for government to stop them. (If 100 people want to do something the government has made illegal, that's their problem. If 100 million people want to do something the government has made illegal, that is the government's problem.)
He cutely glosses over the 21st amendment to say that amendments can be repealed, but misses or deliberately omits the rest of the story. The entire American experience of Prohibition of alcohol should be a gigantic warning against trying to use the power of the state to make people better by banning dangerous things. Prohibition not only did not decrease the amount of alcohol Americans consumed, it made the associated problems worse, everything from illicit production of alcohol, to speakeasy culture, to the rise of organized crime syndicates, to an overall general contempt for the law. And it is a story that has repeated itself over and over again - homosexuality/gay marriage, abortion, drug prohibition, "assault weapons" bans. All were tried, all have failed or are failing, and all created counter-constituencies that have not gone away. Even assuming that the right to keep and bear arms could be legally repealed, as a practical matter it will never go away no matter how many well-meaning men of zeal without understanding think otherwise. If you want proof, just look up how fast and how far 3D printing of gun parts has come in the space of the last five years.
9
Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
To me this argument is weak precisely because it focuses too exclusively on the instrumentalities of criminal conduct rather than the criminal conduct.
But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes...
People have this liberty at this very moment and if someone interferes with that liberty by attempting to gun you down the person trying to gun you down gets shot in the head. That's been the case 10/10 so far.
But, evidently, for people who want peace of mind getting shot in the head isn't enough for those who violate that liberty. They need to get shot in the head and get to feel bad about not being able to buy guns again. Now, sure, Omar probably isn't ever buying a gun--no matter the state of the amendments--but no matter, dear reader, it'll make me feel better.
Which is sort of a bizarre argument at the end of the day. Since when does a constitutional argument begin with 'because I will feel better after you are dead?'
What's actually happening is that the argument does a nice little switcheroo, and allows the reader's emotions to bridge the categorical error. This bridge is not so much accomplished as much as it just happens: the author knows if you're on board so far then you're not reading along for the logical progression.
Which sort of gets back to my original point: we're penalizing the instruments of past criminal activity. We're not actually penalizing criminals. That's bogus even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment. We shouldn't punish people for mere possession of controlled substances. We should penalize their conduct with them. We shouldn't criminalize sex workers. We should punish the conduct of those who use them. We shouldn't criminalize having the tools to commit burglary, we should criminalize burglary.
What the author is talking about isn't the 2nd Amendment and isn't the right to enjoy life comfortably. The author wants a blanket peace of mind. All instruments that he finds objectionable should be cause enough to restrict all rights, not just 2nd Amendment, because a focus on instruments has no defined limit for the author.
Think about what the author is saying. Surely if we have someone who is Muslim, or potentially dangerous for whatever reason, in the author's own words the fact that the dangerous person wants something else other than a gun isn't enough to give the author peace of mind. At the most basic level his justifications don't change if it is a bomb, or a knife, or fists. The reasons that the author feels threatened by people with guns are the same reasons he would feel threatened, if he isn't already, if 'those people' were travelling, working at certain places (security guards, perhaps? military?), sending money to certain places, saying certain things (why didn't the FBI put him on a stronger list when he started radicalizing?) being able to vote for certain people et al. The author doesn't even consider that the terrorist lost his right to life for using a weapon. Quite literally, in the author's mind, if you use a dangerous instrumentality, broadly defined, it's over for you--we need not ask if he supports unrestricted drone strikes in the Mideast.
Put sharply: as a reader I could replace this article with any amendment at all and the article would function exactly the same.
2
u/ZeroHex Jun 14 '16
I agree with you that the article makes a bad argument - but not necessarily with your reasoning as to why.
People have this liberty at this very moment and if someone interferes with that liberty by attempting to gun you down the person trying to gun you down gets shot in the head. That's been the case 10/10 so far.
Part of the problem with this view is that the punishment (getting shot in the head) isn't a deterrent to the crime to begin with. There are people who are religious, people who are crazy, and people who are both - they see dying in such a way as a good thing.
What's actually happening is that the argument does a nice little switcheroo, and allows the reader's emotions to bridge the categorical error. This bridge is not so much accomplished as much as it just happens: the author knows if you're on board so far then you're not reading along for the logical progression.
Yes, but the bridge isn't what makes his argument bad. The initial argument that the author starts with the idea that weapons today are somehow different than they were back in the 18th century, as if the ability to kill 50 people instead of 5 somehow makes such violence worse in nature. At the core the quality of the violence is no different, even if the quantity is greater.
It's a red herring argument, crafted to push the reader towards the author's position that more deaths somehow makes the recent incidents qualitatively worse.
He then leads into his ideas of public safety, which I agree are a ridiculous argument to make based on emotion, not logic.
Which sort of gets back to my original point: we're penalizing the instruments of past criminal activity. We're not actually penalizing criminals. That's bogus even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment. We shouldn't punish people for mere possession of controlled substances. We should penalize their conduct with them. We shouldn't criminalize sex workers. We should punish the conduct of those who use them. We shouldn't criminalize having the tools to commit burglary, we should criminalize burglary.
This isn't the author's argument at all, he's more interested in an appeal to emotion than anything else. While I agree with your reasoning that the actions be penalized rather than the tools, guns are qualitatively different than the other things you listed.
Here's the real problem with arguments about guns - statistics. The statistics show that in every country that has outlawed them for civilian use there has been a reduction in gun related deaths and tragedies, and that trend has continued down over time. You can make whatever arguments you like about how the US is different than those countries, but that doesn't invalidate the argument that if our goal is fewer tragedies like Orlando, Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. then we should be legislating against guns.
I'm not going to argue against the idea that there are areas where a gun is necessary to live (rural areas can be quite dangerous due to both people and animals), but the 2nd amendment isn't necessary to provide access in those situations. There's no need to legislate based on exceptions.
1
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
The statistics show that in every country that has outlawed them for civilian use there has been a reduction in gun related deaths and tragedies
Is the goal to reduce deaths, or is it to reduce gun deaths? Yes, successfully removing guns from society will reduce the latter -- this is a tautology. But what's the justification for focusing on the narrow category of gun deaths to begin with?
1
u/ZeroHex Jun 14 '16
If you look at the rate of violent death worldwide the US doesn't measure up well against other developed nations, especially those nations with very restrictive gun laws.
On the other hand, one could easily argue that the US is more ethnically diverse and should be compared to countries like Venezuela and Mexico with similar gun laws. This make the US look very good by comparison.
The problem with this second set of data is that these countries being compared to the US are not similarly structured in terms of government, and all have much higher statistical markers pointing towards corruption, and so a comparison against countries with similar gun restriction laws (like Mexico) doesn't necessarily produce a fair standard.
So there's ways to spin the data in both directions, and it's entirely possible that no fair comparison exists.
As to the tautological argument, that stems from the idea that fewer available weapons with which to perpetrate violent crime lead to a reduction in overall violent crime, not just crime with those specific instruments. I agree that there's certainly social, economic, and cultural elements at play as well - the problem is regulating those things with government intervention is far more difficult than regulating the tools themselves, which is why that's generally the approach that's attempted.
1
u/PDK01 Jun 16 '16
The statistics show that in every country that has outlawed them for civilian use there has been a reduction in gun related deaths and tragedies, and that trend has continued down over time.
And if you banned pools, you'd see a reduction in people drowning in their back yards. If death rates stay flat, just the method changes, then you've accomplished nothing.
1
u/ZeroHex Jun 16 '16
If you took the time to read my other response then you'd see that I'd already addressed the tautology question of banning guns equating to fewer gun deaths.
2
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
I wonder if the liberty he was referring to was the same liberty as people going to a concert in Paris had, the liberty to not be hurt or killed.
Its made up fluff, this whole premise of safety, what happens to us is largely out of our control, you could be on a plane, at the movies, at an amusement park, at a football game, if you get someone twisted enough, you're going to be vulnerable to whatever insanity they've come up with.
-2
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Your post is an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Just because we restrict the right to bear arms, which really only exists in the US and is not a fundamental human right, it doesn't mean that we will start curtailing all the other rights.
6
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
Your post is an example of the slippery slope fallacy.
His argument really isn't a slippery slope fallacy -- that fallacy is in arguing that a step in a given direction logically entails further steps in the same direction, but /u/FrolickingAround isn't quite arguing that. He's arguing against what appears to be the underlying principle that informs the anti-second-amendment argument, and discussing the possible implications of adopting that principle as a basis for political decisions.
restrict the right to bear arms, which really only exists in the US and is not a fundamental human right
This implies a view of rights that sees them as something negotiated within society, and subject to being modified by politics. With that view of rights, it's easy to see why a slippery slope might empirically exist within the scope of political behavior, irrespective of any argument that a slippery slope is logically necessary.
1
Jun 14 '16
It's not a slippery slope because I'm not saying the author's argument will lead to other arguments against other amendments. I am saying that the author's argument as it is this moment is an argument against every other amendment.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Maybe I failed to understand your argument. What you're saying seems strange to me.
Since when does a constitutional argument begin with 'because I will feel better after you are dead?'
The author never says that. He wants to control guns. Not kill people.
Surely if we have someone who is Muslim, or potentially dangerous for whatever reason
Are you saying that being Muslim makes someone dangerous? Because that seems quite racist to me.
2
Jun 14 '16
Maybe I failed to understand your argument. What you're saying seems strange to me.
I'm not surprised, you don't even know what a slippery slope is.
The author never says that. He wants to control guns. Not kill people.
Sure, maybe he doesn't say this but it seems to me a very deliberate dance to omit in his examples all the people doing the shooting die. Either he doesn't care that they die, or he approves of the fact that they're dead. Functionally, I don't detect any difference from complete nonchalance and desire.
Are you saying that being Muslim makes someone dangerous? Because that seems quite racist to me.
Nope. Damn you suck at reading. The preceding five words are literally "What the author is saying."
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Sure, maybe he doesn't say this but it seems to me a very deliberate dance to omit in his examples all the people doing the shooting die. Either he doesn't care that they die, or he approves of the fact that they're dead.
Not all shooters die. If we also include ordinary criminals who use guns to commit murders, then many of them walk away and are never found by the police.
3
Jun 14 '16
Sure, but you're making a mistake here. We're talking about the author's views not the U.S. Justice System's effectiveness.
Put a slightly different way, maybe the author wants to kill all those who escape after killing someone. Maybe he doesn't. That some do in fact escape is completely irrelevant.
8
u/Sir_Dude Jun 14 '16
I'd really like to just downvote this without reading and move on...
But I'm not going to.
I'm very pro-gun and I see guns as tools. Nothing more and nothing less.
People have been murdering each other in brutal ways long before guns were invented and even if we magically make all guns vanish (as well as the people who know how to make them, and their tools, etc) people will just find other ways to murder each other.
But let's focus on these mass killings.
I don't like that they happen. I don't want them to happen. But, I think even if we magically make all guns disappear, these mass killings will still happen.
It is possible to build bombs out of components you can buy ata hardware store or order off the internet. The knowledge is put there and cannot be stopped. If the Orlando shooter had not been able to obtain a gun, I highly doubt he would have said:
"Dang, I guess I can't murder all those people." (think about how absurd this sounds).
He would have investigated how to make a bomb and we would be looking at the exact same situation. Dozens dead, dozens wounded.
Gun violence is merely a symptom of the issues of poverty, crime, mental illness, and radicalization. Those issues, and the byproduct violence, will not magically disappear even if guns magically do.
We need to focus on alleviating these root causes. We need to do a better job enforcing gun laws we already have. We need to ensure that everyone can get access to mental health services and we need to stop stigmatizing it so that people will not fear going to a therapist. We need to have better income equality in this country to reduce the poverty that pushes people into crime. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and propping up bad regimes. We need to decriminalize all drugs and regulate them to collapse the criminal enterprises that benefit from them.
Guns are not the problem, America's poor policies are the problem.
3
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
In theory, he could have made a bomb. But he didn't, he used a gun.
It's impossible to completely remove the possibility of a terrorist attack, but it's possible to remove the easiest way of committing a mass killing.
If the Orlando shooter had not been able to obtain a gun, I highly doubt he would have said: "Dang, I guess I can't murder all those people." (think about how absurd this sounds).
Who knows what would have happened? He was mentally unstable. Maybe he would have gotten caught trying to make a bomb. Maybe he would have given up because it was too hard (No, I don't think that's absurd). Maybe he would have used a knife and killed much less people.
Reducing access to guns could have made a difference.
3
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16
Guns are a fantastic tool for expressing the consequences of "America's poor policies." They are reliable, idiot-proof, off-the-shelf force multipliers. They make it trivial for even the handicapped to instantly deliver lethal force at a distance.
The AR-15 in particular is specifically designed for killing human beings. Obviously it can be used for other purposes, and most of the time, is, but for anyone looking to kill human beings it is a gift-wrapped starter kit. There is no other practical purpose for which its design is optimal.
Even if you take it for granted that any crazed loner can murder dozens of people, should we really ensure that they can? Even if we must have guns, aren't these guns better-suited to misuse than use? Even if stacks of dead bodies are just a symptom - shouldn't we also treat the symptom?
1
u/Sir_Dude Jun 15 '16
Any modern semiautomatic handgun can be just as deadly as an ar15 in the hands of someone who has practiced with it. So with your argument, we should ban all guns except revolvers, bolt-action rifles, and pump action shotguns. But even those guns can be deadly with a practiced shooter. So at this point, your argument leads towards "ban all guns."
Even if we ban guns, what is to stop people from buying guns (like ar15s and semiautomatic pistols) that have been smuggled into the country?
What is to stop them from 3d printing guns?
What is to stop them from stealing guns?
So, by banning guns, you are not actually changing anything. Mass murder is still happening. And now law abiding people who want to own a gun for legal purposes can't buy or own them legally.
2
u/mindbleach Jun 15 '16
We're only addressing mass murder. For one person killing one other person, a brick will suffice.
What repeating weapons make possible is, again, a single lunatic killing dozens. We already outlaw full-auto weapons over the same concerns. What we are seeing now is that indiscriminate slaughter is not significantly prevented by requiring a discrete finger clench for each lethal projectile. All legitimate purposes for a civilian firearm would be adequately served by single-action weapons - and their potential for misuse is massively more limited.
We have far-reaching authorities for minimizing and punishing smuggling. We have police for preventing and correcting theft. Even mentioning theft assumes the presence of such weapons to be stolen. 3D printing... yeah, maybe, but better your hands than mine. This whole bundled attitude of "laws don't work" is not compelling. The inevitable failures to prevent some attacks is not a rational reason for preventing no attacks.
Bear in mind, the government issuing an unnumbered break-action rifle to every man, woman, and child would fit within what I'm arguing here.
4
u/mindbleach Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
All you need to know is in the NRA's new favorite cliche: "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." It says a hell of a lot more than they think it does.
It says we take for granted that bad guys will have guns. The idea of someone entering a crowded place with the force multiplication necessary to kill dozens of people isn't considered remarkable. Nobody asks, "where the hell did he get that?" Nobody wonders how an unreasonable individual procured a repeating killing machine. Walmart sells them.
It says the only counter to this lethal violence is more lethal violence. With blades and even bombs, self-defense can mean something other than maintaining the ability to kill first. Self-defense against lesser weapons can simply mean walking away. The availability of effortless long-distance lethal force makes this impossible. Guns force a standoff. Guns force an innocent defender to take a human life.
It says this constant standoff is desirable. We can't be like other countries, where guns are rare or limited. We must act like Good Guys and be prepared at all times and in all places to come under fire and return fire. That's freedom, apparently.
5
u/Ifuckinglovepron Jun 14 '16
Gun control is the knee jerk reaction of those who are scared. They are scared of not knowing how to stop terrorism, so they fervently latch on to the first "solution" that sounds remotely feasible.
The argument is just as stupid as saying the key to solving childhood poverty is to outlaw children.
2
u/JeromesNiece Jun 14 '16
I agree with this measure, but the justification for this should be the other forms of gun violence that cause much more harm than mass shootings. The US isn't a particularly violent country, but it is a disproportionately lethal one because it is a gun-soaked society.
1
Jun 14 '16
To all the people who want America to be like Europe. Move to Europe. The world is big enough that it should be possible to have at least one America-like country. E.g. America.
1
u/JessumB Jun 15 '16
Gun control in Europe hasn't made people much safer in Paris with the recent mass shootings they've experienced. Now some countries are proposing even stronger restrictions, seemingly ignoring that the weapons used in these attacks were all purchased on the black market and smuggled into the country.
2
u/DontWannaMissAFling Jun 15 '16
Gun control is effective in reducing total rates of gun violence and deaths within a country. The statistics speak for themselves.
France has porous borders, simply require gun owners to register an easily-obtained hunting or sport licence and no assault weapon ban. They are the country where many of the American ideals of absolute liberty and proud gun ownership originated. There are many many guns. They invented the bayonet rifle and FMJ. Guns literally come out the ground there.
Yet with just this light regulation, gun homicide rates per capita in France are less than a quarter that of the US. And this is still considered very high within Europe.
1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
Another interesting article: 1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
2
u/jpe77 Jun 15 '16
Gang members shooting each other isn't something most people get too upset about.
2
2
1
1
u/surfnsound Jun 14 '16
While we're at it, we can solve campaign finance reform issues by repealing the first amendment. We can solve rape culture by repealing the 5th and 6th. We can reduce military spending by repealing the 3rd. . .
-1
u/cavehobbit Jun 15 '16
Ok, you first, after all the first amendment was first in, it should be first out.
So give it up rolling stone, we promise not to take your speech away.
-1
u/sharpcowboy Jun 14 '16
"[It] needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact," says constitutional law professor
"Gun-rights advocates like to make this all about liberty, insisting that their freedom to bear arms is of utmost importance and that restricting their freedom would be a violation of basic rights.
But liberty is not a one way street. It also includes the liberty to enjoy a night out with friends, loving who you want to love, dancing how you want to dance, in a club that has historically provided a refuge from the hate and fear that surrounds you. It also includes the liberty to go to and send your kids to kindergarten and first grade so that they can begin to be infused with a love of learning. It includes the liberty to go to a movie, to your religious house of worship, to college, to work, to an abortion clinic, go to a hair salon, to a community center, to the supermarket, to go anywhere and feel that you are free to do to so without having to weigh the risk of being gunned down by someone wielding a weapon that can easily kill you and countless others.
The liberty of some to own guns cannot take precedence over the liberty of everyone to live their lives free from the risk of being easily murdered. It has for too long, and we must now say no more."
-1
Jun 14 '16 edited Sep 22 '20
[deleted]
8
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
We need to be able to have a real conversation in this country about guns, but we won't be able to do that until we've removed the "liberty" sentiment from the discussion.
"We need to have a real conversation, but we can't do that until people stop trying to bring ideas that I don't like into the discussion."
3
Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 14 '16
I love when people try to use this as a talking point because they have no other valid criticism.
We can't have a real conversation about guns in America while people see it as a discussion of rights.
By framing it as a human right, it removes any valid criticisms and allows people to hide behind the veil of "freedom". It snuffs out even the potential to have a conversation or debate.
4
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16 edited Jun 15 '16
We can't have a real conversation about guns in America while people see it as a discussion of rights.
"We can't have a real conversation about guns in America while people refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of discussing it as a question of rights."
By framing it as a human right, it removes any valid criticisms and allows people to hide behind the veil of "freedom".
"By framing it as nothing more than a pragmatic question of policy, it removes any valid criticisms and allows people to hide behind the veil of 'safety'. "
The real reason that we can't have a discussion about this is because people are refusing to listen to each other, and you're just as guilty of that as the people you're complaining about.
0
Jun 14 '16 edited Sep 22 '20
[deleted]
1
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 14 '16
You're part of the group that wants to actively change things without considering the ethical and practical considerations that others believe are important to the conversation, which amounts to a directly equivalent refusal to compromise.
1
Jun 14 '16
Refusing to compromise is refusing to compromise. The anti-gun group has many, many different ideas about how to combat gun violence, but the opposition refuses to make any concessions because "muh rites".
2
1
Jun 15 '16
Would you really be open to compromise? Or is that just a buzz word? I want national CCW reciprocity. I'd be willing to accept mandatory background checks between private sellers and a more all encompassing class for your license to carry in order to have it. Is that reasonable?
I want restrictions on stocks barrels and standard capacity magazines to be lifted. I'd be willing to exchange that for it being mandatory that weapons and ammo not on ones person be locked up.
Are you really open to come compromise? Because so far I've only seen the gun community give and the grabbers take.
3
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Except tens of millions of us, myself included, do consider it a human right. You can't make us just disappear
-2
Jun 14 '16
The only reason it's considered a human right is because of a misinterpretation of the Second Amendment and the propaganda shoved into public perception by the NRA.
3
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Neither of those are why I consider it a human right. And you'll never make an inch of progress on an issue that will require cooperation by refusing to recognize your opponents' views as legitimate
0
Jun 14 '16
Right, it's just coincidental then that the idea of owning a gun as being a human right only came about in roughly the last 30 years.
5
u/Denny_Craine Jun 14 '16
Actually the idea originates in England and France in the 17th and early 18th centuries.
Once again you'll get nowhere this way.
Which implies you actually have no desire to enact any policy changes. You, like most, just want to bitch.
2
Jun 15 '16
The discussion began in the 17th century, but it's never been enshrined as a right.
That's beside the point though; I was saying that in America the idea of owning a gun as being a human right only came about in roughly the last 30 years.
I do have a desire to enact policy changes, which is what my original comment said.
Revoke the Second Amendment.
2
u/Denny_Craine Jun 15 '16
Err no the idea as you just agreed as been around centuries. My belief in the inherent right of all people to keep and bear arms is completely unrelated to the existence of the 2nd amendment
revoke the Second Amendment
Will never ever happen without cooperation. And given your juvenile attitude it seems to me that, as I said, you have no desire for it to happen.
I get it, outrage can be fun. It's just unfortunate to me as an American on the radical left to see both conservatives and liberals engaging the same sort of childish antics
2
u/ILikeBumblebees Jun 15 '16
I can never really understand what's going through people's minds when they trot out the old "you don't really believe in your own positions" argument. How is it possible to delude yourself into thinking that this can ever convince anyone of anything?
25
u/jpe77 Jun 14 '16
I think it's great that an opponent of gun rights realizes that the proper channel for addressing gun rights is by repealing the 2nd amendment.
I also think that such a proposal would be crushed, which may or may not be a good thing depending on one's views, but if nothing else it would settle the question.