Gun Control in the USA

[reba]

Arn't you old enough to remember Zip guns? not all guns are high-tech. My s-i-l has made plenty...

 

[from dust to life]

Are my posts on 'ignore'?

Nice, .... precision work.

 

[Mike S]

Are my posts on 'ignore'?

Nice, .... precision work.

No, your posts aren't on ignore. We all just fall into routines sometimes, and don't enough of an effort to welcome and chat with newcomers.

Welcome to CF!

 

[Mike S]

That does not address my question. My point was that if guns are more technically difficult to produce "in your basement" than alchohol is (and producing alchohol is pretty easy), then the argument from the analogy to the ineffectiveness of alcohol prohibition breaks down.

No it doesn't, it doesn't break down a all. Black markets will show up whenever the government tries to make something illegal. Besides, there are more than 300 million guns already in existence inthe U.S. You think they're going to just disappear?

 

[Drew]

No it doesn't, it doesn't break down a all. Black markets will show up whenever the government tries to make something illegal. Besides, there are more than 300 million guns already in existence inthe U.S. You think they're going to just disappear?

That's not the point - I should have been more clear. One can easily imagine that a combination of measures, including the prohibition of guns would indeed be a benefit. In short, the argument "criminals will always get guns" is clearly an oversimplification. If your government really wanted to get rid of guns, they could. Measures might include:

1. A program where people are given some kind of incentive to turn in weapons;
2. Requiring people by law to hand over their guns;
3. Prohibiting manufacturers from making guns;
4. High taxes on ammunition;
5. Prohibit the manufacture of ammunition
6. Improved screening at points of entry into the country;
7. etc.

Black markets do not appear by logical necessity. I maintain that guns clearly can be substantially expunged from a country, notwithstanding other considerations. I still maintain the analogy to alcohol is weak, precisely because alcohol, by its nature, is much harder to control. Guns are relatively complex items that I believe are hard to make without some kind of manufacturing infrastructure that could indeed be regulated.

 

[Drew]

So yes, people in Australia cannot understand the American fixation upon guns.

To be fair, I think the point Alan Dershowitz raised on CNN the other night needs to be re-iterated: Some Americans are fixated on guns. Many share the same view of guns as the typical Canadian and Australian do - that guns (basically) have no place in a civilized society.

You need to change the culture first, and that will take a lot of time.

I disagree and think you are falling into the same over-simplification that the vociferous gun advocates use - that the problem isn't the gun, its something else. Let's be clear up front: no one, least of all me, is saying that guns have "intent", or that there aren't cultural issues that need to be worked on.

But none of this speaks to the possibility that, notwithstanding these other issues, guns can, and should be highly regulated. Consider this analogy: Americans demand the right to own a 500 pound Bengal tiger for protection, and insist that if they don't have such a tiger, they will be vulnerable to other people's tigers. We all realize how insane it would be for everyone in America to keep a murderous 500 pound tiger in their homes. And more to the point, in the case of tigers, it is pretty clear that it is entirely feasible to control tigers. They can be controlled at entry points; they are easily detected, etc. The point being: you would not need to change society in order to get rid of the "tigers eating people" problem: you simply get rid of the tigers!

Obviously, if I felt the analogy to the control of alcohol were valid, I would agree with you. But I do not think its valid. Its relatively easy to side-step government control of alcohol by building a still in your basement. Guns are a different matter - I believe they are a sufficiently complex item to allow for effective government control of them.

 

[Webers_Home]

Weapons of least destruction

.
My wife is a kindergarten teacher. All the doors in her school building are secure except for the one up by the front office. She and all the other teachers feel like sitting ducks because they are not allowed to bring any kind of weapon in the building for self defense, not even so much as a Swiss Army pocket knife.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O></O>
<O></O>
She likes the idea of bear spray but would need District approval; which is not likely to happen because the District is more concerned about lawsuits than gunmen. In other words; the District prefers to sacrifice the lives of teachers and children rather than be held responsible for even one allergic child's adverse reaction to a chemical that one of the staff brought to school with them. What can I say; money talks: even louder than death these days.

Incidentally, I've seen lots of placards calling for the banning of guns; but yet to see even one placard calling for the banning of demented murderers; which tells me that the bearers of those placards are okay with demented murder; just not okay with the demented murderer's choice of tool for the purpose. It seems there are people out there who would hate guns anyway even if they weren't used in mass murders.

One thing I would say to the gun haters is: you better get used to mass murders because the killers don't need an assault rifle for their purpose. Any number of semi-automatic hand guns are just as effective, and so are a good number of ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns: even shotguns used in trap and skeet are lethal. And the killers don't need powerful calibers. Hinkley almost succeeded in terminating President Reagan with a paltry .22 bullet.

I am seriously alarmed at reports I've read about the number of demented shooters out there who have a history of psychotropic chemical dependence. You know, the experts are beginning to suspect now that the US military's unusual number of suicides are related to stress-relief medications administered by their very own doctors to soldiers in Afghanistan. Many of those guys aren't content just to kill themselves; no, they take out their wives and children too: even Navy SEALs have done that and those guys aren't ding bats; they're very disciplined professionals.

Note : near the end of the book of Revelation is a group of people condemned as sorcerers. Funny thing is: we get the English word pharmacist from the very same Greek word for sorcerers.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Drew]

Arn't you old enough to remember Zip guns? not all guns are high-tech. My s-i-l has made plenty...

I do not know what a zip gun is. But I still sugggest that it would be quite hard to manufacture certain types of guns in a manner that could be hidden from the law.

And even if you could, I suggest that it is fundamentally absurd to believe that the best way to deal with this issue is to allow the general populace to have guns. And I suggest this is realized in every other civilized nation in the world. People in Germany do not need guns to use against criminal with guns. Why is this? Because there are no "bad guys" in Germany? Of course not - there are as many bad guys there as in your country. It is because, for a number of reasons, that society has come up with a way of being that does not require people to have guns. And they are safer and happier as result.

I am not suggesting that the only thing that needs to be done is to get rid of guns. But to suggest that the best we can do is to let everyone be armed seems at obvious variance with the facts - many other nations enjoy as much freedom and prosperity as the USA without all the guns. So it can be done.

Again, the problem with allowing the general population to have guns is that all human beings are subject to mental illness, rage, mistakes, suicidal thoughts, etc. Again and again people forget that the gun continues to exist to be misused outside the very rare instances where it might indeed be used legitimately.

 

[Drew]

Re: Weapons of least destruction

.Incidentally, I've seen lots of placards calling for the banning of guns; but yet to see even one placard calling for the banning of demented murderers; which tells me that the bearers of those placards are okay with demented murder;

This is, of course, patently false logic.

No one, except perhaps for demented murderers, is "okay" with demented murder.

You only hurt your position when you make such "arguments".

 

[Sparkey]

[video=youtube;6R5VxAebCng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6R5VxAebCng[/video]

Recap of points made on video:

• Anti-Gun Forces and Political Agendas
• Gun Laws control citizens and don't contribute to public safety
• Only 3% of crime have assault weapons involved
• 1994 Law did nothing to curb crime
• Columbine Highschool Massacre happened years after the 1994 Law was passed
• Existing laws worked in the Columbine Shooting: shooter could not buy a firearm
• Shooter murdered his mother and took her firearms
• What as if by Magic: *POOF* [all firearms are gone] ... BUT ...
• Quick look at examples of multiple murder stabbings and Axe murders
• Banning Firearms gives rise to crime
• Firearms are not difficult to make and are even made in prison
• Criminals will commit crime; dis-arming law-abiding citizens will not stop this
• Existing weapons won't be touched because of 'grandfather' clauses.
• Address social problems as cause not the tools used

PS Drew? Did I miss your reply to my Post #74

 

[Sparkey]

Again, the problem with allowing the general population to have guns is that all human beings are subject to mental illness, rage, mistakes, suicidal thoughts, etc. Again and again people forget that the gun continues to exist to be misused outside the very rare instances where it might indeed be used legitimately.

I've got a knife that I would consider using in self-defense and it too continues to exist outside of the very rare instances where I might use it (legitimately) . Why pick on guns only? I don't own any firearms but really can not understand your desire to curtail my freedoms. If your campaign is supposed to protect me from every potential harm you will need to expand the scope of your thinking.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no person who has been convicted of a violent crime is allowed to own or possess any type of firearm. The law already prohibits this. Would you suggest that all weapons should be confiscated from every law-abiding citizen? How do you plan on implementing real change? The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. What would you do?

 

[Drew]

I would ask you to address my comment that a similar situation can also be seen as fact: There has been a period in US history where the Constitution did not prohibit slavery (prior to the 13th Amendment in 1864).

Fair enough. But the details matter - one cannot assume that the situations are analogous, that is, that the "old" interpretation of the 2nd amendment (which meant no guns for the general population) was wrong just because some other injsutice was perpretated in the past.

I do not know enough about the details of the legal arguments to comment on what is the "correct" interpretation of the law. But the fact that, at some point in the past, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee ordinary citizens the right to bear arms shows that it is at least a quesiton that needs to be asked.

If your point is merely that at some point in history the Constitution was interpreted differently and so there should be stricter gun control or that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee individual rights, then you have failed to establish your point very well.

That was not my point. My point was only that a legitimate court - the Supreme Court - has ruled in the past against the interpretation that everyone should have the right to a gun. Therefore, if different Supreme Courts (the old vs the modern) disagree, then I suggest that the intent of the original authors may be impossible to discern with reasonable certainty.

Consider how your "principle of doubt" would be applied to Slavery, Civil Rights and Women's Suffrage. You've got to do more than suggest "it isn't that simple" when you want to overturn the rulings of the Supreme Court.

As per above, the slavery comparison is misleading. Just because we have clearly now "got it right" re slavery and women's rights does not mean that the present Supreme Court has "got it right" re the 2nd amendment.

 

[Drew]

I've got a knife that I would consider using in self-defense and it too continues to exist outside of the very rare instances where I might use it (legitimately) . Why pick on guns only?

I have already addressed this, although perhaps not in this particular thread. Knives, like cars, baseball bats, and tire irons, serve a useful non-lethal function in society. Not so with guns.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no person who has committed a violent crime is allowed to own or possess any type of firearm.

I assume you mean that after they have committed a crime, they are not allowed to own a firearm. Well, that's good. But I can guarantee you that many people who have never committed a crime will indeed, this coming year, commit a crime with a gun. So I am not sure what kind of argument you are making here. Everyone - even the gun people - agree that we should not let convicted criminal have guns.

Would you suggest that all weapons should be confiscated from every citizen?

Yes, I would. I suggest your society (and mine) would be better off if the only people who are allowed to have guns are people like police officers, soldiers, bank guards, etc. People need to realize that "their rights" do not always trump the broader interests of society.

 

[Sparkey]

I do not know enough about the details of the legal arguments to comment on what is the "correct" interpretation of the law. But the fact that, at some point in the past, the Supreme Court held that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee ordinary citizens the right to bear arms shows that it is at least a quesiton that needs to be asked.

No. It shows that the question has been asked and answered. The question has been addressed by the Highest Court in the Land, Chief Justice Antonin Scalia gave the court opinion. You simply disagree, nothing more.

 

[Sparkey]

I've got a knife that I would consider using in self-defense and it too continues to exist outside of the very rare instances where I might use it (legitimately) . Why pick on guns only? I don't own any firearms but really can not understand your desire to curtail my freedoms. If your campaign is supposed to protect me from every potential harm you will need to expand the scope of your thinking.

I have already addressed this, although perhaps not in this particular thread. Knives, like cars, baseball bats, and tire irons, serve a useful non-lethal function in society. Not so with guns.

Sure they do, just the other day I went plinking with my son. He owns several guns that we use for recreational purpose (legitimately). Your refusal to consider legitimate uses does not mean they don't exist.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that no person who has been convicted of a violent crime is allowed to own or possess any type of firearm. The law already prohibits this. Would you suggest that all weapons should be confiscated from every law-abiding citizen? How do you plan on implementing real change? The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. What would you do?

I assume you mean that after they have committed a crime, they are not allowed to own a firearm. Well, that's good. But I can guarantee you that many people who have never committed a crime will indeed, this coming year, commit a crime with a gun. So I am not sure what kind of argument you are making here. Everyone - even the gun people - agree that we should not let convicted criminal have guns.

Would you suggest that all weapons should be confiscated from every law-abiding citizen?

Yes, I would. I suggest your society (and mine) would be better off if the only people who are allowed to have guns are people like police officers, soldiers, bank guards, etc. People need to realize that "their rights" do not always trump the broader interests of society.

How do you plan on implementing real change? The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. What would you do?

You haven't detailed the plan, have you given serious thought to the issues surrounding the national round-up of guns you propose for America?

 

[Drew]

No. It shows that the question has been asked and answered. The question has been addressed by the Highest Court in the Land, Chief Justice Antonin Scalia gave the court opinion. You simply disagree, nothing more.

This is simply not correct reasoning. You cannot simply assume that the most recent finding is the correct one. It is entirely plausible that the first finding captured the true intent of the amendment and the more recent finding does not.

 

[Sparkey]

This is simply not correct reasoning. You cannot simply assume that the most recent finding is the correct one. It is entirely plausible that the first finding captured the true intent of the amendment and the more recent finding does not.

I did not assume anything here but relied on the published court opinion. The fact of the matter is that you can not simply dismiss that decision on the basis of your personal likes and dislikes.
Source: FindLaw® For Legal Professionals: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

If your point is merely that at some point in history the Constitution was interpreted differently and so there should be stricter gun control or that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee individual rights, then you have failed to establish your point very well.

 

[Drew]

Sure they do, just the other day I went plinking with my son. He owns several guns that we use for recreational purpose (legitimately). Your refusal to consider legitimate uses does not mean they don't exist.

I would argue that this kind of use is the exception. And, in any event, I suggest that the "plinkers" need to exercise a little self-sacrifice and ask what price is paid by the broader society to enable them to engage in "plinking".

And about the 2nd amendment: Let's say that the recent interpretation is indeed "correct" in the sense that it captures the intent of the original framers. Even so, we have to acknowledge that the constitution does not come from the hand of God - it does not have the status of immutable truth. Perhaps it should be changed - the men who wrote it, as brilliant and as knowledgeable as they might have been - were limited by the times in which they lived. They could not anticipate the state of affairs in 21st century America.

 

[reba]

A simple google of zip guns loads of information ....

If a bad guy wants a gun he will have it...

 

[Drew]

I did not assume anything here but relied on the published court opinion. The fact of the matter is that you can not simply dismiss that decision on the basis of your personal likes and dislikes.
Source: FindLaw® For Legal Professionals: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

We're done on this particular issue. I have made my case as clearly as I can, and I see no point in pursuing this particular aspect of the issue.