[Gnaw]

Edit: Due to the nature of what happened today I thought I'd start a thread so the "American Politics" thread would not be subsumed.


I'm a huge 2nd amendment person. As in 1) it specifically meant armed citizens and 2) was meant as a bulwark against the government.

There is nothing in either of those two items that says you can't have background checks, finger print guns at the factory (ballistic profile), mandatory waiting periods, or restriction on clip sizes.

I remember growing up the big battle was "no gun registration". Now those same morons are lining up to join a national gun registration system. But they call it "concealed carry permit".

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 14 December 2012 - 11:36 PM

[Gnaw]

There are too many guns in our country. They are too easy to get. And the "they're just a tool" crowd really needs to take a hard look at statistics.

I have zero knowledge of what happened today and I doubt anyone who says that they do. It's simply too early to have actual real knowledge despite (because?) the 24 hour newsathons.

Motives for murder almost always fall under 3 categories: Profit, compulsion, and impulse. The profit type isn't going to be stopped by gun laws; they are already convinced they're going to get away with it.

But we could damn sure cut down on the other two with some rational laws.

[worry]

I agree. The options aren't a] create something perfect that satisfies everybody or b] do nothing, and waaaaaay too much time is spent dithering over the first option that the second has won by default. Getting over that binary will be the first step to something better.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 14 December 2012 - 11:56 PM

[Gnaw]

HoosierDaddy, on 14 December 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, if you want to be an Originalist: How long would it take you to fire your musket, reload it, and fire it again, 27 times. While also being a member of an official state Militia.

You want an M16? Join the National Guard.

I agree with you. If I have a constitutional right to bear arms based upon the reading of the 2nd amendment as I think it was meant, then I should have the right to purchase machine guns, tanks, and surface to air missiles. And nobody sane would agree with that.

I unhesitatingly support most gun control legislation. Because technology has moved on.

The idea of a band of my locals gathering together to storm city hall with munitions is both scary and absurd. If it reaches the point that that becomes necessary it will have long since passed being stopped by restricting access to handguns and assault rifles.

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 14 December 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

I agree. The options aren't a) create something perfect that satisfies everybody or do nothing, and waaaaaay too much time is spent dithering over the first option that the second has won by default. Getting over that binary will be the first step to something better.

Oh yeah. There really is something wrong with a population that thinks arming teachers is good and letting kids go hungry because their parents can't afford to send them to school with a lunch is desirable.

The fans of the "everybody should go armed" camp really need to have some old west history lessons. The first thing the "town tamers" did was outlaw carrying guns in town.

The logical end result of the society these people think they want is Hobbesian:

Quote

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. [...] In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

[Gnaw]

worrywort, on 14 December 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

What I would hope is that the President calls for people to make their voices heard -- I'm almost certain that when you talk about raw numbers, rather than districts subject to gerrymandered micro-elections, that most Americans actually disagree with the NRA and would like to see tighter firearm regulations. And with the heft of that -- however informal a "poll" it might be -- the President could introduce legislation on the issue. He needs a groundswell first, basically. That doesn't mean either chamber of congress would vote for it. Maybe the Senate would if the filibuster is reformed in January, but even Dems in the House would shy away due to the 2014 elections.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. But I don't know that Obama saying that would help. Indeed, it would probably hinder.

The leadership for that is going to have to come from a conservative Republican. One who will stand up and say "this way isn't working". But I can't think of who would be willing to do that.

[Tsundoku]

Who NEEDS a weapon designed to kill in their house? Or more than 1? Are you a farmer? Professional shooter? I'm going to guess that 99.999% of this board will answer NO. So the answer is, no you don't NEED a firearm. You WANT one (or 10 ...).

Sorry guys, but I'm not waiting for the time you decide you're sick of paying alimony/hate the postal service/the voices really ARE right after all/etc and decide to go off your medication.

You may argue that cars can be used to kill, but the difference is cars weren't designed to do it and nothing else. Cars are also a bit harder to fit into a school block. I'm sure it could be done, it's just a hell of a lot more difficult.

If necessary, have your firearms kept at a mega-secure central location, with individual vaults inside an armoury that requires no less than 3 people to get in at any one time. Anything that makes firearms a shitload harder to access is a good thing. Even better, no individually owned firearms, just club owned ones. Every member of the club subject to ridiculously stringent police and mental checks. If you get put on medication, you lose your access. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

And your 2nd amendment was originally designed to fill in for the lack of a standing full time defence force. You have one now, that bullshit is tired and out-of-context.

Just think if it were your kids. Then try to justify unnecessarily owning firearms.

You can't stop all the crazies (especially the smart, methodical, long-term planning ones), but you can make it incredibly difficult.

This post has been edited by Sombra: 15 December 2012 - 12:14 AM

[Gnaw]

Sombra, on 15 December 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

If necessary, have your firearms kept at a mega-secure central location, with individual vaults inside an armoury that requires no less than 3 people to get in at any one time. Anything that makes firearms a shitload harder to access is a good thing. Even better, no individually owned firearms, just club owned ones. Every member of the club subject to ridiculously stringent police and mental checks. If you get put on medication, you lose your access. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.

The problem with your post is that your solution will never happen. It's part of the binary that WW spoke of. You can't wish away all the guns and you can't legislate them away either. And the more draconian the proposed law is, the more resistance there will be against it.

But that doesn't mean that rational laws cannot be made and enforced. It simply requires enough people to stand up and make their congresscritters pay attention. Enough people have to say "you will lose our vote if the NRA owns you." Losing their jobs is the only way they'll pay attention. These are the same people who didn't care when one of their own was the victim. A large number of people have to make guns a single issue vote.

Whether today will allow that or not, we'll have to see. I am not optimistic though.

[Held]

Let's not forget to ban knives too. In China today, 22 children were injured and some may yet die from a man wielding a knife. The lives of these Chinese children are just a relevant as the American children. When someone seeks to commit murder, a gun or knife ban will not dissuade them. The Connecticut shooter is a young man with mental health issues. This seems to be fairly common. We should consider locking up all of these people who have been diagnosed with mental illness as they could be potential killers too. The shooter allegedly is autistic. Maybe we should lock up everyone with Autism.

When are we going to stop ignoring the real issue which is why people will kill others? Maybe we could induct them into the armed forces where this is a valued skill.

[HoosierDaddy]

How many of those Chinese kids are dead?

20 children within hours were dead here. Much easier to run away from knives.

I'll stop before I start ranting at the idiocy of this comparison.

[Gnaw]

Held, on 15 December 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Let's not forget to ban knives too. In China today, 22 children were injured and some may yet die from a man wielding a knife. The lives of these Chinese children are just a relevant as the American children. When someone seeks to commit murder, a gun or knife ban will not dissuade them. The Connecticut shooter is a young man with mental health issues. This seems to be fairly common. We should consider locking up all of these people who have been diagnosed with mental illness as they could be potential killers too. The shooter allegedly is autistic. Maybe we should lock up everyone with Autism.

When are we going to stop ignoring the real issue which is why people will kill others? Maybe we could induct them into the armed forces where this is a valued skill.

The fact that you seem oblivious to the difference between '22 injured and some may die' and "at least 27 dead" is simply stunning.

Guns enable people to kill other people out of proportion to almost all other available means. To not attempt to do something about the proliferation of guns because 'the crazy person could strangle them one by one until they're all dead' is insane.

[Gnaw]

Gnaw, on 15 December 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Guns enable people to kill other people out of proportion to almost all other available means. To not attempt to do something about the proliferation of guns because 'the crazy person could strangle them one by one until they're all dead' is insane.

I apologize. I jumped on the "crazy person" meme. While I assume (for my own sanity) that the shooter in Connecticut was mentally unstable until it is verified fact it is not relevant to rational discussion on the subject.

[Sinisdar Toste]

the incident in china is, to me, a huge endorsement of gun control laws. like HD says, much easier to run away from knives, and a lot harder to kill somebody with one. the deeper issues that cause these violent attacks are systemic to our society, and whichever part of it you want to blame it on, these will continue until we live in a utopian society where everyone's needs are met without struggle... so, never. all we can do is seek to minimize the potential harm done.

[Illuyankas]

Held, on 15 December 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Let's not forget to ban knives too. In China today, 22 children were injured and some may yet die from a man wielding a knife. The lives of these Chinese children are just a relevant as the American children. When someone seeks to commit murder, a gun or knife ban will not dissuade them. The Connecticut shooter is a young man with mental health issues. This seems to be fairly common. We should consider locking up all of these people who have been diagnosed with mental illness as they could be potential killers too. The shooter allegedly is autistic. Maybe we should lock up everyone with Autism.

When are we going to stop ignoring the real issue which is why people will kill others? Maybe we could induct them into the armed forces where this is a valued skill.

We cannot afford another Boston Strangler, we must ban arms and hands. Yours especially, to prevent you posting again.


Interesting word choice there, 'dissuade'. Not like having to go to the black market or past countless security checks will deter the vast majority of desparate people considering such terrible actions, oh no. But what can I expect from someone too dim to understand the concept of range?

[Gnaw]

HoosierDaddy, on 15 December 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

I'll stop before I start ranting

*sigh* I should not have done it. I knew what I'd find. I went to my facebook page to see what my relatives had to say. They are all firmly in the god made guns category. Now I want to rant.

[amphibian]

I don't think the solution really is to cut out guns. I'd be up for biometrick locks, mandatory gun safety courses and linkages between mental health records and background checks.

That'd cut out a lot of the crazy.

However, I believe that much of the efforts towards increased gun regulation and even the defense budget should be shifted towards education - fixing our breaking school systems - and preventative care including mental health screening, diagnosis and treatment. That'd really fix this country. It'd be an astounding amount of positive things happening all at once.

[HoosierDaddy]

Just like there will always be someone willing to do anything to get a gun, there will always be someone finally shrugging out of their sanity. If guns are not so easily attainable these instances go down because they are much harder to actually do.

I agree mental health needs to be considered, but as long as there is nearly one gun for every person in the country, nothing can stop this. Nothing. You HAVE to get the guns. It is the ONLY actual solution with a chance to work most of the time.

[Held]

I posted with tongue in cheek. I do not support gun control, knife control, or institutionalizing the mentally ill, and I get bored when people trivialize horrendous acts by focusing on a tool instead of the proclivity of humans to kill each other. Knife wounding and killing is common in China and children are the favorite target. What about the drones that are killing innocent children in Pakistan and elsewhere? Are we mourning these children and asking what can be done to hinder this kind of murder? We glorify killing in our societies with movies and books so why are we surprised when people kill others?

This post has been edited by Held: 15 December 2012 - 01:25 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

That was really enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

[amphibian]

HoosierDaddy, on 15 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

That was really enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

Why are so many depressed/psychotic/whatever people choosing the outlet to murder lots and lots of others? Breivik did it in Norway, there have been multiple Chinese school knifings and the many gun murder sprees here in the States.

That more than anything is a cause. There are 300 million guns and 2 or 3 of them were used today by a lunatic. A biometric lock would have prevented the murderer from gaining access. A better psychological screening/reporting/diagnosis/treatment process would have helped him before he even got that far.

The guns and the knives and the cars used to run people over are tools. I'm for the increased regulation and licensing of the ability to use such tools, but they are not the causes.