The Global Gun Control Threat

[Stellar]

No, I must admit to having transferred my brother's highly emotional state to yours. Apologies for that.

Your reasoning, for lack of a better word, is very similar to his, and I erred.

Nonetheless, the substance of your argument is nil, considering the vast numbers of gun control laws and other laws that were broken at both Newtown and upstate New York. The reality is that gun control laws have little effect on a determined shooter.

It might FEEL good to advocate for a legislative remedy to crazy humans, but it's not too very realistic.

What gun control laws? By the standards of the rest of the western world, you have virtually no gun control.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Nonetheless, the substance of your argument is nil, considering the vast numbers of gun control laws and other laws that were broken at both Newtown and upstate New York. The reality is that gun control laws have little effect on a determined shooter.

It might FEEL good to advocate for a legislative remedy to crazy humans, but it's not too very realistic.

Your argument, "for lack of a better word", is based on a couple terrible presumptions. First, the measure by which we gauge the efficacy of laws is not whether they are 100% effective at preventing specific crimes, that's absurd; you can't just point and say, look someone else cheated on their taxes, tax laws are worthless and just to make people 'feel good'. Second is the charge that people are disagreeing with you because of emotional reasons, which is just another evidence-free claim on your part, something that is all-too-not-unusual. How effective has legislation been in keeping civilians from killing each other with bazookas and hand grenades? I'd say nearly 100%.

[Babe Ruth]

I didnt say "could stop", I said "would stop"

Yes but in this particular case, and many many others, it DID NOT STOP the mayhem.

Yes, if a frog had wings, he would fly, and if Barack Obama upheld his oath of office we would not be killing children and goats on the other side of the planet.

You and my brother live in some fairy tale type world. Sorry.

And in response to your other post, we in the US have many many many gun laws. And very damn few of them work as advertised.

Of course, we are lacking your and my brother's profound skills in writing proper legislation, eh?

Edited December 26, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[Babe Ruth]

Your argument, "for lack of a better word", is based on a couple terrible presumptions. First, the measure by which we gauge the efficacy of laws is not whether they are 100% effective at preventing specific crimes, that's absurd; you can't just point and say, look someone else cheated on their taxes, tax laws are worthless and just to make people 'feel good'. Second is the charge that people are disagreeing with you because of emotional reasons, which is just another evidence-free claim on your part, something that is all-too-not-unusual. How effective has legislation been in keeping civilians from killing each other with bazookas and hand grenades? I'd say nearly 100%.

If you've ever carried a bazooka, they are a bit cumbersome. Hand grenades not so much.

But we are in some measure of agreement. Reasonable, practical and effective gun control laws are fine by me. Pre purchase investigations are fine by me.

And I don't hold the emotional reaction against anybody LG. We are emotional creatures, and I accept that. The more sensitive amongst us are traumatized by such events, and I understand that.

My position is let's not have the emotional reactions overwhelm the rational process.

If numerous gun control laws were broken during these events, how is passing another law really a rational response?

[+Liquid Gardens]

My position is let's not have the emotional reactions overwhelm the rational process.

My position is don't accuse people of responding out of emotion in order to avoid dealing with their argument or points.

If numerous gun control laws were broken during these events, how is passing another law really a rational response?

We've always had laws against drunk driving on the books, and in the last couple decades we've enacted more with harsher penalties. Drunk driving laws always have been and continue to be broken; was passing more laws a rational response?

[Stellar]

Yes but in this particular case, and many many others, it DID NOT STOP the mayhem

And yet in many more cases, it does seem to prevent mayhem. No one's claiming it'll eliminate all gun crime.

You and my brother live in some fairy tale type world. Sorry

Well, I don't know about your brother, but I live in a world where I don't have to walk around with a gun on my hip to keep me safe... I guess I've been under the mistaken impression that most human beings would like to live in a world like that as well...

And in response to your other post, we in the US have many many many gun laws. And very damn few of them work as advertised.

You have "many gun laws"? Perhaps you do have many gun "laws", but you do not have strict gun control by the standards of the rest of the west.

Of course, we are lacking your and my brother's profound skills in writing proper legislation, eh?

The fact of the matter is, the rest of the west has strict gun control and it works for them. Gun crimes are significantly lower than in the US.

Thats the fact.

[Babe Ruth]

My position is don't accuse people of responding out of emotion in order to avoid dealing with their argument or points.

We've always had laws against drunk driving on the books, and in the last couple decades we've enacted more with harsher penalties. Drunk driving laws always have been and continue to be broken; was passing more laws a rational response?

I'm not sure that excessive drunk driving laws serve a good purpose. Yes, they provide business opportunities for many, but whether they are a rational response is questionable.

Ditto for the gun laws.

As an example, if 10 'gun control' laws were broken by the events in Newtown and upstate New York, how is it a rational claim to say that an eleventh law, yet to be written, would have prevented either or both of those events? Please explain that to me LG.

[Babe Ruth]

And yet in many more cases, it does seem to prevent mayhem. No one's claiming it'll eliminate all gun crime.

Well, I don't know about your brother, but I live in a world where I don't have to walk around with a gun on my hip to keep me safe... I guess I've been under the mistaken impression that most human beings would like to live in a world like that as well...

You have "many gun laws"? Perhaps you do have many gun "laws", but you do not have strict gun control by the standards of the rest of the west.

The fact of the matter is, the rest of the west has strict gun control and it works for them. Gun crimes are significantly lower than in the US.

Thats the fact.

I too live in a world where I don't have to carry a gun around. Yes, I like it. What's your point?

Yes, the fact is that the rest of the world is not the US. What's your point?

As I've stated already, Utopia is not an option. I never claimed that everybody carrying would eliminate gun violence, and I understand full well that gun control advocates do not claim to stop all gun violence. I would just like to hear some specifics as to how the various gun control laws might be fine tuned to prevent such accidents.

So far, I've heard nothing in that regard. Not a word. But I have read posts that suggest some measure of anger (an emotion), disgust (an emotion), calling of names (an emotion), etc. So, perhaps you can understand why I am perceiving more of an emotional reaction than a rational action. Just saying over and over again "I don't want it to be this way" is hardly a rational act. We all agree on that point, but it's not any sort of reasonable and constructive criticism.

[+Liquid Gardens]

As an example, if 10 'gun control' laws were broken by the events in Newtown and upstate New York, how is it a rational claim to say that an eleventh law, yet to be written, would have prevented either or both of those events? Please explain that to me LG.

I can't, but I haven't made the claim that enacting more laws would absolutely have prevented any specific incident, maybe you're referring to someone else's argument. I'm objecting to your argument as I see it, which is if it can't be guaranteed that any new legislation would have definitely prevented Newtown, then it's worthless and 'emotional'. There are multiple strategies and goals that can be pursued.

[Babe Ruth]

I can't, but I haven't made the claim that enacting more laws would absolutely have prevented any specific incident, maybe you're referring to someone else's argument. I'm objecting to your argument as I see it, which is if it can't be guaranteed that any new legislation would have definitely prevented Newtown, then it's worthless and 'emotional'. There are multiple strategies and goals that can be pursued.

Thanks for making your position clear--you do not claim that 'gun control', however that may be defined, would prevent any specific incident.

However, your position here seems to imply that. You and Stellar, and my brother, imply that there is some proper combination of language to form a law that will somehow or other stop such senseless murders. That's how it comes across, intended or not.

Or, you guys are sliding down the slippery slope to a banning of all guns?

We're just posting back and forth, and nobody is angry, but we're right back where we started--have you guys any specific points that are not already addressed in current gun laws that would have prevented either of these tragedies? No, is the apparent answer.

So, my point that more ineffective gun control laws added to the pile of other ineffective gun control laws will likely bring no change, is right on.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[+Liquid Gardens]

Thanks for making your position clear--you do not claim that 'gun control', however that may be defined, would prevent any specific incident.

However, your position here seems to imply that. You and Stellar, and my brother, imply that there is some proper combination of language to form a law that will somehow or other stop such senseless murders. That's how it comes across, intended or not.

Or, you guys are sliding down the slippery slope to a banning of all guns?

We're just posting back and forth, and nobody is angry, but we're right back where we started--have you guys any specific points that are not already addressed in current gun laws that would have prevented either of these tragedies? No, is the apparent answer.

So, my point that more ineffective gun control laws added to the pile of other ineffective gun control laws will likely bring no change, is right on.

Well, of course more 'ineffective gun control laws' will be ineffective, by definition. Perhaps we need more effective gun control laws? When I refer to specific incidents I'm referring more to the fact that no matter what, there will always be some gun crimes, and there will always be mass killings, but that doesn't mean you can't do things to reduce overall gun crimes statistically. If people really wanted it, I do think there could be rather drastic legislation put in place that over the course of decades would result in a decline in gun deaths. Everyone understands full well why we don't allow flame throwers to be owned by civilians, I don't know what the biggie is if we draw that 'too dangerous' line at a different spot. There's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good or even the mediocre or even a tiny bit better; a tiny bit better in relation to guns translates to saving someone's life usually.

[flyingswan]

Good points all, but the fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, the US has the Second Amendment, for better or worse, and at the moment, the US has more guns per capita than it does automobiles, in all probability. I'm not trying to make a statistically accurate point there, but we have alot of guns. Besides passing yet another futile gun law, have you any practical suggestions as how those little factoids might be dealt with?

Just as cars are dangerous, but you can reduce the death-rate enormously with laws specifying safety features, so with guns. Look at what other countries do so effectively. The Second Amendment does not need to be a complete block on progress. Others here have pointed out that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment were nothing like the guns available today. Why not amend the Second Amendment to define arms as single-shot weapons?

[preacherman76]

Just as cars are dangerous, but you can reduce the death-rate enormously with laws specifying safety features, so with guns. Look at what other countries do so effectively. The Second Amendment does not need to be a complete block on progress. Others here have pointed out that "arms" at the time of the Second Amendment were nothing like the guns available today. Why not amend the Second Amendment to define arms as single-shot weapons?

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.

[flyingswan]

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.

That sounds defeatist. I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself. Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years. Edited December 27, 2012 by flyingswan

[Czero 101]

That sounds defeatist. I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself. Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years.

Well, they were able to successfully clarify the definition of the word "is" and the phrase "sexual relations", so one would think that clarifying the word "arms" would be a comparative walk in the park...

Cz

[+Liquid Gardens]

The spirit of the second amendment is to stop government tyranny as a last resort. To define arms as a single shot weapon would destroy any chance to do that. Besides the second amendment cant be altered. It is out lined in the Bill of Rights. There is no political process to change the Bill of Rights.

This is not true, the United States Bill of Rights can be altered just like any other amendment in the US Constitution. The 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first 10 amendments, they don't have any special status.

[preacherman76]

This is not true, the United States Bill of Rights can be altered just like any other amendment in the US Constitution. The 'Bill of Rights' is just a name for the first 10 amendments, they don't have any special status.

Alright, show me the political process written into law that makes the Bill of Rights changeable. Before you waste your time, I'll just tell ya there is no such process. The Bill of Rights is not a constitutional amendment. It is a entity all on its own. The way the Bill of Rights is worded, the rights it meantions are not given to us by government, but according to it are given to us by our creator. Government hasnt given the rights, so government cant take them away. Only the creator himself can take them away. I dont expect we will be hearing from him on the matter any time soon.

Edited December 27, 2012 by preacherman76

[preacherman76]

That sounds defeatist. I'm sure the combined efforts of the legal profession could find a way to clarify the definition of a word in an existing unalterable document without altering the document itself. Look at the way the understanding of exactly whose rights they were has changed over the years.

Those rights were changed by violation of the highest law in the land. As the people slept though it. Luckly the people are wide awake when it comes to this issue right now. How can you understand the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed to mean anything other then what it directly says.

Its only defeatist to those who think they can exchange liberty for a false sence of security.

Edited December 27, 2012 by preacherman76

[+Liquid Gardens]

Alright, show me the political process written into law that makes the Bill of Rights changeable. Before you waste your time, I'll just tell ya there is no such process. The Bill of Rights is not a constitutional amendment. It is a entity all on its own. The way the Bill of Rights is worded, the rights it meantions are not given to us by government, but according to it are given to us by our creator. Government hasnt given the rights, so government cant take them away. Only the creator himself can take them away. I dont expect we will be hearing from him on the matter any time soon.

The Bill of Rights not a separate entity, it is the name given to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, these 10 amendments have no special status above any other amendment. I guess the correctness of what you are saying depends on what you mean by 'changeable'. Amendments are not removed from the Constitution or the wording changed, but later amendments have precedence; the 18th amendment prohibited alcohol and the 21st repealed it. We can repeal the 2nd amendment also if we wanted to, it's no different than the 18th.

You are correct that these rights are not given to us by the government, but that does not mean they are inviolable. The Bill of Rights consistently uses similar wording to, 'Congress shall pass no law... infringing on the right...', so for example our speech and religious practice and rights to assemble peacefully, which we all possess just by existing, cannot be outlawed. But obviously, each of those examples actually is governed by some law that admittedly had to withstand more scrutiny by the judicial branch than others; it's illegal to defame or slander people or commit fraud through your speech, religious beliefs don't allow you to break other laws, etc.

[Babe Ruth]

Well, of course more 'ineffective gun control laws' will be ineffective, by definition. Perhaps we need more effective gun control laws? When I refer to specific incidents I'm referring more to the fact that no matter what, there will always be some gun crimes, and there will always be mass killings, but that doesn't mean you can't do things to reduce overall gun crimes statistically. If people really wanted it, I do think there could be rather drastic legislation put in place that over the course of decades would result in a decline in gun deaths. Everyone understands full well why we don't allow flame throwers to be owned by civilians, I don't know what the biggie is if we draw that 'too dangerous' line at a different spot. There's no reason to make the perfect the enemy of the good or even the mediocre or even a tiny bit better; a tiny bit better in relation to guns translates to saving someone's life usually.

I understand what you're saying, and cannot really disagree with the sentiment, but I just wonder about the practical aspects?

Considering the wide array of 'gun control measures' that have been implemented since the assassination of RFK, federal, state and local, and considering their significant failure, I just wonder what measure you might enact to achieve the decline in gun deaths? As for me, I'm all in favor of mandatory training, because there are numerous accidents and killings that happen only through the utter ignorance and lack of respect for a dangerous weapon on the part of the operator.

Simply put, I am skeptical of the notion that some magic combination of words in the legislative process can bring the change we all desire. The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.

[preacherman76]

The Bill of Rights not a separate entity, it is the name given to the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, these 10 amendments have no special status above any other amendment. I guess the correctness of what you are saying depends on what you mean by 'changeable'. Amendments are not removed from the Constitution or the wording changed, but later amendments have precedence; the 18th amendment prohibited alcohol and the 21st repealed it. We can repeal the 2nd amendment also if we wanted to, it's no different than the 18th.

You are correct that these rights are not given to us by the government, but that does not mean they are inviolable. The Bill of Rights consistently uses similar wording to, 'Congress shall pass no law... infringing on the right...', so for example our speech and religious practice and rights to assemble peacefully, which we all possess just by existing, cannot be outlawed. But obviously, each of those examples actually is governed by some law that admittedly had to withstand more scrutiny by the judicial branch than others; it's illegal to defame or slander people or commit fraud through your speech, religious beliefs don't allow you to break other laws, etc.

Of course its a seperate entity. Nor is it just a name given to the first 10 amendments. There is more to it then a list of amendments. It was created by the founders cause they felt the constitution in and of its self couldnt properly protect them. Thats why they demanded a BOR. To let future administrations know that these rights are set in stone. Unchangeable. This is basic 6th grade American history.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I understand what you're saying, and cannot really disagree with the sentiment, but I just wonder about the practical aspects?

Considering the wide array of 'gun control measures' that have been implemented since the assassination of RFK, federal, state and local, and considering their significant failure, I just wonder what measure you might enact to achieve the decline in gun deaths? As for me, I'm all in favor of mandatory training, because there are numerous accidents and killings that happen only through the utter ignorance and lack of respect for a dangerous weapon on the part of the operator.

Simply put, I am skeptical of the notion that some magic combination of words in the legislative process can bring the change we all desire. The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.

That I think is the bad presumption that is included in your line of argument here, that, "The law is not nearly as effective as we would like to think.". I don't know who thinks that, I think most people understand the limited effectiveness of our laws. I'm sure you can think of legislation that would be effective eventually in achieving a decline in gun deaths if that was the only issue and objective at hand: outlaw all guns and ammunition, over time I think it's reasonable to assume that will eventually result in less gun deaths. The trick is balancing that draconian measure with the current rights that people have and liberty and so on.

Mandatory training is fine, but I don't think that helps prevent a Newtown-type event. It appears that we are always going to have a subset of people who are mentally ill (not just children), or who are just plain malicious people. Unfortunately in the US, we have so many weapons available that it's honestly no surprise that those violence-prone people are able to get their hands on them, existing laws or not. I don't know how you prevent devices that can kill people with the push of a button from getting in the hands of these people short of putting into place far more strict and penalizing laws than we currently have.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Of course its a seperate entity. Nor is it just a name given to the first 10 amendments. There is more to it then a list of amendments. It was created by the founders cause they felt the constitution in and of its self couldnt properly protect them. Thats why they demanded a BOR. To let future administrations know that these rights are set in stone. Unchangeable. This is basic 6th grade American history.

Indeed, it is 6th grade American history, here's Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Nothing in there that the Bill of Rights are any different than any other amendment. These rights are NOT 'set in stone' and that is by design, our founders were extremely intelligent. It's not easy to amend the constitution, and it will likely never happen that any of the BOR will be outright repealed, but the Constitution itself lays out the rules by which amendments are made and doesn't set aside the first 10 as having special rules to my knowledge. If you disagree, then quote me something from the Constitution that says the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or altered by later Constitutional amendments.

You do agree that later amendments after the BOR can be repealed, correct? You just think that there is something special from an amendment standpoint about the BOR amendments? If we decide in the future that guns must be banned, what do we do, abolish the government?

[preacherman76]

There is nothing there that meantions the BOR at all. Thats cause it cant be altered. Like Ive said, there is no political process to change the BOR, like there is to add amendments to the constitution. The states demanded the BOR, cause they felt the constitution didnt protect the first 10 properly. This is a no brainer. If the first 10 were like every other amendment, then there would be no need to have a BOR at all. Why do you think the Bill of Rights exists?

[preacherman76]

Indeed, it is 6th grade American history, here's Article 5 of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Nothing in there that the Bill of Rights are any different than any other amendment. These rights are NOT 'set in stone' and that is by design, our founders were extremely intelligent. It's not easy to amend the constitution, and it will likely never happen that any of the BOR will be outright repealed, but the Constitution itself lays out the rules by which amendments are made and doesn't set aside the first 10 as having special rules to my knowledge. If you disagree, then quote me something from the Constitution that says the amendments in the Bill of Rights cannot be repealed or altered by later Constitutional amendments.

You do agree that later amendments after the BOR can be repealed, correct? You just think that there is something special from an amendment standpoint about the BOR amendments? If we decide in the future that guns must be banned, what do we do, abolish the government?

Yes later amendments can be repealed. And yes the BOR protects the first 10 to the point that if they were to try to lawfully ban guns, the entire foundation of government would have to be brought into question.