Now is not the time to talk about gun control (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
1,771
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
No - the second amendment is a restriction on the power of government. That restriction may not be considered absolute today, even if the language is, but your angle of attack here is strange and perverse because nowhere does it say that government *is allowed* to do anything.
You are arguing semantics. The way I worded it has nothing to do with the point.

I should have said we’ve accepted that the government can regulate what type of arms we can bear without violating the second amendment.

The second amendment absolutists try to hide behind the second amendment and avoid discussing specific policy points.
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
28
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
You are arguing semantics. The way I worded it has nothing to do with the point.

I should have said we’ve accepted that the government can regulate what type of arms we can bear without violating the second amendment.

The second amendment absolutists try to hide behind the second amendment and avoid discussing specific policy points.
Respectfully, I think there's a huge difference between saying that the 2nd Amendment grants the government power to do X and the 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not do Y. If you see that as a simple game of semantics, then I would be inclined to think that maybe you don't understand the difference between the statements. Your revision is an improvement, but is overly generous as many attempted restrictions have been overturned on a challenge, so it's not as if the ability to regulate arms is as guaranteed as implied by the statement.

While we may have eventually accepted some infringements on the 2nd Amendment, they are still infringements. We can agree that some are worthwhile, though I am against any and all arbitrary laws simply for the sake of "doing something" - especially when they are related to the enumerated rights of the Constitution.

Frankly, even with the spike in mass shootings, the murder rate in the United States this century is around 5/100k residents ... half the murder rate from the 2nd half of the 20th century and is literally the lowest murder rate this country has ever seen. I don't know if it's because states are more permissive with respect to concealed carry than ever before, or if it's because more people are glued to their computers (possibly leading to the reciprocal rise in mass shootings), but the overall trend is positive.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
1,771
Age
43
Location
Earth
Offline
Respectfully, I think there's a huge difference between saying that the 2nd Amendment grants the government power to do X and the 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not do Y. If you see that as a simple game of semantics, then I would be inclined to think that maybe you don't understand the difference between the statements. Your revision is an improvement, but is overly generous as many attempted restrictions have been overturned on a challenge, so it's not as if the ability to regulate arms is as guaranteed as implied by the statement.

While we may have eventually accepted some infringements on the 2nd Amendment, they are still infringements. We can agree that some are worthwhile, though I am against any and all arbitrary laws simply for the sake of "doing something" - especially when they are related to the enumerated rights of the Constitution.

Frankly, even with the spike in mass shootings, the murder rate in the United States this century is around 5/100k residents ... half the murder rate from the 2nd half of the 20th century and is literally the lowest murder rate this country has ever seen. I don't know if it's because states are more permissive with respect to concealed carry than ever before, or if it's because more people are glued to their computers (possibly leading to the reciprocal rise in mass shootings), but the overall trend is positive.
I don’t need a civics lesson. I hope we all know how the constitution works.

I was not saying that the 2nd amendment grants the government any authority. I do wish I had phrased it differently to avoid the pedanticism.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,069
Reaction score
1,462
Location
Madisonville
Offline
Not that I think guns, per se, are the problem but... it would make a difference to those people who were killed in the mass shootings.

That document is vastly overrated. The UK doesn't really have a similar provision in their Constitution and they seem to be doing okay. But, of course, there will always be a part of American society that are obsessed with firearms.
More people are killed by knives than rifles in the United States. More people are killed by fists and kicking than rifles.

Why don't we ban knives and punching and kicking as well? I disagree about the Constitution.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
1,158
Location
Xibalba
Offline
More people are killed by knives than rifles in the United States. More people are killed by fists and kicking than rifles.

Why don't we ban knives and punching and kicking as well? I disagree about the Constitution.
... and while we are at it, ban straw men and non-critical thinking.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
608
Reaction score
1,004
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
More people are killed by knives than rifles in the United States. More people are killed by fists and kicking than rifles.

Why don't we ban knives and punching and kicking as well? I disagree about the Constitution.
Well we can't ban fists. And I'd argue an unhinged person can kill far more people in shorter order with certain firearms than they can with a knife.

Anyway, this is why I said I don't believe guns, per se, are the problem but that doesn't mean we can't put in place a few restrictions whose only impact is to the indignation of those hyper-vigilant of their Second Amendment rights to possess every swift implement of death on the market. No one can tell me with a straight face that the Framers conceived of the type of weapons we have today and the cult of gun-worship that has sprang up in the unrestricted defense of them.

This is why I say the Constitution is overrated. It's mostly premised on the fact that the Framers were all-seeing demigods.
 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
633
Reaction score
1,407
Age
52
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
More people are killed by knives than rifles in the United States. More people are killed by fists and kicking than rifles.

Why don't we ban knives and punching and kicking as well? I disagree about the Constitution.
We allow restrictions on speech and religion based on balancing those rights vs the public interest.
No, you can't marry a 12-year-old, we don't care how Yahweh feels about it.
No, you can't call for armed insurrection, we don't care if you think the First Amendment protects you.

Likewise no, you don't get to have a nuke, or ricin, or a Rod From God. It's clearly in the interest of public safety to limit your rights in this way. Why? Because you can do an unacceptable amount of damage with these weapons.
So, somewhere between fists and nukes is a line. People of good conscience can debate just where that line lies and that's what we're trying to do.
For my part, the features that make an AR-style rifle good for killing feral hogs also make them great at killing people. (Low recoil, high rate of fire, accuracy and stopping power)
Can we craft laws making another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook impossible while respecting sporting gun owners and ranchers rights to pursue happiness and property protection in their own chosen way?
I don't know. I do know it's a debate we absolutely need to have and it isn't helped by tone-deafness or hypocrisy on either side.
 

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,348
Reaction score
2,255
Age
44
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
I thought this was an interesting article about gun culture
========================================

With two mass shootings in one week, in Georgia and Colorado, the United States is again discussing how to prevent gun violence. Within hours of the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged Congress to enact a ban on assault-style weapons. Recent history suggests that no such law will materialize. Studies find that gun rights supporters are highly politically organized and unwavering on their views, while gun regulation supporters are not.

Our research found a reason for this difference: racial differences in rates of gun ownership and beliefs about guns. White Americans are far more likely than any other group to own firearms and oppose gun regulations. To them, guns are potent political symbols. For many people, especially White Americans, guns are integral to who they are as citizens and what it means to be a good citizen.

This link between good citizenship and bearing arms is not new: Historians find that this conceptual coupling developed during the American Revolution, if not earlier. During this time, Americans came to think of good citizenship as involving both political participation and military readiness to protect against domestic tyrants and external enemies.

Both dimensions of citizenship — voting and serving in combat — were reserved for White men well into the 20th century (women were enfranchised in 1920 and began to serve in combat in 2015), even though African Americans served in every U.S. war.

Gun violence prevention advocates tend to think about guns in terms of preventing violence and the harms that guns can inflict. But racially conservative Whites — those who score high on measures of anti-Black prejudice — think of guns in terms of good citizenship. This group of Whites interpret attempts to restrict access to guns not as an effort to prevent gun violence but as an attack on their ability to express their patriotism.................

For racially biased conservative Whites, owning a gun is just part of being a good citizen (msn.com)
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
28
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
I don’t need a civics lesson. I hope we all know how the constitution works.

I was not saying that the 2nd amendment grants the government any authority. I do wish I had phrased it differently to avoid the pedanticism.
We all make mistakes - that's just part of being human.
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
28
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
I thought this was an interesting article about gun culture
========================================

With two mass shootings in one week, in Georgia and Colorado, the United States is again discussing how to prevent gun violence. Within hours of the Boulder shooting, President Biden urged Congress to enact a ban on assault-style weapons. Recent history suggests that no such law will materialize. Studies find that gun rights supporters are highly politically organized and unwavering on their views, while gun regulation supporters are not.

Our research found a reason for this difference: racial differences in rates of gun ownership and beliefs about guns. White Americans are far more likely than any other group to own firearms and oppose gun regulations. To them, guns are potent political symbols. For many people, especially White Americans, guns are integral to who they are as citizens and what it means to be a good citizen.

This link between good citizenship and bearing arms is not new: Historians find that this conceptual coupling developed during the American Revolution, if not earlier. During this time, Americans came to think of good citizenship as involving both political participation and military readiness to protect against domestic tyrants and external enemies.

Both dimensions of citizenship — voting and serving in combat — were reserved for White men well into the 20th century (women were enfranchised in 1920 and began to serve in combat in 2015), even though African Americans served in every U.S. war.

Gun violence prevention advocates tend to think about guns in terms of preventing violence and the harms that guns can inflict. But racially conservative Whites — those who score high on measures of anti-Black prejudice — think of guns in terms of good citizenship. This group of Whites interpret attempts to restrict access to guns not as an effort to prevent gun violence but as an attack on their ability to express their patriotism.................

For racially biased conservative Whites, owning a gun is just part of being a good citizen (msn.com)
What's interesting, considering the allegations of this article, is that gun control itself is rooted in racism. I guess there's no side of a debate that doesn't have its little fingers steeped in racism. Just like minimum wage laws.
 
Last edited:

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
28
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
For my part, the features that make an AR-style rifle good for killing feral hogs also make them great at killing people. (Low recoil, high rate of fire, accuracy and stopping power)
Can we craft laws making another Las Vegas or Sandy Hook impossible while respecting sporting gun owners and ranchers rights to pursue happiness and property protection in their own chosen way?
I don't know. I do know it's a debate we absolutely need to have and it isn't helped by tone-deafness or hypocrisy on either side.
It's a tough balance to strike, because it will result in compromises - and neither side is really willing to make them, or new compromises will be asked for when the first do not bear the fruit they were expected to.

I think there are varied enough incidents that we can look at proposals surrounding background checks, firearms bans by model, or banning firearms features and see if the remaining implements would be less grievous. My answer, generally, is that they would not be. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.

People hate when I ask this question, but, "How many deaths are acceptable in a mass shooting? 4? 6? 10? At what threshold would one consider our laws on the books to be a 'win'?"

For me, the answer is 0. I don't think anyone could ever say a number higher than 0, but if anyone has a non-zero answer I'd be curious to know what that number is and how it was derived.

Once we have an answer, we can try running through some thought experiments, we can apply the proposed laws to existing cases to see what difference (if any) it might have made. I'm willing to be impartial if it's a conversation you think we can have honestly. (And if I can remember to check back)
 

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,918
Reaction score
2,559
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
So, older white Republicans who never bothered to actually use the internet for anything other than shopping and sending emails still do that whole chain email thing.

I got one today. I know we are supposed to tease and link things but this isn't from a website as far as I know, so I copied the email and am pasting it here. Can someone please attempt to explain to me the motivation behind this? Are there people who don't know that we have more guns than people in this country? Do any of you really think that what is proposed in this email would actually happen when we have the world's largest and best funded military? Me? I just don't get it. What is this trying to say?

The Hunters

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin...

Allow me to restate that number: 600,000!

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the 8th largest army in the world.​

(That’s more men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.)


These men, deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, And NO ONE WAS KILLED.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania's and Michigan's 700,000 hunters,
ALL OF WHOM HAVE RETURNED HOME SAFELY.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia, and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

;

_____The point?________



Americawill forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower!
Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's also a matter of national security.


That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed Food for thought, when next we consider gun control. Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...


What army of 2 million would want to face 30 million, 40 million, or 50 million armed citizens???


For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.


(If you agree, as I do, pass it on, I feel good that I have an army of millions who would protect our land, and I sure don't want the government taking control of the possession of firearms.)


AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now trying to destroy by left leaning idiots.

I apologize for the terrible formatting but I removed all of the redundant line breaks and really don't feel like wasting my time fixing everything else.

I don't see hundreds of thousands of "hunters" going to war with a foreign army who managed to invade our country. I mean, why would they have to? We've got the National Guard and all branches of the military to squash anyone who would be dumb enough to try something inside our borders.

Another thing that's been bugging me about political discussions in general and not just the 2nd amendment lately is that it isn't the 18th century anymore. As it pertains to the 2nd, if the founders had more than muskets and such at the time that the amendment was written, I'm pretty sure it would be a little - no, a lot - more restrictive than it is.

We have safety restrictions on all kinds of things to prevent the loss of life that could be considered infringing on our "freedom" but we nobody seems to care because the benefit of scores of lives saved outweighs the inconvenience of something like wearing a seatbelt. (Hell, in LA, we actually have had a "seat belt gag rule" that may or may not have just been was finally overturned regarding civil suits resulting from car accidents. Defendants' attorneys weren't even allowed to ask the plaintiff if they were wearing their seat belt when they got in an accident, even though it is the law and could have prevented everyone from being in that courtroom in the first place.)

Because I didn't want to be lazy...

Oh, thank goodness, they did overturn it, effective 1/1/2021 - only because enough of us complained about auto insurance rates though. Maybe insurance for guns should be required like it is for cars and then common sense legislation would be enacted since it hits people in their wallet. It only took LA having the 2nd highest auto rates in the country to make ANY attempt at passing legislation that will contribute to lowering rates.)
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
7,191
Location
Midwest
Online
This is a quibble, but I think there are people killed every year in hunting accidents, aren’t there? They say repeatedly that everyone was safe and no one got killed.

this just looks like standard NRA boilerplate to me, as if those hunting rifles would do anything to a missile or a bomb. 🤷‍♀️
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
19
Reaction score
28
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
This is a quibble, but I think there are people killed every year in hunting accidents, aren’t there? They say repeatedly that everyone was safe and no one got killed.
It's a very small number.

For example, according to this site, from 2000-2016, California averaged 2.5 hunting accidents per year. 2009 was the extreme outlier with 8 fatalities, skewing the average from 2.2. Most years saw 2 fatalities, with a few with just 1.
Unless I miscounted, according to the data here, there were 20 fatal hunting accidents in Wisconsin from 2009-2013 + 2015-2020 for an average of 1.8 hunting fatalities per year. 2014 is missing somehow, and the links are randomized so I can't try to discover the resource.

Given these two states' results, the unverified claim I saw on an earlier search of about 100 accidental hunting fatalities per year nationwide - about 2 per state - seems like it could be correct and I'm not really willing to do significantly more research.

I don't know when the form letter was written, but I haven't found any data on a year where there weren't any hunting fatalities in Wisconsin. I suspect it's reasonable to expect there will be some years where there might not be any fatal accidents at all, but presenting this letter today without a date is kind of technically lying - even if it's closer to the truth than not.

Okay, I lied and looked up Pennsylvania. Looks like they had a couple of years without a fatality this century - 2012, 2016, 2017. Bully for them.

Seems like a statistically insignificant number to me - but you're right that it's not zero.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom