Guns, The 2nd Amendment and the Legitimacy of Their Necessity

[Buckwheat]

But in the UK you also have a fundamentally different view on self defense, to the point where you can get into deep shit if you were to kill someone who has invaded your home in the middle of the night.

My articulation of it is that in general your citizens are encouraged to flee from evil, rather than confront it.

Not from the UK, but from continental Europe. I would say that fundamentally different view on self defense is that you will not need it in your own home at night. Sure, there can be a break in. In the same way there can be a flood or a fire or an earthquake, just less likely. I feel safe going to sleep at night in my own home without needing to know I have something to possibly scare imaginary bulglars off. Steve up there already asked about it - are home burglaries where the home owners end up dead really that prevalent in the US? I feel that having a gun near your children would be a way greater danger than the imaginary threat of somebody breaking in with a plan to murder the whole family.

The gun is ultimately empowering to the weak, and arguably a fundamental part of the triumph of civilization over brute force.

I would hope this was a joke ...

[HexMachina]

The triumph of civilisation over brute force? Because we can now kill people without getting our well groomed hands covered in blood? 

[Lordsteve666]

The gun is ultimately empowering to the weak, and arguably a fundamental part of the triumph of civilization over brute force.

That's a lovely philosophical sounding line to put in but it just sounds like you think the justification for owning guns is that there's rampaging hordes of barbarians waiting to break down your door and kill you in your own home each night or every time you leave the house.

The reality is that there is little reason for the "weak" to need to be empowered as I suspect the bogeyman they are being told they should be terrified of simply doesn't exist. We have plenty of crime in the UK and break-ins are not unheard of where I live but everyone still sleeps at night because  we know that even if some a-hole breaks into you home they will more than likely want your TV not to brutally kill you and your family.
We have insurance to cover any loss and the police will generally try to recover you assets or bring the person to justice. We don't need to try and be the hammer of justice ourselves.

[Chaircat Meow]

That's a lovely philosophical sounding line to put in but it just sounds like you think the justification for owning guns is that there's rampaging hordes of barbarians waiting to break down your door and kill you in your own home each night or every time you leave the house.

The reality is that there is little reason for the "weak" to need to be empowered as I suspect the bogeyman they are being told they should be terrified of simply doesn't exist. We have plenty of crime in the UK and break-ins are not unheard of where I live but everyone still sleeps at night because  we know that even if some a-hole breaks into you home they will more than likely want your TV not to brutally kill you and your family.
We have insurance to cover any loss and the police will generally try to recover you assets or bring the person to justice. We don't need to try and be the hammer of justice ourselves.

Where have you been living: no they won't. The police are not much use once burglaries have been committed.  

[butterbumps!]

The mandatory safety lesson in schools is not a bad idea.

I'm really not familiar with this proposition.   what are the immediate and long term goals of something like this?   and what's the scope?   I mean, are we envisioning that the mandatory safety lesson would be mandatory for gun-owning families, or vary by state or county, or would all Americans be getting mandatory education regardless of whether guns are relevant to their circumstances and geographic location?   If guns are so dangerous that they require every American to get mandatory safety training regardless of ownership or use, then what's the point of keeping them universally legal/ seeing them as a right?   I mean, couldn't the resources and effort that would go into universal mandatory training be better used addressing the issues that make people believe guns are necessary self-defense tools in the first place?

[Greywolf2375]

The mandatory safety lesson in schools is not a bad idea.

 

But what makes us think that's remotely feasible when we can't even have a decent sex ed curriculum because some parents don't want their kids exposed to those ideas?

Sadly, I think it would be more successful because it has nothing to do with the bible and the American prudism...prudishness....prudidity about sex.  If it were framed correctly and positioned correctly, I could see this type of education being very strongly supported by the right and the NRA. 

I've been a gun owner for a very long time, I grew up around guns and started shooting when I was 5ish or so.  I'd support much of what Kal has stated throughout the thread.  Cars are dangerous, but I have my license and insurances.  Guns are dangerous, I have zero issue with my license or the idea of having insurance on the guns.

One of the big flaws - to me - in todays process is that for me to get my license I needed to go to a 4hr course and then submit my application.  Done.  I had to wait to get my license actually printed and available, but the qualifying for a license was a joke.  When I got my drivers license I had a semester long class that met daily and had 3 practical (driving) sessions a week after the first month I think it was.  So I had in class learning, practical experience and had to take tests along the way to continue with the practical.  Even my boating license had more in class work than my gun license, and that was in my eyes pathetic.  I'd be fine with something like a - varying depending on when/where - 6 week/40 hours (something) class based on function, safety, practical, etc. to show that the person has the capability to learn the safety and use of various types of guns.  Maybe even different licenses for different types - pistols, rifles, etc. - just like we have with different types of licenses for vehicles.  You want to own a fully automatic weapon?  Sure...qualify for it.

 

[Commodore]

 it doesn't get more anti-libertarian than pushing government licensing 

EDIT: LOL, read your bio wrong! damn librarians!

[The guy from the Vale]

 it doesn't get more anti-libertarian than pushing government licensing 

EDIT: LOL, read your bio wrong! damn librarians!

So banning would be more libertarian than licensing? Interesting position...

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Fucking librarians have always made me register with the GOVERNMENT to take out books, too! And don't get me started on all the freedom-hating shushing.

[Balefont]

And that's a fair point. To my knowledge no other country in the world has the notion of keeping firearms as self-defense as the US does, though I'm willing to believe that other countries do indeed have this cultural value. 

Which is another reason why I think it's really important to have mandatory training and licensing. 

And let's not forget that the American gun culture isn't just about "self defense" but the defense of one's property.  Because protecting your or your neighbor's shit from theft is worth the danger is worth taking the law into your own hands.

 

Houston police responded to a shooting call around 11:15 p.m. Saturday at a Valero gas station on Jensen Drive at Reid Street in north Houston. Officials say two men jumped another man in the gas station parking lot and took the victim's Chevrolet pickup truck. Police say a witness then pulled out a gun and began shooting at the suspects, accidentally hitting the carjacking victim in the head.

[Lordsteve666]

 

And let's not forget that the American gun culture isn't just about "self defense" but the defense of one's property.  Because protecting your or your neighbor's shit from theft is worth the danger is worth taking the law into your own hands.

And that sort of shit is exactly why some sort of training in how not to act with a firearm is required in my view. It's all very well going on about how all these mass shootings or murders are perpetrated by those with mental health issues and the like but how many gun owners are there out there who are just plain fucking idiots?

Those two shooters probably thought they were expert marksmen because the guns empowered them or something. But in reality they did more harm than good.
That also links back to other discussions I've seen after the Batman movie theater shooting, that more guns in the possession of the audience would have saved lives.
Imagine the above scenario but in a darkened room with up to say 100 people all pulling out a gun and thinking they are Rambo.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Are there any other arguments against licensing than: 

1) It's unconstitutional

2) It's violating the right to bear arms

3) It's a slippery slope towards banning all guns?

I think licensing is the way to go. If you want to own a gun, you should be able to prove you know how to handle it responsibly. 

[JonSnow4President]

Are there any other arguments against licensing than: 

1) It's unconstitutional

2) It's violating the right to bear arms

3) It's a slippery slope towards banning all guns?

I think licensing is the way to go. If you want to own a gun, you should be able to prove you know how to handle it responsibly. 

I think the only (semi-rational) argument is the presence of the right to own them in the Bill of Rights.  Unlike the licensing of something not contained within the Constitution (operating cars, boats, motorcycles, hunting, fishing, etc.), the imposition of a government license could create a precedent for the licensing of other rights.  Maybe you need a license to protest a government policy(different from the time/content neutral licenses that exist in certain places for assembly).  Maybe you need a license to vote.  

I think it's another slippery slope fallacy to take it to those extremes, but one of only 2 hangups I have with the licensing idea would be the creation of that precedent (the other being the usual not trusting the government to implement the licensing reasonably.  It should reasonably be within the scope of anyone who can is able to own a gun [reasonably priced, reasonable requirements, unbaised implementation with regards to race/socioeconomic status, etc.])

 

ETA:  To clarify, there's already precedent for the limitation of rights in certain situations, like yelling bomb in an airport.  What there isn't (to my knowledge) is something saying "to do this right, you must do this" instead of "you have this right, except in XXX." 

[The guy from the Vale]

Don't you need to be registered to vote?

[JonSnow4President]

Don't you need to be registered to vote?

Registered, yes.  It's literally nothing more than a registration requirement verifying you're 18.  There is no licensing, no tests, no fee, nothing besides giving your name and address (and I think verifying 18.  Can't remember what I did when I turned 18, and this move I did it while getting my driver's license).  

 

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Registered, yes.  It's literally nothing more than a registration requirement verifying you're 18.  There is no licensing, no tests, no fee, nothing besides giving your name and address (and I think verifying 18.  Can't remember what I did when I turned 18, and this move I did it while getting my driver's license).  

 

Unless you are required to show a photo ID issued by the state, which the state charges you for. I consider that a fee, as do many others (especially when you take into account the amount of time and effort in aquiring one, especially for those living in rural areas)

[Fez]

Seems relevant.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a Chicago suburb's ordinance banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, handing a victory to gun control advocates amid a fierce debate over the nation's firearms laws.

The 2013 ordinance passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois will remain in place. By opting not to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that upheld the measure, the justices declined to take up what would have been a high-profile gun rights case following a succession of mass shootings including the one last week in San Bernardino, California.

The Highland Park measure bans various semi-automatic weapons, including well-known guns such as the AR-15 and AK-47, in addition to magazines holding more than 10 rounds of bullets.

Two conservatives on the nine-member court, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said the justices should have taken the case.

 

So it would seem despite their ruling in Heller in 2008, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito aren't ready yet to say there's an unlimited right to guns.

[Chris G]

At its most basic level, a gun is a force equalizer. Without guns, large, young men will almost always have an advantage over women, older people, and less physically powerful young men.

With a gun, the dominance of the physically powerful is removed, and anyone has a fair chance to defend the lives of themselves and their loved ones. The gun is ultimately empowering to the weak, and arguably a fundamental part of the triumph of civilization over brute force.

 

 

The little old lady using the gun to defend herself from home invaders is ridiculous.  Most people won't actually fire their gun at a person.  A baseball bat is just as effective and won't accidentally go off when you're cleaning it.  Hell, I think it would be more satisfying to crack some skulls with a bat. 

[Kalbear]

Since a few asked: my goal in the proposed law is not to stop mass shootings, which aren't particularly common and aren't really going to be stopped by laws.

The goal is to reduce significantly the amount of accidental and deliberate shootings in the US. As stated before if we reduced the shooting rate to the next highest country - Switzerland - we would save 27000 lives a year, 1500 of which are children.

The mandatory gun safety is not for anyone who chooses to have a gun. It's for everyone. Because in the US there is a very strong likelihood that you will in your life handle a gun. It is akin to sex ed in that respect. And I said I'd get the Nra to pay for it, which I suspect they'd do gladly.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The little old lady using the gun to defend herself from home invaders is ridiculous.  Most people won't actually fire their gun at a person.  A baseball bat is just as effective and won't accidentally go off when you're cleaning it.  Hell, I think it would be more satisfying to crack some skulls with a bat. 

Listen to yourself.

Firstly you claim - without any substantiation - that a "little old lady" would not fire her gun at a person in defense of her life.

And then you suggest that the "little old lady" would be able to use a baseball bat effectively, against a muscular 25 year old gangbanger.

This post makes no sense, on so many levels.