Jump to content

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


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

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.

Source for this? My google-fu is failing me, and I can't find any stats on this.

But I seriously doubt there is now a "very strong likelihood" that every American will handle a gun in their lifetime, and I suspect compulsory gun education would be the only way that could ever be made reality.

In any case, I don't see what compulsory gun education is going to do about gun homicides and suicides, which together account for the vast majority of gun deaths, besides making more people more capable of using guns for these purposes. Accidental gun deaths, the only cause of gun death I can imagine possibly being reduced by this proposal, account for about 1% of gun deaths. (I pulled this information from Wikipedia, which cites the CDC).

To my mind, then, this proposal throws gasoline on 99% of the problem for the sake of the 1% (although it may not even reduce accidental deaths if it causes enough additional people to pick up guns, some portion of which will always accidentally shoot themselves or someone else no matter their training).

Alternatively, aggressively reducing access to guns will reduce gun deaths across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

First off, what little old ladies do you know that live where home invasion by gangbangers in a possibility?  Most of them that live in those areas are considered off limits, even to the most hard ass gang member.  Second, I know plenty of people whose response to someone breaking in, is to let them have the shit the want.  Not everyone thinks their shit is worth their life.  This fantasy of power equalization is just that, a fantasy.  I know you are scared for your life and your shit, but most people aren't scared or even in danger of that happening.  You want to own a gun, go right ahead, but I firmly believe that you have a responsibility as a gun owner to prove that you're a responsible gun owner.  I don't care if you want a weapon that realistically only the military has any use for, but I want you to demonstrate your ability to use and care for said weapon. 

If you think I want your guns, you are wrong.  I want gun owners to admit that their 'tools' have one use, to kill things.  The deterrent is that it will kill things, full stop.  Not some bullshit about power equalization, or civilization by firearm.  The gun is effective because it is a tool to kill things.  One thing I learned in the military is to respect your weapon.  Too many gun owners treat it like a fucking toy, and we end up with dead kids as a result.  I look at it like a toy recall,  too many people get hurt your toy has to be fixed.  I know that is unconstitutional as of right now, but I hope that my kids look at our country's infatuation with guns in a new light. 

If 20 dead kindergartners couldn't convince us that we have a firearm issue, than nothing will anytime soon.  I hate that my sons have intruder drills at school.  I hate that my wife can't go out in public without worrying about some asshole shooting the place up.  I hate that I have to listen to gun owners talk about their 'absolute' right to own a gun with no restrictions over my right not get shot at by a jackass.  Your right to own a gun does not trump all other rights my friend.  You just lost a case today that banned AR-15s and AK-47s along with magazine restrictions.  I don't think that the law will be effective, but perhaps we can start to come to a common ground and compromise.  I think Kal's ideas are workable and potentially very effective.  We can no longer afford to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, that's the price for having guns in our society."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But I seriously doubt there is now a "very strong likelihood" that every American will handle a gun in their lifetime, and I suspect compulsory gun education would be the only way that could ever be made reality.

 

Depends on what you refer to as handle.  I've grown up in the South (with a 2.5 year trip to the Midwest), so I'm coming from parts of the country where it's *guns are common*.  32% of US households own guns, which suggests an American will come across one at some point. I don't personally know anyone who has lived in America for more than 2 years and never touched one, and I barely know anyone who hasn't fired one.  

Obviously, it's anecdotal.  The only polls I can find had ~ 30% having never fired a gun, although those are 15 years old, so obviously not reliable.  The number that have never handled one in any capacity is likely even smaller than that number (which I would guess has risen as overall ownership has fallen).

ETA:  Accidentally said the opposite of what I was trying to say in ** portion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for why you should give up some rights (or rather, not give them up but have them marginally reduced) is because that marginal reduction will save lives and preserve the pursuit of happiness for millions of people, and arguably their liberty, too. Yes, you may be inconvenienced a little, but your founding fathers wanted a government that gave its people the right to life and said pursuit, and a minor inconvenience is, in my opinion, a more than fair price to pay for hundreds of lives.

Your assertion that hundreds of lives will be saved by magazine size limitations is absurd, making the rest of your point moot.

It takes only a few seconds to change a magazine, and some of the worst mass shootings we've ever had were carried out with simple 10 round mags and normal semi automatic pistols.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard an argument for the 'right to bear arms' that wouldn't be equally valid for tanks or gun- choppers or bombs. It's hardly an original point, but I have yet to see it refuted.  Responses are always either blank dismissal or semantic/tradition based non-points.

Like with slavery, civil rights, sufferage etc., those who stand against the majority opinion of the civilized* world on behalf of the American status quo will eventually see their stance relegated to history, but it will cost many more lives than it ought to. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you refer to as handle.  I've grown up in the South (with a 2.5 year trip to the Midwest), so I'm coming from parts of the country where it's not as common.  32% of US households own guns, which suggests an American will come across one at some point. I don't personally know anyone who has lived in America for more than 2 years and never touched one, and I barely know anyone who hasn't fired one.  

Obviously, it's anecdotal.  The only polls I can find had ~ 30% having never fired a gun, although those are 15 years old, so obviously not reliable.  The number that have never handled one in any capacity is likely even smaller than that number (which I would guess has risen as overall ownership has fallen).

30% is less than I would have expected. And I think you're correct that the number that's never even handled a gun would be even smaller. I'm curious about up to date numbers since, as you point out, ownership has declined. Even if it has stayed the same, I'm still not sure that percentage justifies the premise that there is "very strong likelihood" that every American will handle a gun in their lifetime, but YMMV.

Speaking anecdotally, I barely know anyone that owns a gun. And outside of the few gun owners I know, I don't know anyone I could say for sure has touched a gun. Presumably some of them have, but it's never come up in conversation, and I'd consider it unusual if it did. Guns have been far from a ubiquitous presence in my life. I'm sure that's partly regional (Northeast) and partly personal (we tend to make friends with people with shared interests, and I have no interest in guns).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, what little old ladies do you know that live where home invasion by gangbangers in a possibility?  Most of them that live in those areas are considered off limits, even to the most hard ass gang member.  Second, I know plenty of people whose response to someone breaking in, is to let them have the shit the want.  Not everyone thinks their shit is worth their life.  This fantasy of power equalization is just that, a fantasy.  I know you are scared for your life and your shit, but most people aren't scared or even in danger of that happening.  You want to own a gun, go right ahead, but I firmly believe that you have a responsibility as a gun owner to prove that you're a responsible gun owner.  I don't care if you want a weapon that realistically only the military has any use for, but I want you to demonstrate your ability to use and care for said weapon. 

If you think I want your guns, you are wrong.  I want gun owners to admit that their 'tools' have one use, to kill things.  The deterrent is that it will kill things, full stop.  Not some bullshit about power equalization, or civilization by firearm.  The gun is effective because it is a tool to kill things.  One thing I learned in the military is to respect your weapon.  Too many gun owners treat it like a fucking toy, and we end up with dead kids as a result.  I look at it like a toy recall,  too many people get hurt your toy has to be fixed.  I know that is unconstitutional as of right now, but I hope that my kids look at our country's infatuation with guns in a new light. 

If 20 dead kindergartners couldn't convince us that we have a firearm issue, than nothing will anytime soon.  I hate that my sons have intruder drills at school.  I hate that my wife can't go out in public without worrying about some asshole shooting the place up.  I hate that I have to listen to gun owners talk about their 'absolute' right to own a gun with no restrictions over my right not get shot at by a jackass.  Your right to own a gun does not trump all other rights my friend.  You just lost a case today that banned AR-15s and AK-47s along with magazine restrictions.  I don't think that the law will be effective, but perhaps we can start to come to a common ground and compromise.  I think Kal's ideas are workable and potentially very effective.  We can no longer afford to throw our hands up and say "Oh well, that's the price for having guns in our society."  

Nice soapbox rant, but you failed to respond to the point.

The closest you came was that "little old ladies" are apparently off limits as per the "gang banger code of honor".

I'm sure that makes every potential victim sleep peacefully tonight, placing their reliance in the friendly neighbourhood gangbanger's moral code.

Seriously, man. You need to read what you wrote before clicking submit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30% is less than I would have expected. And I think you're correct that the number that's never even handled a gun would be even smaller. I'm curious about up to date numbers since, as you point out, ownership has declined. Even if it has stayed the same, I'm still not sure that percentage justifies the premise that there is "very strong likelihood" that every American will handle a gun in their lifetime, but YMMV.

Speaking anecdotally, I barely know anyone that owns a gun. And outside of the few gun owners I know, I don't know anyone I could say for sure has touched a gun. Presumably some of them have, but it's never come up in conversation, and I'd consider it unusual if it did. Guns have been far from a ubiquitous presence in my life. I'm sure that's partly regional (Northeast) and partly personal (we tend to make friends with people with shared interests, and I have no interest in guns).

My friends aren't the representative group because of that last bit (I actually brought mine out in between games of Fifa this past weekend after I had mentioned a unique feature about it, and they compared it to their shotguns.  Talked about duck hunting with it going forward with one of them).

It's come up a bit at work (largely with people I went to school with, a very conservative university in Texas), but given the location and the conservative lean of the profession, it tends to be a biased group.  The only ones that it ever comes up with where the answer is no were immigrants (my Moroccan/French Senior for example, although she wants to learn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice soapbox rant, but you failed to respond to the point.

The closest you came was that "little old ladies" are apparently off limits as per the "gang banger code of honor".

I'm sure that makes every potential victim sleep peacefully tonight, placing their reliance in the friendly neighbourhood gangbanger's moral code.

Seriously, man. You need to read what you wrote before clicking submit.

 

The point is not everyone is a scared little boy hiding behind his guns. You want to own guns, I'm all for it.  I've said that many times.  You seem to think that gangbangers go around breaking into homes.  Most of the gang violence I see, it's all drive bys.  So why does it have to be a gangbanger?  Why can't it be some methed up redneck?  That's way more likely, in fact in my community it's the truth.  It doesn't change the fact that having a gun doesn't make our theoretical little old lady safer.  It just means she has a gun.  It doesn't mean she will actually fire it, it doesn't mean she is trained to use it properly.  The point is you think that it makes her safer and I think it makes no difference.  You can talk about force equalization and all that other bullshit, but it doesn't matter.  She is as safe as she feels. If that gun makes her feel safe more power to her.  Our points of view are so far apart that we will never agree on this.  I don't see people as potential victims of crime, you do.  You live your life in fear, I don't.  I do get the point, I just think it is stupid one.

I'm tired of assholes like you failing to understand that you, the responsible firearm owner, are the problem. You coddle and protect shitbags who shouldn't be allowed to have a stapler much less a deadly weapon.  You act like there is nothing we can do because it would inconvenience you, because that is really what it is, an inconvenience.  You refuse to accept responsibility for the gun owners who suck because it would mean you have to admit that there should be regulations on gun ownership.  Everyone is tired of gun owners in this country who want to own guns but not have any responsibility for the use of them.    

You need to understand that I have no problem with gun ownership.  I don't care if you want to stockpile weapons for the revolution.  I don't care how much ammo you have, and honestly I could care less about magazine restrictions.  I know those are just band aids that don't address the gaping chest wound that is unregulated ownership of firearms.  I know you won't ever agree with any proposal to restrict access because of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.  I know that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally different from mine.  I know that you truly believe that you need your guns to stand up to 'tyranny'.  I don't know what 'tyranny', but more power to you.  I know that many gun owners dismiss regulation because is it proposed by people who have no clue about firearms.  Instead of dismissing it and getting bogged down in pedantic debates about clips and magazines or 'assault rifles', how about you realize that these people are arguing in good faith and are tired of the norm of random gun violence.  How about you address my points? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

(snip)

I actually agree with this. That is why I think the second amendment either should be repealed altogether or rewritten so that it explicitly allows licensing, rather than circumvented or just ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding magazine capacity, the would-be mass shooter in Seattle last year was tackled by a student security guard as he was reloading his shotgun, resulting in "only" one death and two wounded. So it can make a difference, even in statistically anomalous events like mass shootings. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Kal, I don't think for one moment the NRA would foot the bill,  let alone consider doing so.  Just because they seem to be made up primarily of Republicans, they're not going to spend one red cent of their own on something they'll claim the government should be paying for. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kal, I don't think for one moment the NRA would foot the bill,  let alone consider doing so.  Just because they seem to be made up primarily of Republicans, they're not going to spend one red cent of their own on something they'll claim the government should be paying for. 

You're not thinking of it the right way. Imagine that the NRA can get millions of new members, millions of new gun owners. Millions more people that would have never been exposed to a gun now have gotten to play with one. They would pay for that so fast your head will spin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding magazine capacity, the would-be mass shooter in Seattle last year was tackled by a student security guard as he was reloading his shotgun, resulting in "only" one death and two wounded. So it can make a difference, even in statistically anomalous events like mass shooting. 

Link?

Because very, very few shotguns have magazines.  I doubt very much that the shooter you are talking about was using a shotgun with a magazine.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link?

Because very, very few shotguns have magazines.  I doubt very much that the shooter you are talking about was using a shotgun with a magazine.

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I don't know if the shotgun had a magazine or not. My point was that in terrible situations like this, time to reload can make a difference. 

ETA: article about it here. Pretty crazy. It's right by where I used to go running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I don't know if the shotgun had a magazine or not. My point was that in terrible situations like this, time to reload can make a difference. 

ETA: article about it here. Pretty crazy. It's right by where I used to go running. 

There's a really, really big difference between the time required to load a shotgun and the time required to reload a magazine fed weapon.

Ignoring for a second that in virtually all shootings less than ten rounds are fired, changing a magazine takes almost no time.  

There's just no reason to believe that limiting magazine size will accomplish anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not everyone is a scared little boy hiding behind his guns. You want to own guns, I'm all for it.  I've said that many times.  You seem to think that gangbangers go around breaking into homes.  Most of the gang violence I see, it's all drive bys.  So why does it have to be a gangbanger?  Why can't it be some methed up redneck?  That's way more likely, in fact in my community it's the truth.  It doesn't change the fact that having a gun doesn't make our theoretical little old lady safer.  It just means she has a gun.  It doesn't mean she will actually fire it, it doesn't mean she is trained to use it properly.  The point is you think that it makes her safer and I think it makes no difference.  You can talk about force equalization and all that other bullshit, but it doesn't matter.  She is as safe as she feels. If that gun makes her feel safe more power to her.  Our points of view are so far apart that we will never agree on this.  I don't see people as potential victims of crime, you do.  You live your life in fear, I don't.  I do get the point, I just think it is stupid one.

I'm tired of assholes like you failing to understand that you, the responsible firearm owner, are the problem. You coddle and protect shitbags who shouldn't be allowed to have a stapler much less a deadly weapon.  You act like there is nothing we can do because it would inconvenience you, because that is really what it is, an inconvenience.  You refuse to accept responsibility for the gun owners who suck because it would mean you have to admit that there should be regulations on gun ownership.  Everyone is tired of gun owners in this country who want to own guns but not have any responsibility for the use of them.    

You need to understand that I have no problem with gun ownership.  I don't care if you want to stockpile weapons for the revolution.  I don't care how much ammo you have, and honestly I could care less about magazine restrictions.  I know those are just band aids that don't address the gaping chest wound that is unregulated ownership of firearms.  I know you won't ever agree with any proposal to restrict access because of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.  I know that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally different from mine.  I know that you truly believe that you need your guns to stand up to 'tyranny'.  I don't know what 'tyranny', but more power to you.  I know that many gun owners dismiss regulation because is it proposed by people who have no clue about firearms.  Instead of dismissing it and getting bogged down in pedantic debates about clips and magazines or 'assault rifles', how about you realize that these people are arguing in good faith and are tired of the norm of random gun violence.  How about you address my points? 

Ok. Message delivered loud and clear. But disagreed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not thinking of it the right way. Imagine that the NRA can get millions of new members, millions of new gun owners. Millions more people that would have never been exposed to a gun now have gotten to play with one. They would pay for that so fast your head will spin. 

I agree with OAR's comments about the overall proposition above, especially regarding the likelihood of encountering weapons.   I don't think guns are something that everyone will encounter across the US, and making it universally mandatory will make guns seem familiar and normal to a lot of people who'd have otherwise never encounter one (which is basically what you say here).   I can see the sense in making safety training mandatory for entire families rather than just the gun-owner, and perhaps even so far as mandating this at the county level for particularly gun-dense regions or something, but I think universalizing lessons will be counter-productive in the long run.

That a ton of people would now be exposed to guns that otherwise wouldn't be has a lot to do with why I don't really see the sense in universalizing this (though I'm still not so certain the NRA would be footing the bill despite this).  Why make them seem normal and-- worse-- necessary to every American?   Despite what a lot of people seem to think, guns really aren't that useful or necessary to perhaps most of us.   Becoming much more honest about the contexts in which guns are useful and necessary, is, in my view, the direction we should be going with this, and I think a universal mandate would be doing the opposite (I recognize that guns are useful and probably necessary in certain regions and conditions, and am not for a universal ban exactly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Indeed, how civilised we become with more killing devices about! Is this a serious opinion?

I feel infinitely safer and more civilised here in the UK without your widespread gun ownership obsession.

I have been punched just once in my life over here as an adult. It was by an unruly chap, rather stereotypically carrying a can of lager who had broken from his group of similarly recalcitrant folk attempting to provoke a reaction from one of ours. Two of us took one to the head but we just ignored it and carried on walking. I consider this the most sensible course of action.

I got into a conversation about this with an American once who responded by saying that it surely would have been better for me if I'd had a gun. I will never understand this way of thinking. In a land where I'd have been able to have a gun, it's entirely plausible that at least one amongst this group of ruffians would have had a gun too. Now, in a situation where both sides have guns the likelihood of the situation becoming fatal to someone becomes infinitely higher.

Now, our night out was somewhat ruined because two of us had splitting headaches for the rest of it, but for me that's a small price to pay set against the possibility of one of my friends getting shot because everyone has a basic right to carry a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring for a second that in virtually all shootings less than ten rounds are fired, changing a magazine takes almost no time.  

There's just no reason to believe that limiting magazine size will accomplish anything.

 

Real life appears to disagree.  How many of the 6 dead and 13 injured would have been spared if the assassin only had a 7 round magazine?

From the Wiki article on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[1][21] He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[22][23] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[24] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel [27] who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[29]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...