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

[Free Northman Reborn]

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.

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

 

[Jaxom 1974]

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 hold no illusions that they would be all for it. I also hold no illusions that the fine leaders of the NRA would send a bill to the government for "service". They're not doing anything that ultimately costs their own money.

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

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}

There are probably millions of those glock magazines out there though.  So even outlawing them won't do anything, plus a magazine can be pretty easily fabricated or now, even printed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

There are probably millions of those glock magazines out there though.  So even outlawing them won't do anything, plus a magazine can be pretty easily fabricated or now, even printed.

So you pass a law with heavy prison sentences for people who traffic and make them.

This argument that Swordfish is pushing is utter crap. There have been numerous examples of mass shooters/school shooters being stopped by an individual or group of people when they stopped to reload. Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

[Dolorous Gabe]

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

In your opinion, not "in fact"; and I never said it was harmless, it seriously hurt!

Your desire for a world of what you call "responsible gun owners" is frankly a pipe dream. It seems odd to me that you would be so distrustful of your fellow man that you feel the need to carry a gun, yet somehow you trust your fellow man enough to responsibly carry a gun.

I maintain that I feel safer in an environment without guns.

[Free Northman Reborn]

In your opinion, not "in fact"; and I never said it was harmless, it seriously hurt!

Your desire for a world of what you call "responsible gun owners" is frankly a pipe dream. It seems odd to me that you would be so distrustful of your fellow man that you feel the need to carry a gun, yet somehow you trust your fellow man enough to responsibly carry a gun.

I maintain that I feel safer in an environment without guns.

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

A responsible gun owner, on the other hand wants to keep his right to own guns, and will therefore not engage in behaviour that could risk him becoming a felon and thus losing his right to own a legal firearm.

So what am I saying? Simply that we should absolutely throw the book at irresponsible gun owners. But that responsible gun owners should not be punished along with them.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

 

It's often successful murder, in fact!

[Larry of the Lawn]

So you pass a law with heavy prison sentences for people who traffic and make them.

This argument that Swordfish is pushing is utter crap. There have been numerous examples of mass shooters/school shooters being stopped by an individual or group of people when they stopped to reload. Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

Fine, but you're never going to pass a law like that.  Anyone that wants one for a mass shooting can print one or modify an existing one to hold more rounds.  You could never confiscate them all, and even then it's not even immediately clear when looking at a magazine what it's capacity is.  I guess my point is it's simply to late for that... if there had been magazine restrictions a century ago, outlawing them might have some effect.  But it's not going to, there are simply too many ways around this and too many already out there.  

It just seems to me like barking up the wrong tree.  I think there are several other types of gun-control policy that would get more done without generating as much opposition as this would amongst the pro-gun crowd.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

 

There was a great documentry done by VICE last year. It highlighted how people today (men) are terrified of losing a fist fight so they'd rather just have a gun and shoot any would be potential threat.

[Free Northman Reborn]

 Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

Another disingenuous statement. For the statement to have any meaning, one would first need to know how many mass shooting incidents occurred where there was someone with a concealed handgun among the victims, who tried and failed to stop the shooter.

In short, you are using the absence of concealed carry handguns as proof that concealed carry handguns don't stop or cut short mass shootings. The fact that a state provides for concealed carry licenses does not automatically mean that people were exercising that right in the vicinity of the shooter, at the time of the shooting.

That would have to be established first, prior to you making the assertion that concealed carry is ineffective in stopping mass murderers. If anything, it proves the opposite, which is that more people should be encouraged to carry a handgun, thus increasing the chances that one or more of the potential victims have a means of fighting back.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Another disingenuous statement. For the statement to have any meaning, one would first need to know how many mass shooting incidents occurred where there was someone with a concealed handgun among the victims, who tried and failed to stop the shooter.

In short, you are using the absence of concealed carry handguns as proof that concealed carry handguns don't stop or cut short a mass shootings. The fact that a state provides for concealed carry licenses does not automatically mean that people were exercising that right in the vicinity of the shooter, at the time of the shooting.

That would have to be established first, prior to you making the assertion that concealed carry is ineffective in stopping mass murderers. If anything, it proves the opposite, which is that more people should be encouraged to carry a handgun, thus increasing the chances that one or more of the potential victims have a means of fighting back. 

Provide some evidence that they do. Fun fact, it never happens.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Fine, but you're never going to pass a law like that.  Anyone that wants one for a mass shooting can print one or modify an existing one to hold more rounds.  You could never confiscate them all, and even then it's not even immediately clear when looking at a magazine what it's capacity is.  I guess my point is it's simply to late for that... if there had been magazine restrictions a century ago, outlawing them might have some effect.  But it's not going to, there are simply too many ways around this and too many already out there.  

It just seems to me like barking up the wrong tree.  I think there are several other types of gun-control policy that would get more done without generating as much opposition as this would amongst the pro-gun crowd.

Talk to the Aussies.

Edited to add:

By that I mean we need to get rid of this mind set that nothing can be done. It'sd a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Talk to the Aussies.

Edited to add:

By that I mean we need to get rid of this mind set that nothing can be done. It'sd a self fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, I don't think nothing can be done.  I think there is plenty that can be done, but this is an unrealistic way to come at the problem- it's going to make the natives restless and also it's so easy to circumvent.  

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Fine, but you're never going to pass a law like that.  Anyone that wants one for a mass shooting can print one or modify an existing one to hold more rounds.  You could never confiscate them all, and even then it's not even immediately clear when looking at a magazine what it's capacity is.  I guess my point is it's simply to late for that... if there had been magazine restrictions a century ago, outlawing them might have some effect.  But it's not going to, there are simply too many ways around this and too many already out there.  

It just seems to me like barking up the wrong tree.  I think there are several other types of gun-control policy that would get more done without generating as much opposition as this would amongst the pro-gun crowd.

Perhaps we should start now, then, before all the guns of the next century are in circulation?

I think there is little reason to believe that with a buy-back period followed by the illegalization of most guns (we could allow licensing to own guns for certain purposes, like hunting or other sport) and confiscation of guns and ammunition discovered thereafter that we would be unable, over time, to significantly reduce the availability of guns.

I think you overstate the ease of manufacturing new guns, particularly in the case of 3D printers, which are not remotely in widespread use. The 'common' consumer versions of 3D printers can produce at best rudimentary guns. Large scale conventional fabrication will be difficult to undertake without law enforcement noticing.

Finally, the likely objections of the pro-gun crowd, which I think you are correct about, are really beneath consideration on two fronts. First, we should think about the best possible solution and make concessions only when compromise is available. Second, the pro-gun crowd has offered no indication of support for any restrictions on gun ownership- if we're ruled by their objections, the only acceptable proposals are to arm elementary school teachers.

[Buckwheat]

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

A responsible gun owner, on the other hand wants to keep his right to own guns, and will therefore not engage in behaviour that could risk him becoming a felon and thus losing his right to own a legal firearm.

So what am I saying? Simply that we should absolutely throw the book at irresponsible gun owners. But that responsible gun owners should not be punished along with them.

How would you tell the difference betwen responsible and irresponsible gun handlers?

A responsible gun owner will be happy to show that he is responsible to keep his gun. I agree that an irresponsible person should not have access to weapons. But you need some sort of a mechanism to show who is responsible and who is not.

How is asking the responsible owners to prove they are responsible in any way "punishing" them? You are not punishing them for anything, you are just asking them to prove they are responsible. And if they are such, they know guns are dangerous and will be happy to prove they are able to handle them. That is no punishing for anything, like you are not "punished" for having to have a driver's licence to drive. Somebody who is unable to and unwilling to prove that he is responsible should not have a gun.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Perhaps we should start now, then, before all the guns of the next century are in circulation?

I think there is little reason to believe that with a buy-back period followed by the illegalization of most guns (we could allow licensing to own guns for certain purposes, like hunting or other sport) and confiscation of guns and ammunition discovered thereafter that we would be unable, over time, to significantly reduce the availability of guns.

I think you overstate the ease of manufacturing new guns, particularly in the case of 3D printers, which are not remotely in widespread use. The 'common' consumer versions of 3D printers can produce at best rudimentary guns. Large scale conventional fabrication will be difficult to undertake without law enforcement noticing.

Finally, the likely objections of the pro-gun crowd, which I think you are correct about, are really beneath consideration on two fronts. First, we should think about the best possible solution and make concessions only when compromise is available. Second, the pro-gun crowd has offered no indication of support for any restrictions on gun ownership- if we're ruled by their objections, the only acceptable proposals are to arm elementary school teachers.

As far as the fabricating goes, I was specifically talking about magazines, which don't have to be anywhere near as durable as the rest of a gun.  

If we're talking about eliminating all gun deaths - sure, I think confiscation with buy back is the way to go.  In that context sure, ban high capacity magazines while your at it.  And maybe it is a defeatist attitude to have, but Tywin's right, I don't think that will ever happen in this country.  There are simply too many people with too many guns and too many votes and too much money shit out by the NRA and gun lobby.  

My point, was that if you're trying to address the mass shooting issue, is that magazine restrictions are pointless thing to bother with.  

And I think it's foolish to say that the objections of the pro-gun crowd are beneath consideration.  Whether you like it or not, you're going to need their help and cooperation in one way or another to solve this problem.

 

[Dolorous Gabe]

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

A responsible gun owner, on the other hand wants to keep his right to own guns, and will therefore not engage in behaviour that could risk him becoming a felon and thus losing his right to own a legal firearm.

So what am I saying? Simply that we should absolutely throw the book at irresponsible gun owners. But that responsible gun owners should not be punished along with them.

 

What makes a responsible gun owner and how do you establish who is a responsible gun owner and who isn't? You know, before a gun owner previously considered responsible becomes responsible for someone's death?

I think you underestimate the danger behind the fragility of human emotions.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

As far as the fabricating goes, I was specifically talking about magazines, which don't have to be anywhere near as durable as the rest of a gun.  

 

Fair enough. Are there any examples of 3D printed magazines? I suspect that conventional large scale manufacture of magazines is about as noticeable as the manufacture of guns.

If we're talking about eliminating all gun deaths - sure, I think confiscation with buy back is the way to go.  In that context sure, ban high capacity magazines while your at it.  And maybe it is a defeatist attitude to have, but Tywin's right, I don't think that will ever happen in this country.  There are simply too many people with too many guns and too many votes and too much money shit out by the NRA and gun lobby.  

My point, was that if you're trying to address the mass shooting issue, is that magazine restrictions are pointless thing to bother with.  

And I think it's foolish to say that the objections of the pro-gun crowd are beneath consideration.  Whether you like it or not, you're going to need their help and cooperation in one way or another to solve this problem.

Not necessarily. The Obama years have taught us perhaps the opposite lesson- you'll only get things done on pure partisan support, and if your party stops winning elections you'll get nothing done. Gun control advocates don't need their cooperation if they win. Now, I agree that looks a long way off, but I'm not going to tailor my opinions to the intransigence of the pro-gun crowd, when ultimately they need to be politically defeated in any case.

[Crixus]

I'm probably being naive here,  but looking at the recent stabbing in East London, doesn't it seem clear that guns allow for exponentially more violence on a large scale? I mean, that guy wanted to kill people and ended up subdued without any fatalities (correct me if I'm wrong), largely because he didn't have the most efficient possible weapon.

I realise the fuckers in France had guns/weapons, but still, from a broader perspective the UK's* stance on guns has resulted in a significant lack of such terrorist led mass killings since the 7/7 bombings. At the end, fewer guns=fewer deaths even accounting for Paris this year, if viewed in context.

 

*I'd reckon it's similar for Europe.

 

[JonSnow4President]

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

A responsible gun owner, on the other hand wants to keep his right to own guns, and will therefore not engage in behaviour that could risk him becoming a felon and thus losing his right to own a legal firearm.

So what am I saying? Simply that we should absolutely throw the book at irresponsible gun owners. But that responsible gun owners should not be punished along with them.

 

Have you seen the percentage of Americans, who aren't violent assholes, who you would consider "responsible" drivers?  That's with mandatory testing, licensing, routine inspections, and a shit ton of enforcement effort.  And that's with a potentially lethal machine that's not designed to be lethal.  Guns are expressly lethal.  They're not always used in a lethal manner (sport shooting), but their reason for existence is lethality, either of other humans or of tasty animals. 

(I think I'm starting to sway myself away from mandatory safety training).