Ser Scot A Ellison

Gun Control discussion

419 posts in this topic

At the request of others I'm starting this thread for a discussion of gun control issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as this conversation needs to be had, I always wonder what's the point.  It's black and white to me.  Either people are ok with tens of thousands dying from guns every year, or they aren't.  Either they are ok with gunmen mowing down kindergartners, or they aren't.  Those on the side of being ok with this will almost never be capable of having a logical gun control discussion.  

 

I fall on the much harsher side of things.  I think 2A needs to be removed from the constitution altogether.  It's the best example for why being a constitutional originalist is stupid. It was a different time where guns and other weaponry were cumbersome and couldn't result in the mass killings we have today.  2A no longer makes any sense whatsoever and these days only serves to reinforce this illogical gun culture.  People shouldn't feel they have a right to such a killing machine.  Note, this isn't the same as suggesting a complete and total ban on guns.  Plenty of countries do not have something like 2A and yet members of the populace are still able to own guns.  It's just considered a privilege rather than a right and they are required to show the intent for the weapon.  Like a need to hunt, for example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Bingo.  

Mother Cocanuts,

I don't want to see full on gun bans.  But I do believe in "reasonable" regulation.  What I object to are those who seem to believe that any regulation of weapons possessed by individual is inherently unreasonable.  The SCOTUS specifically held that full on gun bans are unreasonable.  They did not hold that all regulations of firearms are unreasonable.  

One potential regulation is to limit the possession of firearems (and grenades) to trained members of the Military and law enforcement.  

They are because they presume that any person in possession of a firearm is a likely threat.

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is this in dispute?  If the man in Las Vegas hadn't had the weapons he had could he have killed 59 people and wounded 600?

The threat a person with ill-intentions may pose is not in dispute. The dispute is where there's an assumption that any person in possession of a firearm is a likely threat. This is astounding since an overwhelming majority of firearm owners are not violent offenders.

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Only if you're either not trying at all to understand it or trying really hard to misunderstand it.

 

Only if you're either not trying at all to understand it or trying really hard to misunderstand it.

No, your comment makes no sense. You stated that no one thinks everyone with a gun is a likely violent offender. You then go on to say that regulations makes sure that the very same people regulations don't assume to be likely violent offenders, and their inability to have guns, pose less of a threat then they already do (assuming of course, the threat we're speaking of is a violent offense.) I understand you quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother Cocanuts,

If I may pose a couple to questions to see where you are coming from.  Do you, in fact, believe that any regulation of firearm ownership by the State is inherently unreasonable?  Do you believe that the ownership of any weapon is protected by the text of the Second Amendment from all Government regulation?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As much as this conversation needs to be had, I always wonder what's the point.  It's black and white to me.  Either people are ok with tens of thousands dying from guns every year, or they aren't.  Either they are ok with gunmen mowing down kindergartners, or they aren't.  Those on the side of being ok with this will almost never be capable of having a logical gun control discussion. 

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

They are because they presume that any person in possession of a firearm is a likely threat.

The threat a person with ill-intentions may pose is not in dispute. The dispute is where there's an assumption that any person in possession of a firearm is a likely threat. This is astounding since an overwhelming majority of firearm owners are not violent offenders.

No, your comment makes no sense. You stated that no one thinks everyone with a gun is a likely violent offender. You then go on to say that regulations makes sure that the very same people regulations don't assume to be likely violent offenders, and their inability to have guns, pose less of a threat then they already do (assuming of course, the threat we're speaking of is a violent offense.) I understand you quite well.

The 'astounding' fact is that gun ownership increases your likelihood of being shot. People who are unqualified to own firearms in any other jurisdiction apart from the US, have no such restraint in your country. Hence the astoundingly high number of  deaths by firearms in your country. Stupid is as stupid does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mother Cocanuts,

If I may pose a couple to questions to see where you are coming from.  Do you, in fact, believe that any regulation of firearm ownership by the State is inherently unreasonable?

Yes. Because it assumes that every gun owner is a threat by default. And the statistics don't support that.

 

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 Do you believe that the ownership of any weapon is protected by the text of the Second Amendment from all Government regulation?

The constitution is subject to interpretation and referendums even though the rights listed on it are supposed to be inalienable. So I don't know how far I'm willing to go to say that it's "protected."

Edited by Mother Cocanuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mother Cocanuts: So is your argument that as long as a majority of gun owners pose no threat to the general populace, gun ownership should be legal? So only once more than 50% of gun owners start shooting people, we should consider a ban? Shouldn't we rather consider the amount of violent deaths to gun violence relative to the number and kind of guns in circulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Car purchases are regulated. You need a license and insurance to operate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Car purchases are regulated. You need a license and insurance to operate them.

Exactly.  The right to vote is regulated.  You must be registered before you can vote in many places.  Mother Cocanuts, I do not understand why the ownership of firearms which clearly can be misused, are exempt, in your mind, from reasonable regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

This is an unreasonable comparison, which gun-right advocates keep throwing around, along with even sillier ones like banning cancer and other diseases. How many of those 1.3 mil traffic deaths are caused by someone intentionally using their vehicle as a weapon? But on the other hand, how many deaths by firearms are caused intentionally out of total number of deaths by firearms?

The point is, while the total number of deaths caused by firearms may be dwarfed by other causes, many of those deaths are caused intentionally by another human being. And perhaps we should do something about that, since it does involve humans acting against humans. After all, we are constantly trying to do something about limiting the number of deaths of those other causes. For example, regarding fatalities in car crashes, it is unreasonable to just have a call for banning cars, but within the confines of what is reasonable, great efforts are being made to make traveling by car safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As much as this conversation needs to be had, I always wonder what's the point.  It's black and white to me.  Either people are ok with tens of thousands dying from guns every year, or they aren't.  Either they are ok with gunmen mowing down kindergartners, or they aren't.  Those on the side of being ok with this will almost never be capable of having a logical gun control discussion.  

 

I fall on the much harsher side of things.  I think 2A needs to be removed from the constitution altogether.  It's the best example for why being a constitutional originalist is stupid. It was a different time where guns and other weaponry were cumbersome and couldn't result in the mass killings we have today.  2A no longer makes any sense whatsoever and these days only serves to reinforce this illogical gun culture.  People shouldn't feel they have a right to such a killing machine.  Note, this isn't the same as suggesting a complete and total ban on guns.  Plenty of countries do not have something like 2A and yet members of the populace are still able to own guns.  It's just considered a privilege rather than a right and they are required to show the intent for the weapon.  Like a need to hunt, for example.  

Well said, I 100% agree. And as someone who is getting ready to go to law school, I have no idea how any serious thinker could ever endorse originalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The 'astounding' fact is that gun ownership increases your likelihood of being shot. People who are unqualified to own firearms in any other jurisdiction apart from the US, have no such restraint in your country. Hence the astoundingly high number of  deaths by firearms in your country. Stupid is as stupid does.

No, it doesn't. Nearly 2/3's of all firearm related deaths are suicides. And I wouldn't say that the number of firearm related death are astoundingly high. 40% of households own or possess a fire arm, there are 34,000 firearm deaths of which about 12,000 are homicides, and there are over 300,000,000 people in the U.S., so what percent of firearm deaths per person would you calculate? (I'm too lazy to do the math

10 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

@Mother Cocanuts: So is your argument that as long as a majority of gun owners pose no threat to the general populace, gun ownership should be legal? So only once more than 50% of gun owners start shooting people, we should consider a ban? Shouldn't we rather consider the amount of violent deaths to gun violence relative to the number and kind of guns in circulation?

Isn't every policy we consider subject to majorities?

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Car purchases are regulated. You need a license and insurance to operate them.

Not really. You have them registered and insured, but they're not "regulated." You can buy a car from anyone; you can sell a car to anyone. Licensing standards are pretty lax, and there are only age-based restrictions in getting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

This is an unreasonable comparison, which gun-right advocates keep throwing around, along with even sillier ones like banning cancer and other diseases. How many of those 1.3 mil traffic deaths are caused by someone intentionally using their vehicle as a weapon? But on the other hand, how many deaths by firearms are caused intentionally out of total number of deaths by firearms?

The point is, while the total number of deaths caused by firearms may be dwarfed by other causes, many of those deaths are caused intentionally by another human being. And perhaps we should do something about that, since it does involve humans acting against humans. After all, we are constantly trying to do something about limiting the number of deaths of those other causes. For example, regarding fatalities in car crashes, it is unreasonable to just have a call for banning cars, but within the confines of what is reasonable, great efforts are being made to make traveling by car safer.

If you've read above, just about 1/3 of firearm deaths are homicides. 2/3's are suicides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly.  The right to vote is regulated.  You must be registered before you can vote in many places.  Mother Cocanuts, I do not understand why the ownership of firearms which clearly can be misused, are exempt, in your mind, from reasonable regulation.

You haven't necessarily conveyed how these regulations are reasonable. And, I've already explained: regulations assume that every gun owner is a likely threat. And the statistics show that most gun owners are not violent offenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

If you've read above, just about 1/3 of firearm deaths are homicides. 2/3's are suicides.

Just 1/3? Yes, the total number of deaths is low compared traffic fatalities is others, like I said above, but 1/3 of those are intentional. That is way too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You missed the point of my question. Of course passing laws is subject to a majority decision, but your earlier post made it seem that you think that as long as a majority of gun owners are no threat to their surroundings, gun ownership was absolutely fine. So if 40% of gun owners were homocidal maniacs, should we not legislate on that? What if 10% are? What if 5% are? 1%?

The point, in my perspective, is that for certain kinds of firearms (namely, all those that have large, quickly exchangeable ammunition containers and high bullet replacement rates), their use is only in killing other human beings. This is not a use that we should promote, so banning such firearms. We should also be asking people who want to own other kinds of firearms (like shotguns, hunting rifles or revolvers) what they need their guns for in order to be allowed to own them. Some borderline cases (semiautomatic pistols) might be permitted for sports purposes, but then their use should be restricted to shooting ranges only. 

Edited by theguyfromtheVale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/business/highway-traffic-safety.html

Quote

The latest batch of bad news arrived Wednesday in traffic fatality estimates released by the National Safety Council, a nonprofit organization that works closely with federal auto-safety regulators. According to its estimates, 40,200 people died in accidents involving motor vehicles in 2016, a 6 percent rise from the year before.

If the estimates are confirmed, it will be the first time since 2007 that more than 40,000 people have died in motor vehicle accidents in a single year. The 2016 total comes after a 7 percent rise in 2015 and means the two-year increase — 14 percent — is the largest in more than a half a century.

 

In the Gun debate I come down more on a cutural end and it is as horrible as our current Federal Gun Laws. A person is able to purchase nearly 3 dozen firearms and there is zero reporting of it which means it should be viewed as normal and mundane. We need to look at our laws that will assist in changing this cultural.

14 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

If you've read above, just about 1/3 of firearm deaths are homicides. 2/3's are suicides.

I hear this a lot.

This is really ghoulish. We should give a concern of people who are suicidal and that how impulsive it is. Having access to a weapon makes the attempt to be successful and should be a concern.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

You haven't necessarily conveyed how these regulations are reasonable. And, I've already explained: regulations assume that every gun owner is a likely threat. And the statistics show that most gun owners are not violent offenders.

This argument doesn’t make sense. What does “likely” even mean in this context? Some specific percentage? 

If you think about it, almost any risk is “not likely” after all. If I go driving drunk, way too fast and without a seat belt, chances are still pretty high that I won’t crash. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do it, let alone allow it, because the risk is multiple times higher than if I wasn’t drunk or speeding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

58 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

President Obama dealt with this quite eloquently some time ago.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/

You need a license to be in a position to be able to buy a car. To even get a license, there are a written test and a road test and you must demonstrate competence in your ability to safely operate said car. You say standards are lax--what a joke! If licensing standards are so lax, why does PA have a first-time 55% failure rate on the written exam and more than 50% on the road test? First time failure is so common that they moved the parallel parking portion to the first item on the list. If you fail that, you fail the whole thing. 

You pay to register the vehicle to the State, and many of us pay for an annual inspection to ensure the vehicle is in good working order. You also pay for insurance. There are stiff penalties for abusing your privilege to drive a car, up to and including suspension of license and jail time. 

They are a myriad of safety features that protect drivers and passengers in the event of a crash, and cars have never been safer. But accidents happen. That's why we have insurance. Because we're human. But wait 20 years when self-driving cars are the default mode of transportation. It will be illegal to drive your own car, because the crash rate and mortality rate is going to fall to near zero. 

At this point in time, any idiot can go out and buy a gun, no questions asked, whether or not they know how to use a weapon. Just today, a guy was killed when he shot himself after he dropped it and tried to catch it when he was holding his child. None of the standards that apply to cars apply to guns. 

Edited by Crazy Cat Lady in Training

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.