Gun Control 5

[ShowOverBooks]

Not everybody kills themselves or dies young.

In fact, we generally think people dying young is a bad thing.

WE generally think there is an afterlife. WE generally believe in a lot of crap.

Adults have the right to control their own lives, and choosing the time of your passing is one of the most important choices we can make. You have no right to decide for someone else whether their life is worth living or not.

Irrational superstitious fear of suicide leads a lot of people to suffer pointlessly.

Miserable people have a tendency to make others around them miserable - one way or another.

[Datepalm]

MOD:

Please take the general discussion of suicide out of the thread, and the callous, dismissive discussion of suicide off the board altogether.

Or, you know, I'll do it for you. So it goes.

[Eddison]

Shryke, Datepalm, et al:

Does your opinion on personal possession of firearms change for people living under repressive regimes or police states? I am trying to parse whether you simply find the scenario unlikely or whether it makes no difference.

[ShowOverBooks]

MOD:

Please take the general discussion of suicide out of the thread, and the callous, dismissive discussion of suicide off the board altogether.

Or, you know, I'll do it for you. So it goes.

THEN DO IT.

Tough if it scares you.

No one lives forever, and pretending they do does so much harm.

You have the ability to shut me up, but not to change the truth. Covering your ears and yelling "LA LA LA" doesn't change anything.

[Datepalm]

ok

[Datepalm]

Shryke, Datepalm, et al:

Does your opinion on personal possession of firearms change for people living under repressive regimes or police states? I am trying to parse whether you simply find the scenario unlikely or whether it makes no difference.

It's just such a far fetched and bizarre attempt at equivalency i've been trying for twenty minutes just to figure out what the hell you want to hear that won't be a total non-sequitur.

I assume you mean private possession of arms in such a regime for the purpose of fighting said regime? By definition, when you're in the situation that you're actually using those weapons you're in a war, and the armoury you've so preciously built up in the basement is still not going to do much against the airforce. Theres really no comparing that - I mean it, there isn't, and theres no point to doing so - to the reasons for possession of firearms in a functioning society - ie, one not at war.

[elmis]

Note: I'm from Norway, where we have a lot of guns, but also strict gun control laws.

I have a couple of questions for the guys (and girls) here who are pro gun rights.

I can't understand why people want to have access to weapons that are designed to kill people (such as the AR-15, Bushmasters, M107A1, ect, ect). I totally get owning weapons to hunt, and do competitive sport shooting, but why don't you want to limit access to the guns that are not created for these purposes?

Do you really believe the first part of the second amendment is relevant anymore?

[3CityApache]

I'm still uncertain of post-Ceausescu Romania. It is hard to shake off the effects of that type of regime.

Well, have you ever been there? I have, as a matter of fact, last summer, with my wife and kids. Perfectly normal European country. A bit behind the rest of the European Union for obvious reasons, but catching up fast. A bit neglected and with remnants of communist architecture, but that's about it I guess.

[The Anti-Targ]

Shryke, Datepalm, et al:

Does your opinion on personal possession of firearms change for people living under repressive regimes or police states? I am trying to parse whether you simply find the scenario unlikely or whether it makes no difference.

Well no actually. Unless you're in open civil war you are MUCH safer not having any sort of weapon, esp a gun, anywhere in your house. Possessing a firearm is likely to get you summarily executed, or thrown in prison without trial and tortured to find out who supplied you the gun.

You're being rather naive if you think having a gun in a police state is somehow going to keep a person safe from the state. Or if an oppressed minority starts collecting guns that they will somehow get the oppressive state off their back. The result is likely to be the opposite of safety. Not sure the Baha'is in Iran would have much chance of survival if a few families got found with guns and ammo hidden in their basements.

If you are in open civil war then the whole issue of laws and rights is irrelevant. But it should be noted that in most cases the initial unrest among the masses is non-violent protest. It's only after the govt starts shooting people that the masses take up arms. Syrian protest started non-violently. If it had started violently then all that would have achieved is the Assad govt having much better PR ammo for its propaganda: "the rebel terrorists supported by Al Qaeda tried to violently overthrow the democratically elected govts of Syria". And the Syrian govt claiming justification for a scorched earth policy. Once a govt starts shooting people who are protesting non-violently then all bets are off.

[Eddison]

It's just such a far fetched and bizarre attempt at equivalency i've been trying for twenty minutes just to figure out what the hell you want to hear that won't be a total non-sequitur.

I assume you mean private possession of arms in such a regime for the purpose of fighting said regime? By definition, when you're in the situation that you're actually using those weapons you're in a war, and the armoury you've so preciously built up in the basement is still not going to do much against the airforce. Theres really no comparing that - I mean it, there isn't, and theres no point to doing so - to the reasons for possession of firearms in a functioning society - ie, one not at war.

Given that the second amendment exists to protect the liberty and sovereignty earned through a rebellion, and not for hunting or sport or home security, it does not seem like a bizarre line of inquiry. In fact this should be the germane issue if we are to discuss gun law reform in the USA. Does personal possession of firearms protect personal liberties, and is it worth the societal cost? The position that in a functioning democracy firearms are not necessary and that in the face of systematic repression they will do no good is common but I don't think this answers the fundamental question. I do not think that anyone believes that a government that is not repressive could never become so. And if small arms have no value in conflict situations they would not be so ubiquitous.

I can understand a position that such a scenario is so remote that the existence of the right serves no purpose. I can understand a positon that while the right serves a valid purpose, the cost is too high. There may be a utilitarian argument that the tool is ill-suited to the desired objective. But in order for us as a society ,and intetested international bystanders, to have constructive conversation we need to understand the fundamental sources of disagreement and dispense with stereotypes and straw men on all sides.

[mormont]

And if small arms have no value in conflict situations they would not be so ubiquitous.

Unpack that a bit for me. Are you suggesting that most firearms are owned because they would be effective in fighting off a repressive government? Is there any reason to believe this is so? Aren't there much more plausible reasons for owning a firearm that probably explain most gun ownership? Or are we defining 'conflict situations' much more widely, in which case the inference falls to pieces?

[Eddison]

I don't think that is why most people own firearms but it is the reason the second amendment exists. To discuss gun restrictions in the US requires an exploration of both whether it still serves that purpose and whether competing values today outweigh its import.

Edit: I see what you are asking now. I meant ubiquitous in conflict situations.

[danm_999]

Sure, it would be right in there along with the proper uses of torture and rendition for those who illegally copy songs and movies.

The 18th century Constitution isn't stopping these things either though.

[mormont]

I don't think that is why most people own firearms.

Then you really can't say 'if small arms have no value in conflict situations they would not be so ubiquitous'. It doesn't follow.

To discuss gun restrictions in the US requires an exploration of both whether it still serves that purpose and whether competing values today outweigh its import.

I agree with that, at least. But we also have to deal with the reality of why people actually do choose to own guns. Even if the Second Amendment is now being used for purposes other than the one for which it was created, it's not politically or practically possible simply to repeal it for that reason.

[Datepalm]

Does personal possession of firearms protect personal liberties, and is it worth the societal cost?

Well, isn't the obvious answer no and no?

Or, rather, you tell me about the latter - do you judge 18 dead schoolchildren and countless others worth it? I suppose for some the answer is yes. About the former - seriously, explain to me how having a gun is going to protect your personal liberties. 300 million firearms seem to have done fuckall against, for example, the systemic attempts to stop minorities having the right to cast a vote barely a month ago.

[Horza]

Does personal possession of firearms protect personal liberties, and is it worth the societal cost?

How would you establish that personal posession of firearms has protected personal liberties?

[Shryke]

Well, isn't the obvious answer no and no?

Or, rather, you tell me about the latter - do you judge 18 dead schoolchildren and countless others worth it? I suppose for some the answer is yes. About the former - seriously, explain to me how having a gun is going to protect your personal liberties. 300 million firearms seem to have done fuckall against, for example, the systemic attempts to stop minorities having the right to cast a vote barely a month ago.

Well, if we follow FLOW's logic that the vast amount of guns in the US means nothing can or should be done about the vast amount of guns in the US, then obviously having a gun has done alot to protect the personal liberties of people, if by "personal liberties" you mean "ability to own a gun".

[paddington]

So why does a gun become an inexplicable, incomprehensible firestick of doom to you? Is this a mechanical issue with you? Do you also have trouble with basic household appliances? That is why I am making that comparison. I'm honestly dumbstruck - I had no idea you knew so little and I can't really understand how that could be possible. A "glock" is a high-powered rifle? Where do you get this stuff?

I am not overly sure how many Brits would know what a Glock is. Or in fact that it isn't a rifle. We as a rule have very little knowledge in the general public about firearms, so they may as well be fire-sticks of doom.

[Galactus]

RE: Syria.

At the point where you're atually contemplating open rebellion, the fact that owning guns is illegal is kinda besides the point: You're already going to break the law (almost by definition)

[sologdin]

there are places in the world where oppression is real and I'm curious if people's calculus on these issues changes in those circumstances.

LCT, that you? holy shit.

revolution need not be made by firearms, or at least not necessarily by privately-held firearms. the revolution itself might acquire the firarms and regulate them. or the revolution might convince the army to turn the public's firearms against the tsar, &c.