Gun Control 5

[Horza]

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.

But that's challenging Eddison's premise that the rebels not be armed by outside forces, because clearly that's not how the Founding Fathers won their struggle against oppression.

[Sturn]

And so why are all these people buying guns? To protect themselves. Yup. Sucked in by marketing and fear mongering.

I own guns, but would not wish to be sucked into this blanket statement. If you remove the police weapons from my arsenal, nearly everything I have was inherited from my father. I have a single rifle I purchased for deer hunting. While I admit there are many weapons puchased due to, "marketing and fear mongering", I wouldn't call this a majority. Thinking of the firearms that friends and family members own, they were also inherited or purchased for sport (hunting or target shooting). I don't recall a single person who said, "I had to run out and buy this Sturn, I'm afraid of the coming days". Yes there are some people just like that out there. They are the ones we should be watching by the way. But, that is not the common reality of gun ownership in the US. Please don't distort it as if that is what all gun owners are doing when it is probably a very small minority that has that mindset.

[Datepalm]

But no one anywhere is actually against sport shooting or hunting or whatever. It's allowed everywhere, and it's regulated everywhere - that's the crux of the issue. Want to shoot deer? Feel unsafe? Want to collect? Go ahead, fill out this form, get this background check, here ya go. (i'm from a country where the streets are packed with 18 year olds carrying m-16s. Only they've been through criminal and psychological tests, months of practical training including classes in law and ethics and they're watched over by a mechanism that will take their guns away if it looks like they're going to crack. What is so incomprehensible about this?)

Thats not what this argument is about. What it is is whether you should be allowed to walk into walmart and buy an assault rifle along with a sixpack and some crisps. This is freedom, apparently.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

There are a number of people, Lev, Jaxom, and others who are advocating an absolute ban.

[3CityApache]

Just like there are a number of people who are advocating an absolute freedom. These two ends will never meet. What I can't understand is why a number of other people confuses gun regulations or registering with a ban.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

I'd like to know why those advocating absolute ban call those of us advocating reasonable regulation "obstructionist".

[Datepalm]

DP,

There are a number of people, Lev, Jaxom, and others who are advocating an absolute ban.

Considering the context, I understand them completely, but I don't think the total ban position is the representative argument looking in from places with normal gun laws, and I think the attempts by the pro-gun side to make it "Let's ban all guns" when it's actually "lets make it so that criminally insane people cannot easily get hold of grenade launchers" is disingenious.

[awesome possum]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I found it fascinating. It's an ABC News piece from two years ago, it takes 6 students at a college who have gun experience ranging from none to a guy who has spent hundred of hours at a range.

The students are given a real handgun with paint cartridges, given some target practice, and then told to keep the gun on them throughout the day, that they'll need it. Later during the day during a demonstration where they have to put on paintball gear, a "gunman" walks into the classroom and starts shooting. These 6 people have been warned that something will be coming up throughout the day where they will need their gun. Yet not a single one manages to stop the gunman. Even the "veteran" gun user gets executed as he struggles to unholster his gun.

Very powerful and, as the title of the video shows,

.

It takes months if not years of honing your reaction time, building muscle memory, and being prepared for the type of situations that the pro-gun crowd is claiming they are there to protect us all from.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP,

I've said reasonable regulations are fine from the get go. Lev has attempted to pillory me for not supporting an absolute ban. While your point may be true in the larger context in our community it's not entirely accurate.

[3CityApache]

3city,

I'd like to know why those advocating absolute ban call those of us advocating reasonable regulation "obstructionist".

I don't know. Maybe because a discussion concerning "reasonable regulation" usually ends up in arguing what's reasonable and what's not? Which leads to leaving the status quo as it was?

[ljkeane]

DP,

I've said reasonable regulations are fine from the get go. Lev has attempted to pillory me for not supporting an absolute ban. While your point may be true in the larger context in our community it's not entirely accurate.

What are 'reasonable' regulations Scot? I imagine Tormund thinks hardly any regulations are reasonable while other people think extremely strict restrictions on the ownership of guns are reasonable. Personally I expect I'd consider the level of regulation you favour to be extremely unreasonable so simply saying you support 'reasonable' regulation isn't really saying much.

[Sturn]

Is there anyone here pro-gun who is actually stating there should be no gun regulation at all? If so please chime in. We already have gun regulations and I don't think I've seen a post about lowering those regulations. What we HAVE seen in the last three Gun Control topics are calls for complete bans.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ljkeane,

I've said, specifically, ammunition capacity limits, registration, firearm security (gun safe requirements), and/or Canadian style regulations, are reasonable.

[ljkeane]

ljkeane,

I've said, specifically, ammunition capacity limits, registration, firearm security (gun safe requirements), and/or Canadian style regulations, are reasonable.

Fair enough, if that's the level of regulation you think is appropriate then argue for that. My point is that 'reasonable' is subjective. Clearly some people don't think that level of regulation is reasonable and you don't get automatic respect for that position because it happens to be somewhat middle of the road in the American sense and you consider it to be reasonable.

[sologdin]

scot, are we into strict scrutiny for gun regs now? am thinking that rational basis review is a red herring, if so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ljkeane,

I made the specific point earlier in this thread that the most fundemental right a citizen of the US possesses, the right to vote, is predicated upon registration.

Sologdin,

Firearm ownership is a fundemental right, rational basis is too loose in my opinion. However, given the danger, perhaps strict scrutiny is too much. Intermediate scrutiny as with gender discrimination?

[Robin Of House Hill]

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.

Yes, during the latter years of the Ceausescu regime. Mostly in Bucharest and Timisoara.

[sologdin]

scot--

not a bad compromise, though i can see opponents of regulation toothing on the "fundamental right" language and insisting on strict scrutiny. can't say i disagree with them, as i would not want to dilute other fundamental rights by analogy.

[Guest Raidne]

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.

I will try asking my question on this in a more coherent fashion.

Do we agree that it is the function of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to say what the law is? Not to make law, but, where there is a question, clarify what a law does, what it's purpose is, etc.? And we agree that SCOTUS has said that the second amendment exists to protect to right to defend oneself, explicitly including home security?

Do we agree, then, that while something doesn't become "right" just because SCOTUS says so, that you at least bear the burden of making the case for why self-defense is not a right addressed by the second amendment? And that, in doing so, you would need to answer the points in favor stated by the Court, seeing as they took the time to explain them?

[Shryke]

Interesting little piece from about 6 months back on the changing attitudes towards gun control in the US:

http://www.nationalj...ctions-20120720

For two decades, Pew has asked a fundamental question: “What do you think is more important: to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” In 1993, 57 percent of adults said it was more important to control gun ownership while only 34 percent said it was more important to protect gun rights.

It was only around the time of President Obama’s election that the lines in Pew’s polling converged and then crossed: In the most recent survey that asked the question (April 2012), 49 percent of adults said it was most important to protect gun rights, compared with 45 percent who placed the higher priority on controlling gun ownership.

What changed?

White people got alot more concerned about the right to own guns right as Obama got elected.

What this means is that gun control is now overwhelmingly unpopular among the portions of the white electorate Obama is least likely to win anyway—and maintains solid majority support among the Americans most likely to actually vote for him.

Here's a graph:

http://www.people-press.org/2012/12/14/public-attitudes-toward-gun-control/