another day, another shooting

[[DHT]Osiris]

Should a foreign guy who is here on a temporary basis be allowed to buy a gun?

Yes, absolutely, I think so. They may not be able to take it with them if/when they leave, mind you.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yes, absolutely, I think so. They may not be able to take it with them if/when they leave, mind you.

Why? What is the benefit to them having a gun?
We know know the risk.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Totally agree! My clutzy, old a** is more likely to die from me tripping over my dog and doing a header down the stairs than from the gun in my drawer. People would be better off if they took a basic probability and risk management class. I'm a project manager, so yes, I have done so. I will willingly assume the risk of owning a gun as it is within the tolerance of risks that I will assume.

This seems to be putting me (and others of the same mindset) at ever-increasing odds with a society that appears to be becoming increasingly risk-averse.

As do I, if we were all a lot more honest with ourselves I think there'd be a lot less animosity between people that could be exploited by power hungry wastes of oxygen.

 

[Paladin3]

Indeed. I think all the arguments end up in one place, which is essentially "but I reeeaaallyy like my guns."

There's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of gun ownership.

That's the gist of my terse summation.

I suspect that is because you have made up your mind that there is no legit, legal or good use of a gun. All you have considered is the statistics that say how likely you are to suffer gun-related harm if you own a gun vs not owning a gun. Which IS TRUE and absolutely supports your argument if you view that data in a vacuum. You have to assume that guns have NO OTHER LEGIT AND LEGAL USE, including self-defense for your argument to work. Exactly the same thing could be said about cars or any other tool.

Or, you can argue that seizing ever gun in the country is worth the resulting chaos it would cause. That the illegal gun trade it would instantly create, that having only criminals and the government armed, and that rendering the entire citizenry at the mercy of criminals and our government is worth attempting it. Even if it fails. Even if past weapons bans and all evidence points to it failing. Even if it breaks the second and fourth amendments of our constitution.

I have personally met people who are only alive because they had a gun. I've also watched at least two people die from gun violence in front of me. I've had guns pointed at me in anger at least twice that I know of. I've also been carjacked at knife point, and had I been armed I would have gladly taken that piece of shit's life. Yup, you read that right. I would have shot him to end the threat to my life rather than physically fight him over the knife as I had to do, an eventually surrender the brand new car I had worked damn hard for.

I've hunted my entire life and met hundreds of like minded sportsman, almost all of whom have a very health respect for the destructive power of a gun and understand the responsibility inherent in owning one. Many of them see a firearm as a useful tool, and even a fine family heirloom passed down from generation to generation. I have a gun that was my fathers, and some day it will belong to one of my children. My daughter owns a pocket pistol that was once her grandmother's. Luckily, I have enough guns that all my children can have at least one.

And, I've met murderers in prison who used guns, knives, cars and all kinds of weapons to kill. I've interviews gang members on the streets in Southern California where I worked as a newspaper journalist. If you think those people will participate in a gun buy back or willingly disarm then you are fooling yourself. And then we'd have to discuss issues such as poverty, education, the war on drugs and the illegal drug trade it creates, alcohol abuse and a huge host of other social issues as causes of our violence problem.

And, to date, I've never heard a single plan for getting guns away from those who would misuses them for murder, other than to send more people with guns to door to door, kicking in any and every door in the county to search for and seize them. Whether or not you offer a few bucks in compensation along the way, even if you figure out where all the money is going to come from, is immaterial. It's still a violation of due process and our 2A of our constitution. And would get a lot of people killed, if not start a small civil war with those formerly lawful gun owners who refused to be treated like criminals out of hand.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. As are all the anti-gun slogan posters. A bunch of you have already said how my excessive keyboard clacking upsets you. I guess all that's left are two one-sentence arguments, and anything else is just undue emotions:

1. Wahhh...I love my gun and won't give it up even if it costs the lives of countless babies!
or
2. Owning a murderstick means you already drink the blood of the innocent, so give it to the government (whom you can always trust to protect you and your rights) and go sit in your corner.

Amiright?

 

[Paladin3]

I mean, there's no good evidence based/data driven argument for our current state of free speech either, or freedom of movement, or freedom from search and seizure, or at least just as much evidence for each of those. We accept them because we don't see what potential negatives come from those freedoms as acutely as weapons ownership.

That doesn't mean that won't change at some point (i suspect it will). It's honestly borne out of fear for me, I see authoritarian governments as the second highest existential crisis of our current era, right behind climate change. I fear those more than random acts of violence, or even terrorism. I see mass firearm ownership as an inoculation from authoritarian governments.

Not everyone will agree with me, and that's okay.

All of the world's problems would be solved tomorrow if we could just find a way to make compassion for your fellow man universal. Yet some hearts contain evil instead, and we ignore that fact to our folly.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Totally agree! My clutzy, old a** is more likely to die from me tripping over my dog and doing a header down the stairs than from the gun in my drawer. People would be better off if they took a basic probability and risk management class. I'm a project manager, so yes, I have done so. I will willingly assume the risk of owning a gun as it is within the tolerance of risks that I will assume.

This seems to be putting me (and others of the same mindset) at ever-increasing odds with a society that appears to be becoming increasingly risk-averse.

You appear to be reasonable, do you think a foreign guy here in a temporary basis should be able to buy a gun?

 

[Paladin3]

The price we pay for fantasies of overthrowing the evil government.

I'm all ears for a plan that will get guns away from murderers... [crickets chirp.] All I've heard so far is why the potential victims should further disarm.

 

[Paladin3]

I have absolutely 0 fear of being shot. None.

We have hard data on the risks of gun violence vs arguments of "I need to be able to overthrow a government" or "I like to own xyz firearm."

I'll take the data, thanks. I've said in many, many, of these threads that I'm actually by many measures a gun enthusiast I would just rather have a discussion based on facts and discussion of statistical risks than one based on emotion. In addition to that, I'd prefer the discussion take place on a population level rather than the individual level so we can avoid everyone's personal anecdote and have a discussion relevant to the statistics.

Having zero fear is not the same as it being impossible. How you choose to deal with that lack of concern is up to you. I fully support your choice to disarm, and hope you never win the lottery of ill-fortune. The odds are you won't. Just stop asking me to risk the lives of me and mine on your hope. The price is too high, IMHO.

But, If you ever figure out a way to disarm those with evil intent, then let me know and I just may join you in disarmament. Or, at least, at that point it wouldn't mater if I continue on my merry, legal harmless activities of sport shooting and hunting.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm all ears for a plan that will get guns away from murderers... [crickets chirp.] All I've heard so far is why the potential victims should further disarm.

Sure but it is a long term plan and it won’t meet the gun lovers goal of zero gun deaths.

Starting now, all guns are either bolt action, breech loading or revolvers.
No gun will hold more than 5 rounds
All gun purchases will require a background check, these checks will be funded by taxes (some of those taxes will be collected on gun/ammunition sales). The background check will be completed promptly and it will be the same state to state.
Replacement parts for guns that hold greater than 5 rounds will be modified to hold five or fewer
All gun sales will require a liability policy. We will let the actuaries figure it cost/coverage
Police will have amped up powers to confiscate guns from suspicious/irresponsible owners.
Private gun sales will require a background check even between family members.

 

[Paladin3]

I think gun violence is a public health issue and public health is important to me. I don't particularly have an emotional response to it aside from believing that following the data is the right thing to do.

I've put out a laundry list of recommendations in a number of these threads and the response, inevitably, is "I don't like it!" or "prove it'll work, I don't believe it even though there is some evidence to support it." or the classic "if it doesn't stop all gun violence, I can't support it." Common sense seems to evade those who seem to have a significant emotional attachment to their firearms.

Shrug.

I don't have an emotional response to cigarettes, either, in and of themselves, but as I said, I do think there is importance with regard to public health.

You've gotta divorce yourself from the vehicle (gun, cigarette, automobile, whatever) and look at risk/benefit with regard to harm.

Or, simply say you don't care about gun violence enough to do anything about it. That's totally fine, just admit it. Don't hide behind, "well it's not a problem" or "there are no solutions" or "it's a mental health issue" or whatever. I'm totally fine with that response, at least it's honest.

And absolutely none of what you just said offers a feasible plan to disarm those who actually create gun violence. Can't you see that. I FULLY accept that a world without guns or weapons would be much, much safer. I just don't know how you can possibly achieve such a noble goal.

All I've heard so far is that we should force the lawful to disarm, destroy the 2A and 4A of our constitution and make instant criminals out of 80-100 million Americans in the process. All when there is AMPLE evidence that past gun prohibition hasn't worked. All while empowering government in a way our Constitution expressly forbids. All when it will deprive the lawful of the best tool for legal self-defense. And all while ignoring all the legal and legit uses of a gun.

And you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no concern for the victims of gun violence. I'm not the one who wants to disarm those potential victims in the hopes that it somehow magically stops gun violence. So, who's being irrational?

 

[Paladin3]

No, it's a statement, to your argument that there was no reasonable argument beyond 'I like/want my guns'. The fact that you yourself say it's a starting point for a discussion proves that there isn't just one reasonable argument, there's a few, worthwhile to discuss.

I thought that, given that the conversation was straying very far into the feels, it might be worth dragging it back to some semblance of normalcy. I agree with you that it's been discussed ad infinitum, but I'm willing to give it another go again if anyone cares to.

I'm just 'defending the scoundrel' in this instance, as it were.

Both I and Han thank you.

 

[TheVrolok]

Holy shit the level of straw in this thread just exploded. Better hope there aren't any stray sparks.

 

[shortylickens]

Perhaps the price of 2A freedom is that a load of random people are shot and killed each day? Kind of like a blood sacrifice?

Most countries in the world have incredibly restrictive gun laws. Many countries in the world have horrible gun violence.

Try something else.

 

[Paladin3]

You only feel you have a need to protect yourself against batshit righties because they were allowed to purchase so many firearms to begin with. In Europe, they have plenty of batshit white nationalists, but they don't have so many guns, and the need to protect oneself against them is therefore much less.

Agreed. Now tell me how you intend to disarm those batshits without first disarming their potential victims and empowering the batshits?

 

[Paladin3]

Congress told the CDC, Nyet!!! Do Not Look There!!!

This was a travesty, but, honestly, any idiot can see that it's better someone who is mentally ill not have a gun. Sames goes for anyone with evil in their heart or incapable of otherwise safely owning one.

 

[Maxima1]

Or, you can argue that seizing ever gun in the country is worth the resulting chaos it would cause. That the illegal gun trade it would instantly create, that having only criminals and the government armed, and that rendering the entire citizenry at the mercy of criminals and our government is worth attempting it. Even if it fails. Even if past weapons bans and all evidence points to it failing. Even if it breaks the second and fourth amendments of our constitution.

Approval for hunting is around 75-80%, so chill out. The Democratic party hasn't pushed to collect every single gun.

All when there is AMPLE evidence that past gun prohibition hasn't worked.

Looking at countries that have done something more than a half-assed AWB, it obviously does. Shee-it, we could just look at the effective ban on full-auto weapons here to see that. How many criminals ever have one?

All while empowering government in a way our Constitution expressly forbids. All when it will deprive the lawful of the best tool for legal self-defense. And all while ignoring all the legal and legit uses of a gun.

It has never correlated well with freedom. Asymmetry between who generally arms and who doesn't ironically could defeat the whole purpose.

 

[woolfe9998]

Agreed. Now tell me how you intend to disarm those batshits without first disarming their potential victims and empowering the batshits?

I believe I have already stated that there is no viable way to do it. That is why I rarely participate in threads involving gun control. Because the gun control advocates are "right" but their only viable solution has been made non-feasible by the success of the NRA in facilitating the transfer of hundreds of millions of guns to private citizens, many of them politically quite radical. We're going to have higher murder rates than other developed countries for the indefinite future. It's why I'm focusing on things like climate change where we can actually still do something about it.

 

[mikeymikec]

Most countries in the world have incredibly restrictive gun laws. Many countries in the world have horrible gun violence.

Try something else.

List of countries by firearm-related homicide rates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yep, 12.21 deaths per 100k in America vs... 0.23 per 100k in the UK. Truly horrible gun violence here. Must be because we don't have enough guns.

Do you have a less ridiculous argument to try?

 

[Paladin3]

How is firearm ownership an inoculation against authoritarian government? In this day and age, it's unlikely that private citizens with guns could stand up to a modern military. But let's say that they could. What kinds of people stockpile guns, especially in a democracy? Right wing extremists do. If they succeeded in overthrowing any government, what kind of government do you suppose they would establish in its place?

All I know is that from where I sit, the people stockpiling lots of AR-15's in America today would form a government far less desirable than just about any I could imagine.

Again, this argument only hold water if you believe that most gun owners are irrational extremists. Most gun owners are the same folks who vote in our elections and help democratically decide the direction of our government.

I believe the voluntary military of this country generally holds the U.S. Constitution as an ultimately higher authority than any transient administration. Even that idiot Trump. And the armed population for the most part feel similarly.

This is the entire ABSOLUTE FAILURE of the anti-gun crowd. They see the criminal threat of the tiny minority and want to attempt to disarm the overwhelming majority in response to achieve some kind of quick fix. Even if that is impossible to achieve, and would destroy everything about our relatively free society we have collectively fought so hard to create and preserve.

 

[Maxima1]

Again, this argument only hold water if you believe that most gun owners are irrational extremists. Most gun owners are the same folks who vote in our elections and help democratically decide the direction of our government.

Most are Republican and have authoritarian tendencies. The Democrats/Democrat-leaning independents are likely blue dogs and don't have as strong feelings about guns being for defense against tyranny.

I believe the voluntary military of this country generally holds the U.S. Constitution as an ultimately higher authority than any transient administration. Even that idiot Trump.

There you go again arguing against the hypothetical making the discussion about tyranny moot.

 

[woolfe9998]

Again, this argument only hold water if you believe that most gun owners are irrational extremists. Most gun owners are the same folks who vote in our elections and help democratically decide the direction of our government.

In order for there to be a bloodbath, it doesn't take "most" gun owners. That is a fallacy and not even remotely a premise of my argument.

I believe the voluntary military of this country generally holds the U.S. Constitution as an ultimately higher authority than any transient administration. Even that idiot Trump. And the armed population for the most part feel similarly.

Again, it doesn't take most. There are a lot of gun owners in this country who are radically far to the right. Millions of them, with millions of guns. There is a reason that even supposedly mainstream GOP candidates and office holders continue to muse about "second amendment remedies," because it plays to their base.

This is the entire ABSOLUTE FAILURE of the anti-gun crowd. They see the criminal threat of the tiny minority and want to attempt to disarm the overwhelming majority in response to achieve some kind of quick fix. Even if that is impossible to achieve, and would destroy everything about our relatively free society we have collectively fought so hard to create and preserve.

Other democracies did it way back before gun ownership would have become widespread in their countries, and they have substantially lower murder rates to show for it. Not just mass shootings, all murders. Freedom doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want. Unless you advocate anarchy, then you don't advocate anything like total freedom. The notion that the freedom to own one particular commodity is as fundamental as, say, our right to criticize our government without being jailed for it is absurd. Because a democracy is about debate and elections, not guns and force.

No other democracy on the planet has the equivalent of a 2A AFAIK. Ours was put in the Constitution because of the particular circumstances of America at that time. We were the world's first democracy. The world had known only authoritarian government, which had to be overthrown by force. The FF had just witnessed the colonies repel the British crown in part with use of citizen militias and their privately owned guns. So it seemed to make sense at the time. Other countries became democracies much later when it made a lot less sense.

 

[Paladin3]

I believe I have already stated that there is no viable way to do it. That is why I rarely participate in threads involving gun control. Because the gun control advocates are "right" but their only viable solution has been made non-feasible by the success of the NRA in facilitating the transfer of hundreds of millions of guns to private citizens, many of them politically quite radical. We're going to have higher murder rates than other developed countries for the indefinite future. It's why I'm focusing on things like climate change where we can actually still do something about it.

I apologize if I replied to your post implying you held a position you don't. I have a habit of expanding my posts beyond the comment I may be replying to, and into general comments about the topic at hand, or whatever the discussion has (d)evolved into.

But what you state is the crux of our problem. We have too many guns already and prohibition of anything people want rarely works.

The NRA was first established by folks in The South following the Civil War because they felt there was a lack of marksmanship skills displayed by the Confederate troops during the war. They generally believed only a certain class of citizens should be armed, to put it delicately. It was only in the late 1970s (IIRC) that the NRA turned it's attention to any scare tactic it could muster up to increase the number of gun owners and gun sales. Just another example of how money can corrupt.

While the NRA does serve the purpose of being chief in the fight against those who would eventually want a complete ban on civilian owned firearms, some of their 5 million members are of the batshit variety we need to worry about. I have known many, many good people who are members, but I have never felt compelled to join their ranks. Instead, I am a member of our local sportsmen's association.

 

[Paladin3]

I have no idea, but it's probably most productive to speak of modern democracies and specifically the US since that is the context of this discussion. That we have the 2A here and tons of people own guns, and what benefit or detriment is that.



You "feel confident?" That is some odd speculation from you there.

So far as I can see, the only form of "civil rights erosion" that guns deter is the taking away of the guns themselves. The NRA's success these past several decades has resulted in 100's of millions of guns in private hands. This and the radicalism of some of these gun owners is why mandatory buy-backs/confiscation of guns is not a viable option. Hence, the presence of the guns seems to ensure their continued presence.

When you have some evidence of any other government abuses being deterred by gun ownership, let me know.



Any form of rebellion against an oppressive government that has a reasonable chance of success will involve people stockpiling guns, especially assault weapons, and handing them out at the right time. Unless you expect every single person to own an assault rifle. But sure, it could be more distributed than centralized. It isn't a major point either way.



Wouldn't have to be an extremist government of any kind. Could be a democracy. When people depart from facts and the truth they can become convinced that they are being oppressed when they're not. Don't believe it? It's exactly what is happening right now in the U.S. We have a population of delusional, armed people who could take up arms against the government, or even their fellow citizens. What if Trump got thrown out of office or worse, assassinated. How do you think his gun owning supporters might react? How will they react next year if Trump loses the election and tells them it was rigged against him, which there is a 100% chance he will.

Your argument seems to boil down to why give the people any right that can be abused. And that if there is a right we have never needed before, with only a slim chance we ever will, then why not surrender it now on the chance it could somehow make things better.

That makes no sense to me. We can't suspend rights in violation of the 2A on an irrational hope it will help. Not unless we have a plan that stands a darn good chance of actually achieving the goal of ending gun violence. And we have sufficient votes to overturn the 2A.

There is a reason Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He was talking about security or privacy when he said that, but how do you protect against having your security or privacy suspended if the only entity with the ability to use physical force is the government? You can't. You place yourself completely under their power to allow you any semblance of democracy and a relatively free society.

So I think it unwise of us to surrender the very tool that we used to win our country's sovereignty from a tyrannical government. Especially for a noble, but unobtainable goal.

 

[woolfe9998]

Your argument seems to boil down to why give the people any right that can be abused. And that if there is a right we have never needed before, with only a slim chance we ever will, then why not surrender it now on the chance it could somehow make things better.

I don't agree with either sentence here as a description of my argument. Free speech is repeatedly abused, for example. People go on the air and lie to millions of viewers, claiming black is white, up is down, and 1+1=3. And this has had serious consequences with the election of Trump who has imperiled democracy. But we can't get rid of the 1A because it is foundational to democracy. Gun ownership is not.

I also disagree with "it could somehow make things better." Because it has made things better everywhere else it's been done.

But as I already said, it's too late for it now. So the entire discussion is academic.

That makes no sense to me. We can't suspend rights in violation of the 2A on an irrational hope it will help. Not unless we have a plan that stands a darn good chance of actually achieving the goal of ending gun violence. And we have sufficient votes to overturn the 2A.

There is a reason Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He was talking about security or privacy when he said that, but how do you protect against having your security or privacy suspended if the only entity with the ability to use physical force is the government? You can't. You place yourself completely under their power to allow you any semblance of democracy and a relatively free society.

So I think it unwise of us to surrender the very tool that we used to win our country's sovereignty from a tyrannical government. Especially for a noble, but unobtainable goal.

As I said earlier, the goal is only now unattainable because there are already too many guns out there and too many of their owners will try to murder the law enforcement who show up at their house to take the guns. It's that simple.

So you really don't have that much to worry about. At most you might see background checks being applied to private party sales. I'm sure you can live with that.

 

[Paladin3]

but those knife attack scenarios kill far less.

The cultural attitudes about keeping guns for self-defense are very different here vs Europe. America was founded by folks who came here armed, and much more willing to use those arms than the average person in Europe. Just ask the Native Americans.

This is America, the land of the free and home of the brave. Here a man can do anything. Here nobody is a serf and we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And here's your gun in case anyone tries to tell you "NO". That's why we're not Europe or Australia or any other country. Maybe they are better people than we are? Maybe they are sheep and we refuse to be?

I do wish we would outgrow the idea of FYIGM and don't tell me what to do, but a few of us seem loath to do so. No right can exist long without counter balancing responsibilities. If we ALL embraced this concept we wouldn't need to worry about gun owner Joe spending his weekends peppering targets with holes courtesy of his scary looking AR.