Gun Control

[jackstar7]

If the people do not respect the government, why would the government respect the people? Or are you suggesting that the people do respect the government, but that similarly, that respect is predicated upon fear?

Also, why do people distinguish between the two when one is the other...?

 

[waggy]

If the people do not respect the government, why would the government respect the people?

Also, why do people distinguish between the two when one is the other...?

hard to respect teh government. with all the bullshit its been doing the last 20 years.

but you are right. the government IS the people and supposed to be FOR the people. Pitty they forgot that.

Greed, corruption, lack of ethics has made us distrustful of them. They have turned people from willing to vote them out to now its R vs D.

 

[jackstar7]

hard to respect teh government. with all the bullshit its been doing the last 20 years.

but you are right. the government IS the people and supposed to be FOR the people. Pitty they forgot that.

Greed, corruption, lack of ethics has made us distrustful of them. They have turned people from willing to vote them out to now its R vs D.

All of those issues could be sorted out during elections, but it is not. The responsibility lies with the public.

Blaming government for its corruption is just another means of trying to other-ize it from the very public that is responsible for how it runs. It's scapegoating to avoid solving the problems that people complain about.

 

[Jaskalas]

If the people do not respect the government, why would the government respect the people? Or are you suggesting that the people do respect the government, but that similarly, that respect is predicated upon fear?

Also, why do people distinguish between the two when one is the other...?

This question is foreign to me, I would not have expected to encounter it. The answer is such:

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[jackstar7]

This question is foreign to me, I would not have expected to encounter it. The answer is such:

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Both predicated on fear... like we're collectively dealing with our father issues...

 

[dank69]

Both predicated on fear... like we're collectively dealing with our father issues...

The government should fear its citizens and corporations should fear the government. Not sure why anyone would disagree, and it has nothing to do with father issues. The fact that anyone might begin to disagree with this shows how far we have fallen.

 

[Blackjack200]

The government should fear its citizens and corporations should fear the government. Not sure why anyone would disagree, and it has nothing to do with father issues. The fact that anyone might begin to disagree with this shows how far we have fallen.

The government should fear informed citizens at the ballot box, not armed citizens at a supermarket in Tuscon.

 

[DrPizza]

But banns do increase the cost of obtaining something; and strength of penalty reduces likelihood of behavior.

gang violence would not use many guns if they cost 100x as much and simple ownership of a gun was penalized as "intent to kill".

Taking guns, though, from the populace would fail.

If saving lives is the dependent variable of interest, then you're right.

But saving lives that are lost without good cause is what's of interest; the deal with the devil for speed and convenience is something we're willing to make. Further, it is emotionally charged to lose one life at the hands of a gun-man; whilst losing a life in a car-wreck where you FEEL like you have control is much less upsetting.

My take:

There is, honestly, two americas: In one the inner city runs red with the blood of poor people paid to live on top of each other; in this america guns are fucking evil. In the suburban/rural america, guns are recreation, a hobby, something almost no one will ever use on another human, and less likely to kill someone than your back-yard pool is.

Look at who's on what side and why: liberals have poor inner-city folks as constants, they have a vested interest in stoping their self-genocide; conservatives have poor-rural and upper-middle suburban and well-to-do city dwellers, the poor-rural is driven by fear, upper-middle lives in a world where guns aren't dangerous, and well-to-do city dwellers rely on others to own guns to protect them.

Maybe my analysis is off; but it seems to me that "common sense" in the poor-urban setting is a whole different thing than "common sense" over in middle-class suburban.

I actually was thinking along similar grounds, with respect to NY legislation. For hunting, we've had multiple zones all over the state designating what weapons are allowed to be used where. E.g., in certain counties, bow hunting only, or shotgun only. For years, you couldn't use a rifle for deer in the majority of the state. It seems that there's a huge divide between cities and rural areas as to what's reasonable.

Rather than exert their will on people 6 or 7 hours away (perhaps I should explain, since I talk to people outside the state fairly often when traveling - I don't live in NYC - it's 6 hours away from me. It takes 9 hours to get from one end of NY to the other. 45 minutes from NYC, it's forested) perhaps certain restrictions can be applied to certain portions of the state. In NYC - no more than 7 in the magazine. In rural areas - 10 is fine (which is the capacity that a lot of guns are manufactured with.)

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I actually was thinking along similar grounds, with respect to NY legislation. For hunting, we've had multiple zones all over the state designating what weapons are allowed to be used where. E.g., in certain counties, bow hunting only, or shotgun only. For years, you couldn't use a rifle for deer in the majority of the state. It seems that there's a huge divide between cities and rural areas as to what's reasonable.

Rather than exert their will on people 6 or 7 hours away (perhaps I should explain, since I talk to people outside the state fairly often when traveling - I don't live in NYC - it's 6 hours away from me. It takes 9 hours to get from one end of NY to the other. 45 minutes from NYC, it's forested) perhaps certain restrictions can be applied to certain portions of the state. In NYC - no more than 7 in the magazine. In rural areas - 10 is fine (which is the capacity that a lot of guns are manufactured with.)

The problem, of course, is that differential laws without strong boarder-zone enforcement helps improve the armaments of criminals at the expense of honest-citizens ability to defend themselves.

Maybe if gun-free-zones existed, where the penalty was very very high (possession =intent to kill) and entry was gated off requiring airport-level security...

 

[jackstar7]

and it has nothing to do with father issues.

Yeah... the metal penises that allow (the collective) you to stand up to authority have nothing at all to do with father issues...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yeah... the metal penises that allow (the collective) you to stand up to authority have nothing at all to do with father issues...

What's a mental penis?

 

[Blackjack200]

It's what you use to mind fuck someone.

But he said "metal" penis, so I think he's suggesting that a gun is a metaphor for a penis. (Or the other way around).

 

[jackstar7]

What's a mental penis?

In this case, a look into your soul.

 

[Jaskalas]

The government should fear informed citizens at the ballot box, not armed citizens at a supermarket in Tuscon.

Which came first, the ballot box, or armed citizens?

Perhaps we forget that one created the other.

 

[DrPizza]

The problem, of course, is that differential laws without strong boarder-zone enforcement helps improve the armaments of criminals at the expense of honest-citizens ability to defend themselves.

Like different laws from state to state? E.g., if I have to register my ammunition purchases in NY, what's to stop me from driving over the border into PA and purchasing my ammo there? (Likewise Vermont)

 

[Dr. Zaus]

In this case, a look into your soul.

What are you talking about? Seriously; you've gone from arm chair Freudian analysis to personal insults?

Or do you have something, like some sort of logic or reason, to contribute to the conversation?

 

[Blackjack200]

Which came first, the ballot box, or armed citizens?

Perhaps we forget that one created the other.

Or perhaps we forget that one obviated the need for the other.

 

[jackstar7]

What are you talking about? Seriously; you've gone from arm chair Freudian analysis to personal insults?

Or do you have something, like some sort of logic or reason, to contribute to the conversation?

Wow. So no sense of humor? We cannot all take a moment to laugh at "mental penis" because this is the serious internets?

And I have been contributing at times. Sorry you find it to be otherwise.

 

[Jaskalas]

Or perhaps we forget that one obviated the need for the other.

That is where we strongly disagree.

If you remove the people's check on their government, a reason to be feared, then the ballot box may simply vanish the moment it's considered inconvenient.

My whole point was that force of arms gave rise to Democracy, and force of arms keeps Democracy. The ballot box does not obviate the need for guns, just the need to use them.

 

[dank69]

The government should fear informed citizens at the ballot box, not armed citizens at a supermarket in Tuscon.

Oh absolutely. No arguments here. The days of our government fearing armed citizens were long ago.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Wow. So no sense of humor? We cannot all take a moment to laugh at "mental penis" because this is the serious internets?

And I have been contributing at times. Sorry you find it to be otherwise.

You have; but your laughing was at the expense, and by insulting, gun owners. It betrays a mockery that is used as a paradigm-support-mechanism; the sort of thing that blocks someone from being open to different thoughts, but instead dismisses those that disagree with you as sub-human.

Covering this rhetorical move with "joke" follows the mocking-thought-processes that exist to sustain belief structures.

But, most importantly, it is precisely that I think your argument "predicated on fear... like we're collectively dealing with our father issues..." IS a contribution to the conversation that I'm disappointed that you seem unwilling to further develop the concept.

 

[Blackjack200]

That is where we strongly disagree.

If you remove the people's check on their government, a reason to be feared, then the ballot box may simply vanish the moment it's considered inconvenient.

My whole point was that force of arms gave rise to Democracy, and force of arms keeps Democracy. The ballot box does not obviate the need for guns, just the need to use them.

I think in certain circumstances, there could be some truth to that, but I don't think you can make the case that it's broadly applicable to Democracy.

Else how do you explain the Western European states that have broad firearms bans but maintain democracy?

 

[blankslate]

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of magazine capacities or an "AWB" those measures are unlikely to pass imo.

However, the tragedy at Sandy Hook has finally forced the administration to talk about the issue in a direct way when they have remained relatively silent on firearms regulation even after the AZ and Batman movie shootings.

Aside from implementing a better way of identifying mentally unfit (as far as possessing firearms go) for the purposes background checks and expanding the background checks there might not much needed if existing laws are enforced better.

Aside from stealing the weapons there is a black market for firearms as well. According to the latest information I can find which is unfortunately years old indicates that although criminals do acquire weapons from thievery they're more likely to get them from black market sellers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun.

However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states.

Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

Better enforcement and tracking of blackmarket dealers seems like a good place to start except efforts to do so have arguably been hindered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...14/AR2010121406045_3.html?sid=ST2010121406431

In 1978, the NRA was ready when the Carter administration proposed a rule requiring quarterly reports on gun sales from licensed firearms dealers. NRA opposition produced 350,000 letters and comments. One letter was addressed to the Gestapo, while another included a tea bag to invoke the Boston Tea Party.

Congress killed the rule and also prohibited ATF from "consolidating or centralizing" gun dealer records in a computer database, which the agency wanted to do to analyze gun traces for trafficking patterns. Congress also cut $4.2 million from the ATF budget, the amount needed to fund a computer system.

The agency that should be able tackle blackmarket dealing of firearms is also one of the ones that is most mistrusted by many legal firearms owners.



In my opinion
Better identification and treatment of mentally disturbed people who should not be around firearms and better enforcement against black market dealers should be attempted.

Unfortunately it's likely that no real progress will be made. And the next mass shooting will likely just bring up the same arguments that we're hearing now

 

[jackstar7]

You have; but your laughing was at the expense, and by insulting, gun owners. It betrays a mockery that is used as a paradigm-support-mechanism; the sort of thing that blocks someone from being open to different thoughts, but instead dismisses those that disagree with you as sub-human.

Covering this rhetorical move with "joke" follows the mocking-thought-processes that exist to sustain belief structures.

But, most importantly, it is precisely that I think your argument "predicated on fear... like we're collectively dealing with our father issues..." IS a contribution to the conversation that I'm disappointed that you seem unwilling to further develop the concept.

I have hunters in my family. My interest in the motivations of gun-owners is not to otherize them, but to actually try and understand them.

I wasn't joking with the metal penis thing. I was using comedic phrasing to try and make my point, but the point stands: I think there might be some collective weird angst tied to gun ownership and the motivations of gun owners. I get two main answers when it comes to the question of why: 1) security or 2) entertainment. I find each troubling, but one of them less so.

I don't want to lecture though and I imagine no one wants to read some long-winded treatise from me on the subject. So I try to offer some thoughts when I am inspired. I'm also certainly willing to reply to any questions (general or specific to me) that you have.


Oh, and lastly, I was only laughing at your expense because of your typo. I certainly meant no actual harm, just found it to be a delight in a otherwise dreary day.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think in certain circumstances, there could be some truth to that, but I don't think you can make the case that it's broadly applicable to Democracy.

Else how do you explain the Western European states that have broad firearms bans but maintain democracy?

A good case study to watch, and to see how it pans out over time. Perhaps Europeans could count on their fellow countries to step in. Or they have not had time nor opportunity to test the limits.

Nonetheless, point well taken.