|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Will there ever be effective gun control in the USA?
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Does criminals care about gun control?
If I were a criminal I'd be all for gun control. Just think of the money I could make selling them.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Brilliant! Let's legalise every dangerous, lethal thing known to mankind. Just so long as we can tax the shit out of it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If I were a criminal I'd be all for gun control. Just think of the money I could make selling them.
Sounds a bit of a pyramid scheme*.
*of course there is the effect where everyone thinks there above average.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
For the US, this seems to be one of those issues where the same old arguments go round and round with no progress in sight, because at least one side is ruled by gut feelings that defy examination. Perhaps the nearest UK equivalent is the Europe issue. On that, maybe if we pull out of the EU and take the inevitable economic hit, all the gut-feelers will think OMG WHAT HAVE WE DONE!! and we'll go begging to be let back in. What an equivalent resolution would be for US gun law, I hate to imagine.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
k-mann: What do you think about Chicago? The windy city has the strictest gun control laws in the US, yet (or perhaps therefore) has the most gun violence.
I guess this shows that it isn't enough to have strict gun laws in one city.
Or it shows that gun control laws doesn't remove gun violence. Do criminals buy their guns at a authorised shop and have them registered?
Just to clarify, I have no axe to grind. I am quite happy to live in Norway were we have many hunting rifles, yet almost no assault rifles or automatic hand guns under private ownership. But I fail to see how you get less gun violence by having strict gun laws. Chicago seems to indicate otherwise. The only ones who seem to profit from strict gun control laws are criminals.
Yes, sometimes non-criminals kill each other. And that's bad. But more people are killed in traffic. Should we have equally strict car control laws? How about strict sugar control laws, so that people don't kill themselves by overeating? How about making smoking illegal overall? Where would one stop?
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
k-mann: Or it shows that gun control laws doesn't remove gun violence. Do criminals buy their guns at a authorised shop and have them registered?
When criminals do want to buy a gun, they can. In any country. But statistics show clearly that in countries where it is really easy to get guns (which includes Brazil), gun deaths are much higher. No need to make it easy on them.
I also think that the number of violent deaths by people who weren't criminal before is higher than you think. In my direct circle in Brazil I know many people who died in this way. By a drunk husband, by a classmate in school, over a pub fight with a friend. It is important to get guns away from those people.
I think the reason why it isn't enough to have tough gun laws in Chicago (good as they may be) is that people can just drive to neighbouring county and buy them there without a problem. That's too close.
quote:
k-mann: But more people are killed in traffic. Should we have equally strict car control laws?
But we do. In the US, car laws are a lot stricter than gun laws: you have to train, you need to get a licence which you have to renew every couple of years, there are medical tests, there are strict rules when you drive, you can't use a car when you've had alcohol... In some US states, none of these rules apply when it comes to a gun.
Also, as has been said before on this thread, in the case of cars we accept them because of the advantages they bring to us, and because we try to reduce the number of deaths as much as we can. As for guns, outside of hunting and the shooting range, there aren't such advantages.
For the same reason, I'm not in favour of forbidding sugar. I am in favour of campaigns that try to reduce sugar intake though, especially by children.
When it comes to smoking, I would be in favour of gradually trying to phase that out, by forbidding advertisements for cigarettes, by prohibiting it in more and more public spaces... We won't be able to get away with it completely, but I think we can try to reduce it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I have never understood why people feel they need guns. They only belong in strictly regulated professions such as the military and other enforcement group and some farmers need them to deal humanely with stock. The ordinary man in the street does not need guns and the possession of them only leads to the snowball effect of more and more firearms turned on each other. The argument put forward about the need to defend oneself is fallacious in the extreme. The only way for effective gun control is for each person to reject ownership voluntarily and teach children that guns are looked on in the same way as we now regard cigarette smoking - it will kill you and is socially unacceptable.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
K-mann, I'm continually amazed at how often people are able to split the world into 'criminals' and 'non-criminals'. Black hats and white hats.
Gun control laws are not about preventing the black hats from doing nasty, black-hat things. They're about stopping the grey hats from doing nasty things in moments of weakness or recklessness or rage or just because the black hat way of life looks particularly easy and attractive.
For heavens' sake, think about the logic of going "oh, bad people will always do bad things so there's no point in trying to stop them". Do you apply this to your own home security? A few people do, but most don't. Most of us have locks on our doors, most of use them and make sure the windows are shut when we're not at home.
Will this stop someone determined to break into our house? No. Of course it ruddy well won't. We're not trying to stop the person determined to break into our house. We're trying to stop the opportunist or the person who isn't particularly interested in which house they break into and wants the easy, no hassles target.
If someone really, really wants to kill someone, they will. But for God's sake, let's not use that as some kind of argument for handing everyone their own handy set of killing tools for whenever they get a bit wobbly. Make it a planning challenge.
As for all this business about Chicago, it's pretty ridiculous. Do you know how easy it is to transition between Chicago and non-Chicago? No passports, no customs, nothing. Citywide laws are a drop in the ocean in the sea of guns that the USA is drowning in, as described by the country's own President.
[ 23. September 2013, 12:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
After three pages I'm ready to answer the title of this thread "NO!"
But just to make my point, what about banning on-line gun sales? Wouldn't that be easy to control for violations? Maybe the NSA could monitor it?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
After three pages I'm ready to answer the title of this thread "NO!"
But just to make my point, what about banning on-line gun sales? Wouldn't that be easy to control for violations? Maybe the NSA could monitor it?
What sorts of online sales do you refer to?
Interstate firearm sales (with a couple of exceptions involving collectors with Federal licenses*) are required to go through a licensed firearms dealer, with all the requisite background checks, etc. It isn't like ordering a book from Barnes and Noble.
* For instance, a collector with an 03 FFL (Curio and Relic license) can order certain firearms the U.S. government has decided have significant historic or collector value directly from distributors. Note the collector in this case has applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (insert joke here) for a license, and filed a copy of the application with local law enforcement - criminals aren't buying guns this way.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
Do criminals buy their guns at a authorised shop and have them registered?
At the moment they buy them from an authorised shop and don't get them registered*.
This is what gun control is designed to stop.
After that maybe the criminals will buy and register their guns (in which case there is a better chance of them being held to account), maybe they'll find alternative means, maybe they'll find it easier to go straight, maybe they'll find ways of stealing more guns (though with people being held to account, they ought to be more careful) or smuggling them in (but at the moment the US, with Brazil and ExUUSR is the source of the smuggled guns).
Most of these are by definition harder (or less reliable) than what they are doing now (else they would be doing it), many of them are better for the populace.
*in the interests of completeness more often friends or dealers buy them from the authorised shop without registering and then pass them on.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The problem with the "criminals will find some other way" argument is that it assumes that "criminals" are the only people who shoot people. Yes, someone becomes a criminal by shooting someone, but that's just playing with words. So many murderers are in the "We completely didn't expect him to do this" class -- people for whom that murder is the first time they ever did anything more serious than 40 in a 25 zone.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mousethief: So many murderers are in the "We completely didn't expect him to do this" class
I have a number of friends who died as the victims of this ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is the USA not even close to doing things to minimise the risks of death or injury from guns, it's allowing them in situations where there's no demonstrable benefit.
Actually, this is a matter of both state and federal law. Mostly, state when it comes to allowing guns in situations. My state government can't really do anything about another state's rules.
I'm not one of the lawyers on the Ship, but federal laws come from Congress or from someone taking a ruling in a lower (say, state) court up the chain to the Supreme Court. Things like this can take years, decades. . .
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And why is there near-hysteria among so many of the population about the mere concept of something as basic as background checks, given that many, if not most, agree that certain people should be discouraged from having guns?
I'm not so sure that "so many" really is "so many." Some people have been whipped into a frenzy of fear and insecurity by the NRA (lots of money for ads and lobbying), by other conservative groups (including conservative Christian groups) and politicians who want to get votes. And with any fear mongering, the hysteria breeds hysteria.
We currently have a House of Representatives that is beholden to forces that serve their own best interests, not those of the American public. Until this situation changes, I don't see hope for a decent dialogue about gun control.
And--as Tortof mentioned on the Hell thread. Outlawing all guns at a federal level requires a change in our constitution, something that is not easy to do, for good reason. If it were easy, we would have changes every election cycle and the constitution would be of very little use.
I believe inequality is at the root of many problems, including this one. And I wish those who have political power would address various forms of inequality here. I don't want to start a tangent, but there are usually underlying issues behind every publicized issue.
In the meantime, those of us who are for stronger regulation of fire arms are alive and well in the US and working to change things. I hope those who find fault with our country will remember this.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
posted previously
But just to make my point, what about banning on-line gun sales? Wouldn't that be easy to control for violations? Maybe the NSA could monitor it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What sorts of online sales do you refer to?
Interstate firearm sales (with a couple of exceptions involving collectors with Federal licenses*) are required to go through a licensed firearms dealer, with all the requisite background checks, etc. It isn't like ordering a book from Barnes and Noble.
I don't know about the final on line transaction but I saw a Remington 870 pump action (semi-automatic) shot gun advertised for $88.99. Couldn't anyone simply make up answers to any queries?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
I don't know about the final on line transaction but I saw a Remington 870 pump action (semi-automatic) shot gun advertised for $88.99. Couldn't anyone simply make up answers to any queries?
Not that simple. If I want to buy a firearm from a dealer in another state, I need to have that dealer ship it to a dealer in my state, who will then (for a fee) accept delivery from the other dealer, run the background check, and (assuming all is clear) release the firearm to me. Private sales across state lines work the same way - there has to be a licensed dealer involved. Intrastate, the laws can be somewhat looser, depending on the state in question.
That said, I'm sure someone, somewhere, has managed to sell a shotgun on Craigslist or similar (just as they could face-to-face) without following the law. That's not an argument for more laws, to my mind, though it may be an argument for better enforcement.
[ETA: Pre-1968, the situation was more as you envision it; the rifle that killed JFK was bought mail-order, which was perfectly legal in those days - send the money, get the gun mailed to you, no questions asked.]
[ 23. September 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: jbohn ]
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
I think the suggestions of background checks, mental health restrictions, limiting the number of guns you can purchase per year, etc. are irrelevant because so many unstable people just have someone else with a clean record buy the gun for them. The Columbine shooters, who were under 18, got an older friend to buy their weapons. The Sandy Hook shooter used his mother's guns.
To my mind the only solution is just to prohibit *any* civilians from buying certain types of weapons. It's too easy for them to change hands after purchase.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
Having read a couple more pages of this since my last comment, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the answer to the OP's question is an emphatic no, at least in the short (the next fifty years or so) term.
Amending the federal Constitution is virtually impossible; we can't even pass a debt ceiling increase these days. Further, many state constitutions contain even more explicit guarantees of the right to own firearms, and it's questionable whether the federal government would have any authority to prohibit (certain types of) gun ownership in those states, apart from an additional amendment to the federal Constitution.
Leaving aside the Second Amendment and looking towards other legal approaches to gun control, we could theoretically enact a ban on ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, either prospectively, which means that the millions and millions of guns and bullets that are out there (and that will be out there for at least the next hundred years) will still be available for gun violence, or else retroactively, which assumes either that Americans will line up quietly to turn in their guns and ammunition, or else requires a house-to-house search and seizure of weapons, which has both Constitutional implications, and also would be difficult to carry out in practice (which is an understatement).
The only alternative is to wait for a brighter future where the people of America (on the whole) stop glorifying violence and seeing it as a way to solve interpersonal conflicts. Given that Grand Theft Auto V was released this past week to record sales I'm not betting on that happening anytime soon.
For purposes of discussion, however, I'm interested in what specific approach(es) people think should be tried. Better background checks? Aligning the background check system with medical records? Attempting an amendment? A ban, followed by confiscation? Something else entirely?
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Having read a couple more pages of this since my last comment, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the answer to the OP's question is an emphatic no, at least in the short (the next fifty years or so) term.
....
For purposes of discussion, however, I'm interested in what specific approach(es) people think should be tried. Better background checks? Aligning the background check system with medical records? Attempting an amendment? A ban, followed by confiscation? Something else entirely?
Good Health Care available for the mentally ill?
That might have helped in the recent Colorado, Connecticut and D.C. cases.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Originally posted by Orfeo: quote:
I'm continually amazed at how often people are able to split the world into 'criminals' and 'non-criminals'. Black hats and white hats.
Like Mousethief and Orfeo, I too am struck by this facile dichotomy.
I wonder if at the back of many NRA supporters' minds, the classification is equivalent to "people like me" versus "people not like me"; for NRA supporters, the bulk of whom I suspect are white, this latter classification can all too easily slide into "white" versus "black/hispanic."
Perhaps in our search for the regional and historical roots of US gun culture, we should focus more on the racial and ethnic hierarchies of the South and Southwest, rather than the "lawlessness" of the frontier West.
This article on the NRA and the Black Panthers offers food for thought on the racial dimensions of the gun control debate.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Magic Wand: quote:
...which assumes either that Americans will line up quietly to turn in their guns and ammunition...
Well, that's the question, isn't it. Surely the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens? I mean, when Australia outlawed certain types of automatic weapon that's exactly what happened. And I daresay violent computer games are just as popular in Australia as they are in America; they're certainly popular here in the UK.
Several people on the Hell thread have asked for support rather than criticism from those outside the US. But just about anything we say on this issue seems to be interpreted as anti-American criticism, or at best as complete ignorance of how things work in the States (well, you can't expect us to know how things are as well as you, just as some Americans seem to be completely ignorant about how our healthcare system actually works).
So here's the thing: I admit I don't know as much about the USA as an American citizen. I've been there once, and only visited New England, and the people I met were all very pleasant and polite. The only guns I saw were being carried by airport security guards. I've been invited to visit my uncle in Texas, though I haven't scraped together the airfare yet; I understand that things are slightly different there.
If a new law was passed restricting ownership of semi-automatic weapons to the police and military and requiring ordinary citizens to surrender these weapons to the authorities, would all these lovely people really refuse to comply with the law and gun down anyone who tried to enforce it?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Magic Wand: quote:
...which assumes either that Americans will line up quietly to turn in their guns and ammunition...
Well, that's the question, isn't it. Surely the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens? I mean, when Australia outlawed certain types of automatic weapon that's exactly what happened. And I daresay violent computer games are just as popular in Australia as they are in America; they're certainly popular here in the UK.
If a new law was passed restricting ownership of semi-automatic weapons to the police and military and requiring ordinary citizens to surrender these weapons to the authorities, would all these lovely people really refuse to comply with the law and gun down anyone who tried to enforce it?
As an American, and as a gun owner, I don't see everything that non-Americans say or suggest as anti-American criticism. Certainly it would behoove us as a nation to do something that would reduce the number of deaths by gun violence. But I would argue that it is an extraordinarily difficult task to undertake, owing to our historical origins, to our size, to our national mythology, and to our varied demographic. So I tend to dismiss simplistic suggestions that appear to imply that we could do whatever, say, England, did to solve this issue, although I generally attribute the best intentions to people who make such suggestions.
To answer your question, at least from my perspective, I would say that many Americans would make a distinction between just and unjust laws. This is, in large part, a legacy of chattel slavery, segregation, and finally the Civil Rights movement; Americans largely (and yes, I realize there are more than a few exceptions) believe that many, most, or all of these laws were unjust. From what I've read, my guess would be that a law to disarm American citizens would be viewed by many as an unjust law, and hence not a law at all. This would include any number of law enforcement professionals, thereby calling into question the ability of the government to enforce such legislation (Google "oath keepers" for more information).
With that in mind, if such legislation were enacted, and an attempt to enforce it was made, I am fairly certain that there would be a number of incidents of disobedience that would result in violent confrontations. At that point, it would depend on the nature of the confrontations that occurred. As horrified as Americans are (and they really are) to hear about atrocities like Sandy Hook, I don't think that headlines like "ATF kills 3, 5, and 7 year old children while serving gun confiscation warrant on Fred Johnson" are going to result in continued support for the effort.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Thanks, Magic Wand. I get the distinction between just and unjust law. I'd say we have it too, though being British we might protest against injustice in different ways.
I think the problem in understanding your (collective) attitude to guns, for the average British person, is that most of us have absolutely no experience of them and (probably) don't know anyone who owns a gun. So when we had the Dunblane massacre (similar to Sandy Hook; madman murdered a class of primary school children and their teacher, then shot himself) and the government brought in new legislation banning those types of weapon, there was virtually no opposition. Everyone could see the disadvantages of allowing civilians to own this type of gun; hardly anyone had the experience of using guns themselves and so only a few people would be adversely affected by banning them. And we don't have any dangerous wildlife (except each other). There was more argument about the Dangerous Dogs Act (which was a poorly thought out piece of legislation, and also unjust, blaming certain breeds of dog for things people taught them to do, but that's another story).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Well, that's the question, isn't it. Surely the majority of Americans are law-abiding citizens?
Sure, they just don't define it the way you do. Here is how several gun-owners of my acquaintance think:
The fundamental law, as expressed in the US Constitution, is that certain rights are natural and inalienable. The Constitution enumerates some of these, but this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, and owning weapons is on that list.
It follows that government legislation to ban guns (or freedom of speech, or religion, or ...) is illegal, even if that government has sufficient public support to change the written constitution.
The key point here is that the fundamental rights are not "granted" by the Constitution - they are the natural birthright of all humans.
These people wouldn't turn their guns in, because they would see the law requiring them to do so as illegal, regardless of the public support that it enjoyed.
Most of them wouldn't take a stand and shoot at government agents sent to confiscate their weapons - they'd just hide them.
Some would take a stand.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Actually I think you'll find the "inalienable rights" thing is in the Declaration of Independence, which unlike the Constitution is NOT the law of the land.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Actually I think you'll find the "inalienable rights" thing is in the Declaration of Independence, which unlike the Constitution is NOT the law of the land.
This is, strictly speaking, true. However, I think that many Americans would believe that no laws, whether deemed constitutional or otherwise, that are not in accord with the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, are just. For some this would include "undue" restrictions on firearm ownership.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As long as America is the world's biggest arms pusher, thanks to McNamara, bar none, no.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think the problem in understanding your (collective) attitude to guns, for the average British person, is that most of us have absolutely no experience of them and (probably) don't know anyone who owns a gun.
I think we Brits are highly compromised on this issue. We're really a rather warlike people, there's a definite buzz in the air when our forces are engaged abroad. Preferably far abroad where, reputedly, there are different kinds of people who can live with bombs and bullets. But weapons on home turf? Routinely armed police? No no no no no. Not the British way at all. And I go with that completely. Just wish we could be a bit more consistent and honest about ourselves. Maybe, post-Syria, that's beginning.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
I really should have said, post the Syria vote in Parliament. Syria goes on.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
As various of we Americans have pointed out on various related threads, American mythology is a large chunk of the problem. There are variations, but IMHO the main theme is something like this:
{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}
quote:
Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)
They bravely built settlements. They met and mingled with the local savages, who initially helped the Pilgrims learn how to live on this continent. But there was a falling out: the Indians didn't want to accept our clearly superior ways, nor acknowledge that God Had Given US This Place To Tame. So we fought them, which was unfortunate; but they clearly had it coming, because they weren't following God's will. Darn it, we tried to help the survivors out with education. We even gave them land to live on. We couldn't have been any fairer than that.
We civilized this country, with guns, determination, and grit, pushing ever westward. We cleared the land, and made it useful. We were pioneers. A man could work hard, get his own land, build a house with his own hands (and, sometimes, help from the neighbors). He had a God-given right to protect it from varmints, thieves, Injuns, and meddling governments. No one has the right to interfere with that--ever.
We're still pioneers. We're still manifestly destined. We lead the world in democracy, innovation, and military strength. We won't start a war (unless it's in our best interests); but, by gum, we will finish anyone who brings war to us.
May God bless and keep the United States of America, and may we always kick the asses of anyone who gets in our God-given way.
Does that make the situation a little clearer??
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Magic Wand's gun confiscation scenario is a red herring.
Those calling for an end to gun violence aren't calling for an end to gun ownership. As one progressive campaign group put it:
quote:
If you own guns, no one is coming to take them. If you are a law-abiding citizen who wants to legally buy a gun, no one is trying to prevent that.
Trying to shift the discussion from a reasoned debate about gun control measures - such as background checks or ending sales of assault weapons - to the evocation of lurid scenes of federal agents killing children is a standard move in the right-wing playbook.
Originally posted by Magic Wand quote:
I would say that many Americans would make a distinction between just and unjust laws. This is, in large part, a legacy of chattel slavery, segregation, and finally the Civil Rights movement; Americans largely (and yes, I realize there are more than a few exceptions) believe that many, most, or all of these laws were unjust. From what I've read, my guess would be that a law to disarm American citizens would be viewed by many as an unjust law, and hence not a law at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that background checks or limits on magazine capacity are as unjust as slavery or Jim Crow laws?
quote:
This would include any number of law enforcement professionals, thereby calling into question the ability of the government to enforce such legislation (Google "oath keepers" for more information).
I did, and here are some of the results:
This Mother Jones article from 2010 identified the Oath Keepers as a group of extreme right wingers.
This summer 2013 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center shows how the Oath Keepers are part of a radical right who feed on bizarre conspiracy theories regarding measures to prevent gun violence.
Here we learn that Charles Dyer, whom the Oath keepers identified as their "official liaison to the U.S. Marine Corps" is now one year into the lengthy prison sentence he is serving for the rape of his seven year old daughter.
As this sermon makes clear, Chuck Baldwin, the official "Chaplain for Oath Keepers," is a raving antisemite.
Seriously, it's the courts, not law enforcement officers, that get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional.
I am fairly sure that these courts would agree with most Americans that the right of the individual to own a gun is compatible with reasonable regulation and restrictions.
Of course, rightwingers have worked hard to obfuscate the issue; shifting the debate to the confiscation scenario is one of their obfuscatory tactics.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{Note: I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS!!!}
[QUOTE]Our European ancestors were facing trials, tribulations, and persecutions back there. They couldn't follow their God-given faith. (Christianity, of course--nothing else counts.) So these Pilgrims bravely sailed to the New World, guided by the Manifest Destiny that God prepared for them. (Light to the world, etc.)
I've heard it argued, have no idea how fairly, that, far from fleeing religious intolerance, the Pilgrim Fathers were disgusted at the tolerance in England of varying (albeit Protestant Christian) traditions, and wanted to set up their own colony of Pristine Puritan Probity.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
argona: quote:
I think we Brits are highly compromised on this issue. We're really a rather warlike people, there's a definite buzz in the air when our forces are engaged abroad. Preferably far abroad where, reputedly, there are different kinds of people who can live with bombs and bullets. But weapons on home turf? Routinely armed police? No no no no no. Not the British way at all.
Yes, I'd agree with that assessment. There's a reason why many people think of us as interfering warmongers. I found the Syria vote encouraging too - I think it's the first time for years that we haven't jumped into a war with both feet when the Americans told us to.
We usually throw eggs at politicians when we're annoyed with them. Gets the point across, makes a mess of their clothing and leaves them alive afterwards to be mercilessly mocked by the press.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
(Sorry for the double post)
argona: quote:
I've heard it argued, have no idea how fairly, that, far from fleeing religious intolerance, the Pilgrim Fathers were disgusted at the tolerance in England of varying (albeit Protestant Christian) traditions, and wanted to set up their own colony of Pristine Puritan Probity.
As I understand it the Pilgrim Fathers (and mothers) were doing both; they didn't approve of a lot of things that were going on in England at the time, but they were also being persecuted by the government for not attending Anglican services and organising their own.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
We usually throw eggs at politicians when we're annoyed with them. Gets the point across, makes a mess of their clothing and leaves them alive afterwards to be mercilessly mocked by the press.
If you (gen.) throw things at US politicians, you're likely to be arrested. There was a messy incident here in SF, a couple of decades back. A group called the Biotic Baking Brigade decided to pie Mayor Willie Brown during a speech he gave. That would've been bad enough, legally. But, unbeknownst to the BBB, the mayor is visually impaired in one eye, and they approached him from that side. He was surprised, and defended himself. So it was much more of an incident than the BBB intended. They were arrested and taken to jail, but I don't remember how their cases turned out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
You get arrested here as well, usually for causing a public disturbance I think, though if the egg hits the politician you could be charged with assault.
There was a case a couple of elections ago where a Labour politician attacked someone who threw an egg at him. The egg-thrower sued him for assault, but I think the case was dismissed on the grounds of self-defence.
It didn't do the election campaign any harm either - ISTR Prescott (the egged politician) actually became slightly more popular afterwards.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think it's the first time for years that we haven't jumped into a war with both feet when the Americans told us to.
The Americans didn't, just our president and a few others. The people weren't with him on this. If Asshat and jihadists want to fight each other many of us are more than willing to stand back and give them room.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
Magic Wand's gun confiscation scenario is a red herring.
Those calling for an end to gun violence aren't calling for an end to gun ownership. As one progressive campaign group put it:
quote:
If you own guns, no one is coming to take them. If you are a law-abiding citizen who wants to legally buy a gun, no one is trying to prevent that.
Trying to shift the discussion from a reasoned debate about gun control measures - such as background checks or ending sales of assault weapons - to the evocation of lurid scenes of federal agents killing children is a standard move in the right-wing playbook.
I agree that it's a red herring if expressed as a far of something that might actually happen. Gun confiscation legislation will never be enacted. Most legislators are personally opposed (whether they would admit it or not) or they doubt that it could be successfully enforced. Those very few who do speak in favor of it are extremists, who live in a fevered dream of blue-helmeted peacekeepers going door-to-door in the small towns of red state America.
My point was that without gun confiscation there is likely to be no significant drop in the number of injuries or deaths due to gun violence.
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
Originally posted by Magic Wand quote:
I would say that many Americans would make a distinction between just and unjust laws. This is, in large part, a legacy of chattel slavery, segregation, and finally the Civil Rights movement; Americans largely (and yes, I realize there are more than a few exceptions) believe that many, most, or all of these laws were unjust. From what I've read, my guess would be that a law to disarm American citizens would be viewed by many as an unjust law, and hence not a law at all.
Are you seriously suggesting that background checks or limits on magazine capacity are as unjust as slavery or Jim Crow laws?
I am not. Some no doubt would, however. But the underlying principle, making a distinction between just and unjust laws, is the same.
For what it's worth, more thorough background checks are supported by most gun owners. To be really effective they'd need to be tied into medical records databases, which I think will receive broad opposition even outside of the gun ownership community. Plus, most guns used to commit violence aren't acquired legally, so the most stringent background checks imaginable would have their limits.
Magazine restrictions are almost meaningless, as so many already are in circulation, and swapping magazines really isn't that time consuming.
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
quote:
This would include any number of law enforcement professionals, thereby calling into question the ability of the government to enforce such legislation (Google "oath keepers" for more information).
I did, and here are some of the results:
This Mother Jones article from 2010 identified the Oath Keepers as a group of extreme right wingers.
This summer 2013 report from the Southern Poverty Law Center shows how the Oath Keepers are part of a radical right who feed on bizarre conspiracy theories regarding measures to prevent gun violence.
Here we learn that Charles Dyer, whom the Oath keepers identified as their "official liaison to the U.S. Marine Corps" is now one year into the lengthy prison sentence he is serving for the rape of his seven year old daughter.
As this sermon makes clear, Chuck Baldwin, the official "Chaplain for Oath Keepers," is a raving antisemite.
Seriously, it's the courts, not law enforcement officers, that get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional.
I am fairly sure that these courts would agree with most Americans that the right of the individual to own a gun is compatible with reasonable regulation and restrictions.
Of course, rightwingers have worked hard to obfuscate the issue; shifting the debate to the confiscation scenario is one of their obfuscatory tactics.
The courts get to decide in theory; but where the rubber hits the road it's the boys in blue who will or will not enforce the laws in question. Think of it as jury nullification writ large. But keep calling people who disagree "rightwingers;" I'm sure that'll help persuade them that there's room for compromise.
In terms of the organization itself, I've read the Mother Jones article. It's a hatchet job. The author refused to speak with anyone in the Oath Keeper's leadership, but instead to focus on the most extreme, most violent member that they could find.
The SPLC is of course the same article that has declared traditional Roman Catholics to be a terrorist organization, so I take anything that they have to say with a rather large grain of salt.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Magic Wand--
When/where did SPLC say that traditionalist Catholics are terrorists? And of what particular group were they speaking? Tridentines? The group Mel Gibson's father is in? Violent protesters against abortion?
Thanks.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Magic Wand
Shipmate
# 4227
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Magic Wand--
When/where did SPLC say that traditionalist Catholics are terrorists? And of what particular group were they speaking? Tridentines? The group Mel Gibson's father is in? Violent protesters against abortion?
Thanks.
These are hate groups according to the SPLC. The claim to make a distinction between "radical" traditionalist Catholics and ordinary traditionalist Catholics, but some of the groups they name are fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community, e.g. The Fatima Crusader and IHS Press. You'd have to ask them what qualifies a particular group; they speak only in vague generalities when identifying hate groups.
Posts: 371 | From: Princeton, NJ | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tea
Shipmate
# 16619
|
Posted
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
These are hate groups according to the SPLC. The claim to make a distinction between "radical" traditionalist Catholics and ordinary traditionalist Catholics, but some of the groups they name are fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community, e.g. The Fatima Crusader and IHS Press. You'd have to ask them what qualifies a particular group; they speak only in vague generalities when identifying hate groups.
The Fatima Crusader is part of the the Fatima Network.
The Fatima Network's John Vennari responds to the SPLC report by explaining that
quote:
The Catholic's quarrel with Judaism has nothing to do with race, but is religious in essence.
Vennari hopes that this will distinguish his views from those of neo-nazis. However, his rhetoric makes it clear that something more than a mere difference of opinion is at work:
quote:
Muslims, Jews and all non-Catholics, according to the defined dogma of the Catholic Church, are, in the objective order, not part of the kingdom of God and are therefore part of the kingdom of Satan.
Vennari's attempt to distance the Fatima Network from neo-nazi antisemitism would be more convincing if his organization did not publish holocaust denial screeds like this defence of Bishop Williamson.
If these kinds of views are "fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community," I wonder what the fringes like.
Posts: 66 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Make it a planning challenge.
I hereby submit that, due to an utter lack of rational suggestions, 'gun control' as a topic on the SoF is beyond dispute demonstrably a dead horse.
I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magic Wand:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Magic Wand--
When/where did SPLC say that traditionalist Catholics are terrorists? And of what particular group were they speaking? Tridentines? The group Mel Gibson's father is in? Violent protesters against abortion?
Thanks.
These are hate groups according to the SPLC. The claim to make a distinction between "radical" traditionalist Catholics and ordinary traditionalist Catholics, but some of the groups they name are fairly mainstream within the traditionalist community, e.g. The Fatima Crusader and IHS Press. You'd have to ask them what qualifies a particular group; they speak only in vague generalities when identifying hate groups.
They specifically mention anti-semitism in regards to the Radical Traditional Catholics. Not exactly vague.
[ 03. October 2013, 16:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
I hereby submit that, due to an utter lack of rational suggestions, 'gun control' as a topic on the SoF is beyond dispute demonstrably a dead horse.
There are lots and lots of rational suggestions. What's not rational is the responses, which rarely go beyond "that won't stop every shooting" and "criminals won't obey the law" and "it will lead to confiscation". When there is no perfect solution, rational people do their best with imperfect solutions. Irrational people say if there`s no perfect solution, don`t even bother.
quote:
I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.
Some people buy lottery tickets and fantasize about being a millionare, others buy a gun and fantasize about being Steven Seagal. Takes the edge off being Walter Mitty, I suppose.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
I am oiling (it was perpetually damp last week and I trusted the stainless steel too much ) my North American Arms .22 mini-revolver hoping against hope I'll never need to use it to protect innocent life; alas, the possibility remains.
Let he who is without sin fire the first shot.
[ 04. October 2013, 02:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are lots and lots of rational suggestions.
Please list your top three. Bonus points if any are not already in place. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
There's an obvious one which, even though it's highly unlikely to do what you want it to do, is one I've already suggested on another thread could be argued makes some sort of sense... good luck!
quote:
Takes the edge off being Walter Mitty, I suppose.
You oughtta know as your Mittyish fantasy is distinguishable from mine largely in that I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents.
Unfortunately you take another approach.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
You oughtta know as your Mittyish fantasy is distinguishable from mine largely in that I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents.
Unfortunately, all the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent than to prevent their death or injury.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There are lots and lots of rational suggestions.
Please list your top three. Bonus points if any are not already in place. ...
1. Universal background checks
2. Limit ammo purchases and magazine sizes
3. Eliminate concealed-carry permits
Now, it's your turn. Have you got anything besides "that won't stop every shooting" and "criminals won't obey the law" and "it will lead to confiscation"?
quote:
... I've taken steps which will NEVER infringe on another human's freedom to live as they please as long as they don't harm innocents ...
Yeah, well, it's not working. You do know that the purpose of a gun is to infringe on someone's or something's freedom to live, right? Those steps you and millions of others have taken guarantee that thousands of USA citizens have their freedom to live permanently ended by gun violence every year - the equivalent of ten 9/11s every year. Thousands were "innocent". What do you have for them other than "I pray I don't shoot you"?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Unfortunately, all the statistics show that your gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure an innocent than to prevent their death or injury.
Well, statistics would, wouldn't they. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Maybe you could provide examples of laws which would work?
Please? Someone?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
