In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[4588686]

No, I'm not trying to kick up dust. What you're saying is that the only rights that exist are those defended by force. I suppose you could say that unsuccessful defense qualifies to create a right. I'm trying to understand.

 

 

First use.  Can I prove to you that some intangible thing exists, some claim? No. If you don't accept ownership as possible, nothing will prove it to you.

 

Do you believe you own yourself?

 

Or acknowledges generally and respected.  That doesn't mean that they are rights because they can be backed by force.  There is no right to universal healthcare in America because certain concentrations of capital that carry political power do not wish it to be so.  If there weren't then there would be.  

 

I accept that ownership can be a right.  But I don't understand what you mean by 'right' outside of a legal context.  

[CatherineM]

You know you guys could be doing something much more productive with your time like Christmas shopping. I like books and tools.

[Winchester]

As to the claim that you need something as strong as what someone trying to attack your home might be using - first I will ask, how may cases have there been of someone repelling a home invader who had a semi-automatic weapon with a semi-automatic weapon of their own? Would it even make sense for a burglar to use such a large, unwieldy weapon instead of a pistol, if all he needs to do is prevent an attack at inside a house, which is always a close-quarters situation? And if we have the right to anything that might potentially be used on us, do we have a right to own chemical weapons or high powered explosives, since someone might use them on us?

 

The fact is that it doesn't happen. There is no need for a private citizen to have access to that kind of firepower. The only reason I can imagine for these people believing they need these weapons would be to stage some sort of violent political uprising, which given their rhetoric would not surprise me in the least.

 

Do you believe police should have such weapons?

 

Apart from that:

 

Short-barreled rifles are used in CQB by professionals. Apparently, they don't view them as "unwieldy".

 

It is easier to hit a target with a rifle than with a pistol. One could argue for the use of carbines on the same premise. I think a shotgun is the best for home defense, but judging from the defensive weapons employed by professionals, pistols and rifles also work quite well. Pistols are easier to carry, whereas rifles are best kept at the ready with a sling. There are many reasons for choosing different types of weapons. Apart from this, there are various rounds more or less suited to different situations, as well.

 

A criminal going about his business worries perhaps about concealment, portability, etcetera. A pistol lends itself to this. Most criminals aren't going to sling a rifle on a one-point harness and walk down the street, or put one on between the vehicle and the home (and so on). You seem to propose an obligation to put oneself on equal footing. I prefer to have the advantage. It makes sense to have the advantage. Police secure equipment so as to have an advantage. And in the case of bank robberies, shootings, rapes, burglaries...they are entering situations to save civilians. Apparently, civilians are exposed to situations into which it it deemed prudent to carry high capacity magazines, and semi-automatic rifles.
 

[Kevin]

Do you believe police should have such weapons?

 

Apart from that:

 

Short-barreled rifles are used in CQB by professionals. Apparently, they don't view them as "unwieldy".

 

It is easier to hit a target with a rifle than with a pistol. One could argue for the use of carbines on the same premise. I think a shotgun is the best for home defense, but judging from the defensive weapons employed by professionals, pistols and rifles also work quite well. Pistols are easier to carry, whereas rifles are best kept at the ready with a sling. There are many reasons for choosing different types of weapons. Apart from this, there are various rounds more or less suited to different situations, as well.

 

A criminal going about his business worries perhaps about concealment, portability, etcetera. A pistol lends itself to this. Most criminals aren't going to sling a rifle on a one-point harness and walk down the street, or put one on between the vehicle and the home (and so on). You seem to propose an obligation to put oneself on equal footing. I prefer to have the advantage. It makes sense to have the advantage. Police secure equipment so as to have an advantage. And in the case of bank robberies, shootings, rapes, burglaries...they are entering situations to save civilians. Apparently, civilians are exposed to situations into which it it deemed prudent to carry high capacity magazines, and semi-automatic rifles.
 

 

A burglar only is much more worried about stealth.

 

And no, you can't go above the police because what if you decide to be the criminal one day like Adam Lanza. Why are you even pretending that home security is the primary reason gun owners won't give their assult rifles in face of clear numbers showing the don't make anyone safer. Isn't it more honest to say that they (and I won't say you, since I came if late to this conversation and am hoping you're playing devil's advocate) want to reserve the right to stage a violent insurrection if the darkies and queers don't learn their place soon (note - this only applies to gun owners who absolutely demand automatic weapons).

Edited December 19, 2012 by Kevin

[Anomaly]

 And no, you can't go above the police because what if you decide to be the criminal one day like Adam Lanza. Why are you even pretending that home security is the primary reason gun owners won't give their assult rifles in face of clear numbers showing the don't make anyone safer. Isn't it more honest to say that they .....  want to reserve the right to stage a violent insurrection if the darkies and queers don't learn their place soon (note - this only applies to gun owners who absolutely demand automatic weapons).

So cool. So your argument is only racists and homophobes want to own "automatic weapons". Your version of US society is that only the Government has the right to use fire arms. You seem to be saying that US citizens have no right to use firearms for self defense, hunting, sport, or recreation because they may be used by non-law abiding persons.

Would you be willing to post a sign in your front yard stating "My Household is a Gun Free Zone. Trespassers will not be met with VIOLENCE!"

Edited December 19, 2012 by Anomaly

[eagle_eye222001]

Here is an article basically showing that everything you say is incorrect. There is, in fact, a strong correlation between lower violent crime rates and stricter gun control laws.

 

Also, with what do you back up the statement "criminals will invariably always get access to guns somehow"? In countries like Japan where gun control laws are very tight, it is almost impossible to get a gun, even if you are a criminal. And yes, there is still crime - but using knives and bats in crime much less efficient as far as getting people killed.

 

I think that, if nothing else happens, there has to be a ban on semi-automatic weapons. If you say that criminals will get them anyway, I will point out that these shootings are being performed by people who bought these weapons legally, and that it would have been much more difficult for them to get these weapons if they couldn't get them from a sporting goods store.

 

As to the claim that you need something as strong as what someone trying to attack your home might be using - first I will ask, how may cases have there been of someone repelling a home invader who had a semi-automatic weapon with a semi-automatic weapon of their own? Would it even make sense for a burglar to use such a large, unwieldy weapon instead of a pistol, if all he needs to do is prevent an attack at inside a house, which is always a close-quarters situation? And if we have the right to anything that might potentially be used on us, do we have a right to own chemical weapons or high powered explosives, since someone might use them on us?

 

The fact is that it doesn't happen. There is no need for a private citizen to have access to that kind of firepower. The only reason I can imagine for these people believing they need these weapons would be to stage some sort of violent political uprising, which given their rhetoric would not surprise me in the least.

 

 

 

In response to #1, Crime in the US is down compared to Europe.  See Fig. 1A.  Mother Jones can sound pretty convincing with the data they cite, but they are going for the sensationalism and not the overall data.

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf

 

#2, what matters is how safe the country you live in is.  I don't care if the US has more shooting sprees than other countries.  I do care how overall safe America is.  According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, the murder rate for America 4.2.  Yes, Japan is 0.3 and UK is 1.2.  However, America also has the most guns per 100 people in 2007.  So shouldn't America's crime rate be through the roof?  By looking at the lists I am citing these numbers from, it should be apparent that gun control is not directly correlated with murder rates.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?  Was it so that farmers would always have guns to shoot deer for food?  The website guncite has a great article on this.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

 

If the purpose is no longer there, then by all means, we can work to severely limit guns, especially semi-autos.  However, as guncite shows, the people should never be disarmed or strongly discouraged from being armed.

 

The real problem is not guns, but the culture and the people.  The only people who should be afraid of a violent uprising are the ones who are obsessed with control over other people.

[Kevin]

So cool. So your argument is only racists and homophobes want to own "automatic weapons". Your version of US society is that only the Government has the right to use fire arms. You seem to be saying that US citizens have no right to use firearms for self defense, hunting, sport, or recreation because they may be used by non-law abiding persons.

Would you be willing to post a sign in your front yard stating "My Household is a Gun Free Zone. Trespassers will not be met with VIOLENCE!"

 

No, U.S. citizens have every right to use firearms, but there is no need for anyone outside of the military or law enforcement to own an "automatic weapon" that spits out bullets faster than you can pull the trigger. And whatever argument you may come up with, evidence shows that guns in the home make private citizens less safe, not the other way around.

 

I would not put up such a sign, because I don't want to physically harm anyone. As to the motives of those gun owners who now seem to be urging secession should any attempts be made on their AR-15's, I admit there might be other reasons, but I calls 'em as I sees em.

[Kevin]

In response to #1, Crime in the US is down compared to Europe.  See Fig. 1A.  Mother Jones can sound pretty convincing with the data they cite, but they are going for the sensationalism and not the overall data.

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonnano_etal.pdf

 

#2, what matters is how safe the country you live in is.  I don't care if the US has more shooting sprees than other countries.  I do care how overall safe America is.  According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, the murder rate for America 4.2.  Yes, Japan is 0.3 and UK is 1.2.  However, America also has the most guns per 100 people in 2007.  So shouldn't America's crime rate be through the roof?  By looking at the lists I am citing these numbers from, it should be apparent that gun control is not directly correlated with murder rates.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

 

What is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?  Was it so that farmers would always have guns to shoot deer for food?  The website guncite has a great article on this.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

 

If the purpose is no longer there, then by all means, we can work to severely limit guns, especially semi-autos.  However, as guncite shows, the people should never be disarmed or strongly discouraged from being armed.

 

The real problem is not guns, but the culture and the people.  The only people who should be afraid of a violent uprising are the ones who are obsessed with control over other people.

 

Gun ownership does not make you safer. Also, forgive me if I prefer Harvard to a research institute founded by a bank - or, you might say, a right-wing think tank.

 

Also, even though I think the argument that we have to go by what the framers literally said is vaccuous, I'll say that, when then you present me with an article by a constitutional scholar instead of some dude who bought a unique url for his blog, I'll listen up.

 

And you know, all I'd really like is for all these kids to stop getting killed by people whose ease of access to guns is ridiculous. So if (some) gun owners want to throw their hats in with these guys and demand their right to shoot as many bullets per second as they please, I guess you may be right and we may need to exercise some control over such people.

[Anomaly]

No, U.S. citizens have every right to use firearms, but there is no need for anyone outside of the military or law enforcement to own an "automatic weapon" that spits out bullets faster than you can pull the trigger. And whatever argument you may come up with, evidence shows that guns in the home make private citizens less safe, not the other way around.

 

I would not put up such a sign, because I don't want to physically harm anyone. As to the motives of those gun owners who now seem to be urging secession should any attempts be made on their AR-15's, I admit there might be other reasons, but I calls 'em as I sees em.

 

"Automatic Weapons" are not currently widely available in the US, they are already highly regulated.  What is used and called an assault rifle is semi-automatic, which means you have to pull the trigger for each round.

 

Evidence shows guns in general can be dangerous REGARDLESS of the type.

 

 

Is Society wanting to make children safer?  If so, shouldn't Society address the factors that kill and maim children mosto often?

Is it just guns, or an aspect of Society that makes killing unprotected children a viable action for mentally ill persons?  Is US Society more violent because we have guns, or because we glorify violence with games and movies?  Are mass killings a symptom of something else that is wrong in society, or just a convenient action because we have guns?  

What gun laws would be effective considering there are hundreds of millions legally owned guns?  What factor does mentally ill persons play in this?  Should gun ownership be restricted in certain circumstances, such as after being convicted of a crime such as battery?  Should gun safes be required as part of ownership?

 

Be honest and intelligent about what society is attempting to accomplish.  You have said you were a teacher, so I'll assume you are an intelligent person.  Did you read all of the link from Harvard?  Did you read the section that addressed tracking statistics and doing studies to help determine reasonable and effective gun laws and policies?

 

It is a tragedy that sick minded or mentally ill people follow through with the urge to kill innocent children in schools.  Many mass attackers have had an agenda which often listed a rage against society or a desire to be heard and known.  It is wrong minded to choose and pursue a particular strategy or action that is being claimed that will prevent these occurences when in reality, it isn't and won't.  

[Lil Red]

Terms:

 

A semi-automatic gun fires one shot every time you pull the trigger.

A “machine gun” (a fully-automatic firearm) fires multiple shots every time you press the trigger.

 

http://www.corneredcat.com/semi-automatic-machine-gun/

[eagle_eye222001]

Gun ownership does not make you safer. Also, forgive me if I prefer Harvard to a research institute founded by a bank - or, you might say, a right-wing think tank.

 

Also, even though I think the argument that we have to go by what the framers literally said is vaccuous, I'll say that, when then you present me with an article by a constitutional scholar instead of some dude who bought a unique url for his blog, I'll listen up.

 

And you know, all I'd really like is for all these kids to stop getting killed by people whose ease of access to guns is ridiculous. So if (some) gun owners want to throw their hats in with these guys and demand their right to shoot as many bullets per second as they please, I guess you may be right and we may need to exercise some control over such people.

 

 

Ignoring what someone cites and dismissing because of a "bias" without explaining why does not advance the discussion on guns and only encourages circular talking points.

 

Again, if your just going to dismiss my citations because "you don't like them" I don't see how we can discuss anything further.

 

I simply want people to live in freedom.

[Kevin]

"Automatic Weapons" are not currently widely available in the US, they are already highly regulated.  What is used and called an assault rifle is semi-automatic, which means you have to pull the trigger for each round.

 

Evidence shows guns in general can be dangerous REGARDLESS of the type.

 

Is Society wanting to make children safer?  If so, shouldn't Society address the factors that kill and maim children mosto often?

Is it just guns, or an aspect of Society that makes killing unprotected children a viable action for mentally ill persons?  Is US Society more violent because we have guns, or because we glorify violence with games and movies?  Are mass killings a symptom of something else that is wrong in society, or just a convenient action because we have guns?  

What gun laws would be effective considering there are hundreds of millions legally owned guns?  What factor does mentally ill persons play in this?  Should gun ownership be restricted in certain circumstances, such as after being convicted of a crime such as battery?  Should gun safes be required as part of ownership?

 

You got me on the the one issue - I know the AR-15 was based on the M16, and when it said semi-automatic I thought it was referring to the three-shot burst, but as I read, the AR apparently does not have that (though I think it may be possible to modify it, but not easy). But I definitely think that, as far as semi-automatics go, that there must be a must lower maximum of shots per minute, small magazines, etc. I also think someone needs to be keeping track of people who are stockpiling weapons like Nancy Lanza was - there should be some kind of limit for the number of guns you use.

 

I would say, we need to do all the things you say (though I don't think video games or movies are the issue) and put up more restrictions and tighter monitoring. If people want to have a large number of weapons like that, then they have to accept there is going to be a lot of scrutiny. I think there also needs to be a required psychological evaluation of both the owner and anyone who will potential access to the weapon.

 

Yes, there should be safes, and having one should be a prerequisite to ownership, and every step should be taken to ensure the police know exactly who has access to that safe.

 

You are right that gun control cannot prevent violence. But I believe that having stronger laws will make it more likely that people like Adam Lanza and James Holmes are found out before they act, and I think that the evidence bears this out.

[4588686]

real safes are expensive and their cost would be a real burden on people who live in the sorts of places where you actually need a gun for self-defense. 

[Jesus_lol]

Considering how this shooter could have easily killed everyone there with a single handgun if he had enough magazines, arguing about the rifle doesnt make a whole lot of sense. 

 

He had kids trapped in a room and shot them repeatedly, methodically reloading several times. A simple handgun(even a revolver with moon clips) would have been just as easy to do the exact same damage with just one 9mm. Swapping out magazines can be done nearly instantly with practice, and anyone should be able to do it in a second or two.

 

[spoiler] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHUZuyQjH8[/spoiler]

 

Luby's Massacre, the guy killed 24 adults and 20 wounded, using a single handgun at a time(he swapped to a different one halfway through when he ran out of loaded magazines for the first one.) he swapped mags frequently and killed people who tried charging him during a reload.

 

 

The AR15 might have worked well for this shooting, but it certainly was not needed. Implying that the outcome would be different if he had been using a different gun(such as even just one of the two handguns he had with him) is just foolish. 

[Kevin]

He had kids trapped in a room and shot them repeatedly, methodically reloading several times. A simple handgun(even a revolver with moon clips) would have been just as easy to do the exact same damage with just one 9mm. Swapping out magazines can be done nearly instantly with practice, and anyone should be able to do it in a second or two.

 

"Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."