🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

[Holiday]

The mass shooters who kill themselves do it once the cops close in with their guns. These guys are not looking for gun fights, they are looking for easy, unarmed targets. If someone is a threat with a gun, you're going to want a gun to stop them.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Amazing. It's almost as if New Zealand doesn't have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Actually you don’t. Go back and read the Constitution fella...
People who are “into” guns often interpret it as such though.

 

[Batmannerism]

The mass shooters who kill themselves do it once the cops close in with their guns. These guys are not looking for gun fighits, they are looking for easy, unarmed targets. If someone is a threat with a gun, you're going to want a gun to stop them.

I agree, which is why Police carry guns - well not all Police, ours don't carry sidearms (although they have them in a gunsafe in their cars, and the Armed.Offenders Squad are of course armed).

IMO arming teachers is not the solution, controlling the availability of hand guns, automatic weapons and ammunition might help though. We're giving it a try down here. In a year or 2 I'll come back to this thread and we'll see how many more mass shootings we've had compared to the US. If it works I'll let you know - but Australia did it 23 years ago and they haven't had any more massacres since, so I'm pretty hopeful.

I have always thought the USA was a great country and Americans good and generous people - I still think that, but it's also hard not to think that America has a real problem with gun violence.

One final note, before last week's mass shooting the most frequent cause of gun deaths in NZ were people being shot by Police - good guys with guns. Most of those shootings were of course justified.

 

[Aximili86]

Actually you don’t. Go back and read the Constitution fella...
People who are “into” guns often interpret it as such though.

Jesus Christ. This is a stunning statement.

 

[Teelie]

Actually you don’t. Go back and read the Constitution fella...
People who are “into” guns often interpret it as such though.

It's a deliberate interpetation of the 2nd Amendment. The right is too vaguely worded to definitively state anyone is allowed to carry a gun. The only real unambiguous part is states allowed a regulated militia. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not a seperate sentence but part of the regulated militia which could mean either way that the rights of the people in a militia or the rights of the people in general. But it also isn't immune to itself being amended (felons, mentally ill, the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, etc.) so the rights isn't a free-for-all, carry-anything-you-want right either.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

I think people forget (or aren't aware) that the right was written at a time when the country didn't have a standing army, and weren't planning to. I believe with that context the amendment is less ambiguous.

 

[Reaver027]

Even tho why does the right to bear arms equals that you can carry any kind of weapon?
I am pretty sure there are already limits on what weapons you are allowed to have.
So there is precendent for banning certain types of guns for the public.

You could end of with allowing a Colt and a Hunting Rifle and ban everything else and you still have the right to bear arms. Just are just limited in your selection.

 

[Aximili86]

Of course there are limits on what you can have and can't have, as there should be.

People are taking issue with singling out certain types of semi-autos over others, some being okay and others not, when on paper any of these types of weapons in the hands of a former funny-farm inmate or criminal or person generally of ill-will is a horrible proposition.

Hell, just go all-out with it. A ****load of handguns out there hold 14 rounds and you can buy clips pretty much anywhere. Better ban handguns too. I could even get on board with that as a trade-off for some damn consistency.

Or, you know, keep semi-auto rifles legal and just make the background checks a hell of a lot more hardass, many more hoops to jump through. Canada style. That's the sane middle ground here, where people aren't being punished for doing nothing and yet they have to satisfy the government (by way of proving it through having like 10 family members/friends/coworkers interviewed) they're not a wackadoodle or a gang member, or political nut, whatever it may be. Pain in the ass process, but maybe we're there as of now. Necessary, no different to the TSA stuff.

 

[DeadPresident]

The complexity comes from the less than precise wording in the constitution, but also the fact that people don't want to regress in terms of what they have access to. Very few gun enthusiasts are going to gleefully agree to having access to only A and B when they currently enjoy access to A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.

The much larger problem that people seem to continuously ignore (maybe because there's no way of addressing it and it's easier to impersonate an ostrich) is that there are already over 300m guns in the USA. Even if you ban all new sales from tomorrow that does little to curb overall access to guns, and that's on top of trying to get people to support gun-regulation legislature when this has been turned into another dogmatic and irrational political football a la abortion, gay marriage, etc where most folks don't even think through the practicalities they just knee-jerk whatever their side of the political aisle parrots.

 

[Aximili86]

Yep. And as someone else said, there's no bill of rights enshrining this stuff as a right in Australia & New Zealand, it was just a sort of unworded handshake agreement everyone just took for granted.

Totally different historical & legal situation, Australians & New Zealanders are going to roll over and accept mandatory buybacks in a way Americans and even Canadians won't. Not to that extent.

Just get all hardcore on the background checks. Half the gun owners will be cool with it, the other half won't, but the other half can go **** themselves. But you don't just start blanket banning stuff that exists in the millions and the vast, vast majority of owners never point at another person. You go after those likely to misuse them, and stop them getting them in the first place. Those without criminal or psych records of any description, or demonstrable radical political leanings, you can't prevent someone like that from getting a semi-auto. Or, if you do, show your true colors and make it all semi-auto rifles, the whole lot. Every one of them is a nightmare in the hands of someone wanting to hurt other people.

 

[DeadPresident]

I have zero intrinsic respect for anything written in any constitutional document - I’ll judge it’s value based on its ability to benefit citizens here and now.

This trend for Americans to suddenly treat the constitution as some kind of holy script just because it inconveniences them in owning whatever the **** they want is pathetic in a way I can only describe as immensely juvenile.

It’s even more moronic that republicans have managed to turn it into such an effective tool to coral the plebs with.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

Jesus Christ. This is a stunning statement.

I am glad you liked it...

 

[Holiday]

I agree, which is why Police carry guns - well not all Police, ours don't carry sidearms (although they have them in a gunsafe in their cars, and the Armed.Offenders Squad are of course armed).

IMO arming teachers is not the solution, controlling the availability of hand guns, automatic weapons and ammunition might help though. We're giving it a try down here. In a year or 2 I'll come back to this thread and we'll see how many more mass shootings we've had compared to the US. If it works I'll let you know - but Australia did it 23 years ago and they haven't had any more massacres since, so I'm pretty hopeful.

I have always thought the USA was a great country and Americans good and generous people - I still think that, but it's also hard not to think that America has a real problem with gun violence.

One final note, before last week's mass shooting the most frequent cause of gun deaths in NZ were people being shot by Police - good guys with guns. Most of those shootings were of course justified.

New Zealand isnt comparable to America. It doesn't have the same history and problems. A lot of people here wouldn't even agree with your describing cops as good guys with guns because of decades of distrust.

 

[Aximili86]

So...exactly the same bull**** mentality as here then. Cops as a rule are bad, 'cause ______ example of dude doing the wrong thing. It must be institutional!

 

[Donner]

You know it's not just one bad cop. Seriously, head in the sand much?

 

[Aximili86]

The point was, half of these eventually are found to be justified shootings, and the other half are found guilty and do time. This whole distrust-of-cops-in-general stuff is the usual irrational freakout stuff, generally by people who still believe Michael Brown was an innocent.

 

[conan69]

So...exactly the same bull**** mentality as here then. Cops as a rule are bad...

And yet these same people will say why does anyone need a gun, we have cops to protect us.

I know people who absolutely loathe law enforcement as they're racists killers... then turn around and say they will defend you if needed, why do you carry a gun.

 

[Batmannerism]

So...exactly the same bull**** mentality as here then. Cops as a rule are bad, 'cause ______ example of dude doing the wrong thing. It must be institutional!

Not sure if you're characterizing the NZ view on Police there but if you are
I would suggest that New Zealand society has a somewhat different relationship with our Police than American society does. Our Police are probably more like the British Police - a lot of British cops have moved here so some of that culture has come along - and similar to British Police ours don't carry sidearms, which is a continuous debate - particularly when an officer is hurt in the line of duty ( when many people suggest they should carry guns), or they shoot someone in questionable circumstances ( when people suggest they should remain unarmed).

Otherwise, there are probably a lot of similarities - when they are enforcing an inconvenient law people get resentful particularly speeding laws - New Zealand has a very high death toll on our roads, not sure of the stats but I'm sure that Americans are probably a least slightly better drivers.

Having said all that, outside of members of criminal gangs, which are a visible segment of society - but nothing like organised crime in the States or Europe- or the "boy racer" ( illegal street racers) fraternity statistics show that the Police enjoy a reasonable level of trust and confidence ( so they aren't thought of as bad "as a rule")

There are some not so great stats relating to Police arrests/incarceration and Maori ( indigenous people) but that's a whole other issue.

That's a long winded way of saying that attitudes towards NZ Police may not be as negative as in parts if America - if they are as negative as you suggest. I admit that I don't know what the American stats are for comparison.

Cheers

 

[Aximili86]

Cops not carrying sidearms is insane, you're clearly in the minority on that one.

 

[Sithborg]

The point was, half of these eventually are found to be justified shootings, and the other half are found guilty and do time. This whole distrust-of-cops-in-general stuff is the usual irrational freakout stuff, generally by people who still believe Michael Brown was an innocent.

Only because they have made the bar so low.

I will say, with the NRA being caught bringing money into Australia, I think we can call the NRA an organization of gun manufacturers. They are weapons dealers.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The point was, half of these eventually are found to be justified shootings, and the other half are found guilty and do time. This whole distrust-of-cops-in-general stuff is the usual irrational freakout stuff, generally by people who still believe Michael Brown was an innocent.

One of the big issues with these situations is who does the investigation into cops and how seemingly anything can be considered to justify a shooting by a police officer. How often do you see a prosecutor attempt to defend a potential defendant in a grand jury?

This is all before we get into misconduct by cops beyond shootings and how secretive so many police are when it comes to making such information available.

 

[Aximili86]

Well, these last two posts are pretty illumininating. I mean, again, for argument's sake, do you believe Michael Brown was a justified shooting on the cop's part?

That was found to be a legitimate "the contemptible mother****er tried to grab the officer's gun" situation by the Obama-era feds in the wake of the "they local cops are all ****ing racists!" stuff circulating at the time.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, these last two posts are pretty illumininating. I mean, again, for argument's sake, do you believe Michael Brown was a justified shooting on the cop's part?

Was Tamir Rice's death a justified shooting?

 

[Aximili86]

As for the NRA, of course they're pushing weapons. They're the National Rifle Association. That's neither illegal in nor of itself not unwarranted. I kinda have some concerns over the getting involved internationally, but I guess all-in-all ultimately that's up to Australian law. If international lobbying is illegal there, fine, but if not, so be it.

 

[Aximili86]

As for Tamir Rice, yeah. Not exactly the first time a 12 year old kid has pointed a real-looking weapon at a cop. What are they supposed to do? The orange top of the toy gun was removed, you're seriously going to say there aren't tween gang members out there in cities like Cleveland? That ****'s the day-to-day, time to grow up. Time to go after the toy manufacturers, or at least the irresponsible dumb**** parents.