The Guns thread

[Sithborg]

How the **** is not letting someone have a deadly weapon a violation of human rights?

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

What I am doing is pointing out is that there is no endpoint here. There is no regulation that could have stopped Paddock without also disarming every citizen in the United States.

Paddock appeared to be mentally healthy and was also very wealthy. If Paddock were made legally unable to purchase guns, then who would be able to? Only the criminals and the oh-so-trustworthy and responsible police. Do you really want that?

The citizens have already been largely disarmed already. That is why it becomes ever more common for people to be trapped with no defense for ten twenty thirty minutes waiting for the a good guy with a gun to show up (in Vegas it took an hour for police to breach the door.) Contrast that with the way it was for the first 150 years of the nation, where the citizens were just as well armed as the military. Like I said earlier, if someone had tried this at the same church a hundred years ago he would have been taking fire from twenty guys with six-shooters instantly.

So yes, I agree that the system is broken, but that doesn't mean we should make things worse.

You do realize this argument is a fallacy correct? not even a logical one.

We can literally look at other developed countries and see the statistics show gun control works. It works well. The USA is the only country that has this problem of mass shootings on an almost weekly basis.

So you're wrong in just about every conceivable way.

Don't take this as me being someone who is against guns, I was at the range this past weekend. But I've been trained by the military and understand what improper use of my weapon can cause.

 

[NealKenneth]

How the **** is not letting someone have a deadly weapon a violation of human rights?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

 

[MurkeNyou]

Again, how is not allowing a person have a weapon a violation of their HUMAN rights? So, prisoners should keep firearm privileges? Getting cooky, dude.

 

[MurkeNyou]

Actually you do. The shooter in TX had one done at a hunting/sporting goods store and he somehow passed, even with his previous military conviction of domestic abuse and him having failed a background check to get a carry permit in TX earlier. Somewhere along the line, the correct info didn't get properly entered into NICS. The same thing happened with the Virginia Tech and Charleston shooters.

You don't get checks to get rifles, or honestly stated the gun stores do not check. The only thing they have interest in licensing and permitting is handguns. And usually only certain people are screened with that. It's pretty scary what you can buy in this state if you have the cash firepower wise.

 

[NealKenneth]

We can literally look at other developed countries and see the statistics show gun control works. It works well. The USA is the only country that has this problem of mass shootings on an almost weekly basis.

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

 

[Sithborg]

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

Jesus H Cracker. This is an insane opinion.

 

[NealKenneth]

Again, how is not allowing a person have a weapon a violation of their HUMAN rights? So, prisoners should keep firearm privileges? Getting cooky, dude.

What? If someone is justly imprisoned, that means they have forfeighted certain rights by breaking the social contract. That is basic.

 

[NealKenneth]

Jesus H Cracker. This is an insane opinion.

Haha uhhhh...then debate it?

What's really insane to me is that the hivemind tends to act like the right to bear arms was included for no reason. Like, the founders all sat around and were like "You know...we all really like hunting so let's be sure that no one can take away our hunting rifles."

 

[Webfoot Hero]

You don't get checks to get rifles, or honestly stated the gun stores do not check. The only thing they have interest in licensing and permitting is handguns. And usually only certain people are screened with that. It's pretty scary what you can buy in this state if you have the cash firepower wise.

Actually you do and it doesn't matter which state it is. Any gun sold by a licensed firearms dealer has to be done with a background check on the purchaser.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cms/FPP/FAQs2.aspx

 

[Matt]

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

This is actually untrue and relies on skewed data/incomparable comparisons.

If you compare the United States to SIMILAR countries (read, first world countries), those that exercise stricter gun control have far fewer violent crimes and generally lower crime rates. We get data like yours when we start mixing in third world totalitarian regimes, which have strict gun control, but also a slew of other factors enabling violent crime. In other words, other factors are what cause the phenomenon you describe. Not gun control.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

WHAT. THE. F*** are you talking about? Where the f*** are you getting this information from?

You are confusing statistics from third world countries, not looking at the data for developed nations like the UK, Australia, Japan, etc.

A bunch of idiots with guns does not solve anything, it just causes more destruction. Proper training, yearly qualifications, proper screenings for mental health issues, as well as making sure gun owners know how to properly secure their weapons at home for those with families.

These are not unreasonable request.

 

[Chance Jackson]

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

britain, japan etc don't have greater theft per capita than the US and given how extensive british national crime categorization is compared to what the fbi does I'm not sure you could make 1 to 1 comparison there

 

[Fading]

Personally, I don't want to get involved with the debate ATM. Mass shootings are on the rise. 3 of the last 5 worst modern shootings took place in the last year. It's never "the time to talk about this", and the arguments end up going in circles. I'm with most of you that something needs to be done. I just don't see that happening anytime soon as gun debate has become groundhog's day.

That said, I just can't helped but be bugged by one point. The guy beat his wife, and child. Received some sort of military misconduct charges. Yet on his back ground check he simply had to check one box, and he easily passed.

What's the point of a background check if no one checks it? If child, and spouse abusers can check a box, and get an easy pass. Beefing up background checks, and making certain gun mods illegal should be the least we should be at least talking about post Vegas.

Sorry, I just get tired of the run around. So many shootings, and its never the time to talk about common sense solutions. No one is saying strip the right to bear arms. Yet NRA nuts always act like talking equals just that. So no progress is ever made.

 

[squeekness]

Again, how is not allowing a person have a weapon a violation of their HUMAN rights? So, prisoners should keep firearm privileges? Getting cooky, dude.

I would have to agree with this and the idea that it is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Matt]

Again, how is not allowing a person have a weapon a violation of their HUMAN rights? So, prisoners should keep firearm privileges? Getting cooky, dude.

Herein lies the problem with how the Second Amendment is viewed. Historically, the Second Amendment was not viewed as a universal, inalienable right to own a piece of equipment until the past 30 or so years when the NRA started really exerting political influence and the courts shifted resultantly.

The Second ought to be read in its entirety.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I am not one to suggest that the well regulated militia provision is what governs the Second. I am far more interested in "being necessary to the security of a free state." This lays out an inherent limitation by stating the purpose of the Amendment. The Second is not well perceived as a right to gun ownership. Such is a nonsensical read. None of the other Amendments relate to something that tangible. It is all intangible. Rather, the Amendment is, IMO, best read as a right to self-defense.

When viewed in that light, reasonable restrictions and laws become much easier to justify and pass Constitutional muster. And the Supreme Court has certainly left the door open for such a reading. In fact, SCOTUS, in Heller, has all but adopted this viewpoint with their analysis on handguns being the historically traditional defensive weapon and thus having the highest degree of Constitutional protection, where as weapons not used for self-defense, like sawn-off shotguns (not traditionally weapons used for self-defense) can, and are, regulated.

People who view the Second as an inalienable right to own a tool are misunderstanding it. As I said, none of our rights are that tangible. The Second is the right to self-defense.

 

[Fading]

I would have to agree with this and the idea that it is a privilege, not a right.

Earlier on the news I heard a former soldier say he had to carry his weapon for weeks, with proper training, before he was allowed to put a bullet in it. Yet we have people arguing anyone should be able to buy, and use equivalent weapons, whether outright, or via modding.

I have NP with handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles. However these shooters are using semi automatics, recently one modded to fully automatics. So I'm with you. Joe blow shouldn't be able to easily buy a military level gun that outclasses police officers by far. Without ever having to train with it (like our military has to), or without proper background checks.

I know, I said I didn't want to jump in the debate, lol.

 

[NealKenneth]

other factors are what cause the phenomenon you describe. Not gun control.

Prove it.

Also, the only governing body comparable to the USA in size and structure is the EU, and yeah, those nations are having massive surges in basically every crime except gun violence. Gun violence also differs wildly between nations and cities in a similar way to how it fluctuates wildly between states and cities in the USA. As for the UK specifically, they have a surveillance state that makes the NSA look like nbd.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Even assuming it does work and that it would work just as well in the US, you would still have to consider the cost.

When you violate a human right, there will be consequences. Right now the countries with the most gun control are also the ones experiencing massive surges of other crimes such as theft and rape. They also tend to have other human rights violations far worse than the US, like forced abortions and jail time for stating controversial opinions. Do you believe these issues are unrelated?

There is zero cost to everyone not owning a gun. The world existed for a long time without them.

 

[squeekness]

Earlier on the news I heard a former soldier sat he had to carry his weapon for weeks, with proper training, before he was allowed to put a bullet in it. Yet we have people arguing anyone should be able to buy, and use equivalent weapons, whether outright, or via modding.

I have NP with handguns, shotguns, or hunting rifles. However these shooters ate using semi automatics, recently one nodded to fully automatics. So I'm with you. Joe blow shouldn't be able to easily buy a military level gun that outclasses police officers by far. Without ever having to train with it (like our military has to), or without proper background checks.

I know, I said I didn't want to jump in the debate, lol.

I agree with training just as I also think military style weapons should be scaled back or at least more difficult to get.

 

[Matt]

Prove it.

So let me get this straight. You make an asinine claim, and when rebuked tell someone else to prove the rebuttal?

Without getting into a much longer conversation than I wish to have with someone who has no interest in having an intellectually honest discussion, I will refer you to a World Health Organization study that examined the exact proposition you claimed.

The study found that other first world nations with stricter gun control laws had no statistically significant difference in amount of crime than the US. Those that did have statistically significant difference had less crime than the US.

Conversely, the US a far higher number of gun related crimes, suicides, and accidents, ranging from 7 to 1 to 40 to 1, depending on the country.

Also, the only governing body comparable to the USA in size and structure is the EU, and yeah, those nations are having massive surges in basically every crime except gun violence. Gun violence also differs wildly between nations and cities in a similar way to how it fluctuates wildly between states and cities in the USA. As for the UK specifically, they have a surveillance state that makes the NSA look like nbd.

The studies referenced above are conducted per capita in terms of population, so size is irrelevant as is governing structure. Though we do not use the exact form of government, the studies have been designed to compare the United States to other first world countries with similarities in terms of crime rates, income, and health.

 

[Chance Jackson]

This is all rather pointless once Sandy Hook happened and gun control only became looser

 

[NealKenneth]

However these shooters ate using semi automatics, recently one nodded to fully automatics. So I'm with you. Joe blow shouldn't be able to easily buy a military level gun that outclasses police officers by far.

You think the police in Vegas use bump stocks and semis?

Also, it is interesting to see the slippery slope in action over my lifetime. The establishment used to make fun of people who saw it coming but here we are...it was "just" homosexual marriage but now with Spacey we see the push for pedophilia to be normalized and of course it is barbaric to make someone wait until they are 18 to undergo a sex change operation. I remember when it was paranoia to say rights would ever be stripped past automatic. Now its bump stocks...tomorrow semi-autos themselves.

If you can't see how the establishment does it, you haven't been paying attention.

People who view the Second as an inalienable right to own a tool are misunderstanding it. As I said, none of our rights are that tangible. The Second is the right to self-defense.

Exactly.

Criminals regularily use fully automatic weapons in the US, which means those that follow the law have a right to at least that level of self-defense.

 

[MurkeNyou]

...it was "just" homosexual marriage but now with Spacey we see the push for pedophilia to be normalized and of course it is barbaric to make someone wait until they are 18 to undergo a sex change operation. I remember when it was paranoia to say rights would ever be stripped past automatic. Now its bump stocks...tomorrow semi-autos themselves.

Aaaaannnd we are done. Linking homosexuality to pedophelia, to justify your gun fetish. Ain't no way to debate with that "Civility".

 

[Matt]

You think the police in Vegas use bump stocks and semis?

Also, it is interesting to see the slippery slope in action over my lifetime. The establishment used to make fun of people who saw it coming but here we are...it was "just" homosexual marriage but now with Spacey we see the push for pedophilia to be normalized and of course it is barbaric to make someone wait until they are 18 to undergo a sex change operation. I remember when it was paranoia to say rights would ever be stripped past automatic. Now its bump stocks...tomorrow semi-autos themselves.

If you can't see how the establishment does it, you haven't been paying attention.Exactly.

Criminals regularily use fully automatic weapons in the US, which means those that follow the law have a right to at least that level of self-defense.

Actually, that's not how it is analyzed. Rather, it is, per the Supreme Court's jurisprudence over the past 15 years, analyzed from a historical perspective. That is to say, if a weapon has historically been perceived as a defensive weapon, it enjoys a high level of Constitutional protection. Fully automatic weapons do not have that historic connotation. As such, they are more subject to restriction (or even prohibition). Second Amendment jurisprudence isn't a tit for tat, "they have it so we have it," analysis. You really just make yourself sound silly and ignorant when you make blanket statements about subjects you do not understand.