Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

Logic fail... On multiple fronts.

 

First, the fact that you and your friends haven't personally used guns to kill people has no bearing on the fact that their purpose is, in fact, to kill. Your argument here is equivalent to suggesting that the purpose of a car is not to transport people from point A to point B merely because neither you nor your friends have driven it.

 

Second, whether intentionally or not, you've just introduced a strawman (or, at the very least, exemplified once more your frequent challenge with reading comprehension). John didn't say the purpose of guns is to kill PEOPLE. He said the purpose of guns is to kill THINGS.

 

Either way, this series of exchanges serves as further evidence of the validity of my above suggestion that too many people seem to prefer obstructionism and petty distraction over achievable improvement and meaningful progress that will save actual lives.

As you are reading this reply, legally at this moment, why are Americans legally permitted to own firearms? What has the supreme court said on the subject? Come on, you know. Many pages in this topic have been devoted to it. I appreciate that you may not agree with this legally binding reason, but why act obtuse?

[dimreepr]

Logic fail... On multiple fronts.

 

First, the fact that you and your friends haven't personally used guns to kill people has no bearing on the fact that their purpose is, in fact, to kill. Your argument here is equivalent to suggesting that the purpose of a car is not to transport people from point A to point B merely because neither you nor your friends have driven it.

 

Second, whether intentionally or not, you've just introduced a strawman (or, at the very least, exemplified once more your frequent challenge with reading comprehension). John didn't say the purpose of guns is to kill PEOPLE. He said the purpose of guns is to kill THINGS.

 

Either way, this series of exchanges serves as further evidence of the validity of my above suggestion that too many people seem to prefer obstructionism and petty distraction over achievable improvement and meaningful progress that will save actual lives.

 

 

 

Nail well and truly struck.

As you are reading this reply, legally at this moment, why are Americans legally permitted to own firearms? What has the supreme court said on the subject? Come on, you know. Many pages in this topic have been devoted to it. I appreciate that you may not agree with this legally binding reason, but why act obtuse?

 

 

Hiding again I see; tomorrow’s law if it’s wrong today, and given the death and suffering it causes, it is wrong, should be changed;

 

shame on those who’d rather take money than fight for everyone’s right to life; things, should never come before that most basic of all rights.

Edited October 16, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

... You just advanced Prohibition - the most disastrous single legislative effort of the US government since the articles of secession, and famously so - as an encouragement, as something similar to gun control and proof of its possibility.

...

You are right about one thing Prohibition was a disaster.

Now, let's do a quick comparison.

The original constitution did not include a ban on alcohol, and it did not include a right to own guns.

Society and circumstances changed.

Amendments were made to the constitution which seemed like a good idea at the time.

One banned alcohol and the other granted a right to gun ownership.

Society and times changed and they realised that the banning of alcohol caused more problems than it solved.

So they withdrew the alcohol ban.

 

Now, just as soon as the population realise that the right to own guns also causes more problems than it causes, they will withdraw that amendment too.

 

The question is why are we still waiting?

What "problem" has the 2nd amendment solved that is more important than the lives of all those kids?

 

Perhaps, in a hundred years' time, kids at school will learn that both of the amendments were a disaster- but it took longer to get rid of one of them.

Edited October 17, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

Well, I certainly agree with all you say up to this bit.

" Any measures, like insurance, meant to price people out of firearm ownership overtime will fail."

And I agree with most of the rest of what you say after it; in particular I agree that that "Some societal shifts require baby steps. ".

I just think that , if it were done slowly at first, insurance might be a "baby step".

 

Also, thus far I have seen damned near zero other workable solutions, so even if this one is practically doomed (and I accept that it might well be) I think it's more practical that the science fiction world of "signature guns" that are going to cost so much that they will never sell in significant numbers, unless you make that feature compulsory. If yo do that it fails on the same basis as the insurance until you guys remember that the original constitution didn't have the 2nd amendment and, in much the same way that times changed and someone thought it was a good thing to add, times have changed and it would be a good thing to remove.

You did it with prohibition (in spite of the massive self interest of a large drinks industry); you can do it again.

Perhaps I have viewed the spirit of this debate wrong. Most people by nature are compromising. They see a reasonable solution as existing half way between two competing sides. Pro gun advocates take advantage of that by spooling up the tubro in the opposite direction whenever any reform is discussed. If people ask for better back ground checks so that peole with mental health issues can't get frearms Pro gun advocates go straight to crying about government tyranny. We have seen arguments in this thread imply that guns are a right akin to other natural rights and should be as near to free for all as possible. With reasonable people arguing for measured approaches that allow for the general public to keep and bear arms vs pro gun advocates screaming out for total unfettered access to any and all firearms the middle ground with always error toward the side of pro gun advocates. They win on the issue by placing themselves at such an extreme. Maybe it is time for a true anti gun argument to combat the pro gun argument? Overtime that may change where the "middle ground" lay. Change the rhetoric and deglamorize guns bit.

[dimreepr]

The problem, as I see it, is fear:

 

1/ The fear that any limitation on gun ownership will see the ever growing profits of gun manufacturers stop growing or, heaven forbid, reduce; which will, of course, end civilisation or, at least, cripple the economy.

 

2/ The fear that ANY limit on gun ownership would automatically, via the slippery slope, mean confiscation, is just as ludicrous.

 

The fact that change will happen is axiomatic and resistance is futile.

Edited October 17, 2015 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

"The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time.

The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind. "

Modern Europeans don't regard it as a realistic fear either so you can't say it's due to the 2nd amendment (which, of course, we don't have.)

OK, do you realise that I'm sitting here being a counter example, and that it only takes one counter example to refute an assertion?

The Europeans prove that you don't need the equivalent of a second amendment.

So you can stop trying to use that myth as a reason for promoting guns.

It is, of course, largely due to democracy.

We simply aren't stupid enough to vote in a government that would enslave us.

" Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it. "

If we don't put gun control on the agenda how do we stop the children dying?

Or is it that you think your myth is more important than their lives?

Edited October 17, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

First, the fact that you and your friends haven't personally used guns to kill people has no bearing on the fact that their purpose is, in fact, to kill. Your argument here is equivalent to suggesting that the purpose of a car is not to transport people from point A to point B merely because neither you nor your friends have driven it.

The purpose of my car is to protect me from other cars. I used to bicycle.

[iNow]

This is a good listen. Somewhat longer than many, but IMO worth it if you can find and prioritize the time.

 

It's called "The Riddle of the Gun (revisited)."

 

It's by Sam Harris (usually known more for his work arguing against theism and his research into neuroscience) and offers reasonable support and elucidation which is in the end more closely aligned with the points of overtone and (to a smaller extent) waitforufo.

 

http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited

In this episode of the Waking Up Podcast, Sam Harris discusses his views about guns and gun control in light of a recent mass shooting.

[MonDie]

The problem that strong central governments disarm their peasantry to prevent defiance against misrule. That an unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time.

 

The fact that modern Americans often regard that as an unrealistic fear may be the single greatest benefit of the 2nd Amendment. Modern South Americans, modern Africans, modern Indonesians, do not enjoy that luxurious peace of mind.

The slaves only need guns if the slave owners have guns. If the slave owners have guns, they may rebel against the slavery themselves.

It's an arms race. The main reason we have guns is to protect us from other guns.

Perhaps if we start providing alternatives now, like by subsidizing security systems, a virtuous cycle will gradually occur.

[overtone]

Modern Europeans don't regard it as a realistic fear either so you can't say it's due to the 2nd amendment (which, of course, we don't have.)

By "modern Europeans" you are referring to the non-Jews outside the Soviet Union since about 1950?

 

 

The Europeans prove that you don't need the equivalent of a second amendment.

To not be fearful, no. Canadians don't either. To be in fact secure? Tell it to the Jews.

Whether or not Americans in general are too fearful of everything and everybody is a related but separable matter. (I would agree that they are)

 

Americans wish them luck - may the men with guns never again darken their doorway, as they do on three of the seven continents, and have on all six inhabited.

 

When the 2nd Amerndment was written the fear was nothing it not real - within family memory, of many Americans. And the overwhelmingly significant example of slavery - meaning the demonstration of what was important in the successful enslavement of human beings - was right there, unforgettable for anyone witnessing it.

 

 

It is, of course, largely due to democracy.

We simply aren't stupid enough to vote in a government that would enslave us.

 

If that's where safety lies, you will soon have argued every liberal in the US into handing out Glocks as graduation presents. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Dick-Cheney-AP.png&imgrefurl=http://freebeacon.com/national-security/dick-cheney-blasts-obama-foreign-policy/&h=340&w=485&tbnid=irgF1VneocZ2dM:&docid=nyQZUvQz5CCXZM&ei=wh8jVoOMD8exggSZk5zwAQ&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0CIMBEDMoXDBcahUKEwiD9eaal8vIAhXHmIAKHZkJBx4

" Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it. "

If we don't put gun control on the agenda how do we stop the children dying?

Or is it that you think your myth is more important than their lives?

1) I have posted a list of available issues by which we in America could approach reducing gun violence. 2) The post was specifically about gun confiscation. You have now presented the gun control advocate's world view as one in which gun control and gun confiscation are equivalent, substitute for each other. This is a half dozen posts after insisting on the similarity between gun control and Prohibition. This is why it has not happened and probably will not happen in the US. "Present foot, take aim: Fire!"

 

 

The slaves only need guns if the slave owners have guns. If the slave owners have guns, they may rebel against the slavery themselves.

This is true. But what it says is that if weapons exist, one-sided disarmament is vulnerability. It used to be swords, before guns - strict sword control was a part of the imposition of authority on the rabble from Japan to France, when swords were the arm of the local bigmen. Edited October 18, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

Overtone - It's interesting to see you using talking points from Ben Carson (that were also misguided when he said them):

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/11923210/No-Ben-Carson-Jewish-gun-ownership-could-not-have-stopped-the-Holocaust.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/did-gun-control-prevent-jews-from-stopping-the-holocaust_n_2635989.html

[John Cuthber]

 

 

When the 2nd Amerndment was written the fear was nothing it not real - within family memory, of many Americans.

 

... 2) The post was specifically about gun confiscation. You have now presented the gun control advocate's world view as one in which gun control and gun confiscation are equivalent, substitute for each other.

 

 

This is a half dozen posts after insisting on the similarity between gun control and Prohibition.

 

The phrase "within family memory" means nothing. My family, and yours go back to mitochondrial Eve.

So, what you actually mean is "a very long time ago; but I don't want to admit that". 1791 if I recall correctly, so that's about 9 generations ago.

 

The post was about the fact that gun control is not confiscation- it's just that the pro gun lobby keeps pretending that it is.

The relevant quote is "The fear that ANY limit on gun ownership would automatically, via the slippery slope, mean confiscation, is just as ludicrous."

to which you replied "Quit putting it on the agenda, and maybe over time people will quit fearing it."

Nobody had put confiscation on the table; it's just the gun nuts were pretending that it was.

 

So it is you that has "presented the gun control advocate's world view as one in which gun control and gun confiscation are equivalent, substitute for each other. "

Perhaps if people stopped doing that we could make progress.

 

I didn't insist on anything.

I just pointed out some historical facts:

Amendments were made.

They have given rise to problems.

Times have changed.

One of the amendments has been revoked.

And I pointed out an ongoing fact:

The other might be revoked in the future.

 

do you realis that, in making false or twisted claims like those you don't help your cause or the debate?

Edited October 18, 2015 by John Cuthber

[MonDie]

I don't understand the fear of confiscation. Assuming everybody is successfuly disarmed, then nobody has the upperhand. Even if it weren't successful, only the non-law-abiding criminals would have guns, which would be the complete opposite of a powerful government. If it could be done successfuly, I think that would be great. Guns can only protect you from other guns (and even that is in question), not from drones or tanks, and pepper spray will beat muscle every time. We can always keep guns readily distributable in case of an invasion. The real threat that we face is each other, and specifically, those of us who, whether they admit it or not, have a power fetish.

 

For those feminists, guess which sex overwhelming (95% of the time) is the one using a gun to "justifiably" kill somebody. It's table four.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

[overtone]

I don't understand the fear of confiscation. Assuming everybody is successfuly disarmed, then nobody has the upperhand

Start with the police, then. Just to demonstrate good faith.

 

 

Even if it weren't successful, only the non-law-abiding criminals would have guns, which would be the complete opposite of a powerful government.

So organized crime (and possibly the police) are armed, and everyone else has their guns confiscated.

 

The mere threat of that will ruin the career of most politicians in most States. And rightfully so.

 

You're an American, right? Check out how the KKK actually operated, in the local society's oppression of its carefully disarmed target population. Any adult over age 50 in the Jim Crow regions has teenage memories of this. It isn't ancient history.

 

That's how it works - in the Latin Americas, in Africa, in Indonesia, in Central Europe before WWII, in medieval Japan, in the British Isles before about 1850, all over the planet and all through history.

 

 

Guns can only protect you from other guns (and even that is in question), not from drones or tanks, and pepper spray will beat muscle every time.

Guns work against pepper spray, and they work against people who are younger, bigger, stronger, more numerous, etc. They also work in advance, rather than only at the crisis moment, by threat. That is in theory their dominant, most common legitimate use in self defense - the trouble that never happens.

 

The real threat that we face is each other, and specifically, those of us who, whether they admit it or not, have a power fetish.

Exactly. So where, today, would you expect to find such people? In which lines of work, say?

 

 

 

The "proto-constitution" was amended.

that amendment was made.

There was no such thing. The Constitution was written. Certain of its provisions were late additions, and for idiosyncratic reasons were labeled "amendments". They were not included by the ordinary process of amendment, as described in the Constitution, but instead part of the original ratification.

 

 

You really are being absurd.

I'm attempting to straighten out a basic confusion of yours.

 

 

That was the legislation that got rid of prohibition.

I want to "copy" that legislation that got rid of prohibition.

There is a fundamental difference between amending the Constitution to further restrict the government and extend the rights and liberties of the citizenry, and amending it to allow the government increased powers over a citizenry newly curbed in its rights and liberties. People will notice which of these you are doing.

What I want to do is essentially the process that got rid of prohibition.

Are you beginning to get the hang of that?

You are mistaken in that delusion. You will not fool Americans.

Edited October 18, 2015 by overtone

[ydoaPs]

More data: most Americans are in favor of more gun control.

[John Cuthber]

(1) Start with the police, then. Just to demonstrate good faith.

 

 

(2) That's how it works - in the Latin Americas, in Africa, in Indonesia, in Central Europe before WWII, in medieval Japan, in the British Isles before about 1850, all over the planet and all through history.

 

 

 

(3) Certain of its provisions were late additions, and for idiosyncratic reasons were labeled "amendments".

 

 

 

(1) OK, in the UK police do not routinely carry guns.

(2) The important word there is "history".

(3) so, there was something to which they were additions, and that's what they amended.

OK

So.

Which of these is not a fact?

Amendments were made.

They have given rise to problems.

Times have changed.

One of the amendments has been revoked.

[MigL]

" The wheels on the bus go round and round... "

And the bus keeps going nowhere !

 

Can we stop arguing about what can't be done, people ?

And focus on what CAN be done !

 

Even Waitforufo has made a suggestion ( along with some other people on both sides of the argument ).

He suggested training.

So how about having to take a training course in order to be able to buy a firearm ?

It would introduce a waiting period ( or cooling off period for mal-adjusted people ), for a thorough background check, and make sure that whoever purchases a gun knows how to handle ( so he doesn't carelessly shoot himself or others ), and store it ( so its accessible for self defense but his young children can't get at it )

[John Cuthber]

" The wheels on the bus go round and round... "

And the bus keeps going nowhere !

 

Can we stop arguing about what can't be done, people ?

And focus on what CAN be done !

 

Even Waitforufo has made a suggestion ( along with some other people on both sides of the argument ).

He suggested training.

So how about having to take a training course in order to be able to buy a firearm ?

It would introduce a waiting period ( or cooling off period for mal-adjusted people ), for a thorough background check, and make sure that whoever purchases a gun knows how to handle ( so he doesn't carelessly shoot himself or others ), and store it ( so its accessible for self defense but his young children can't get at it )

That's a reasonable idea.

Now let's wait for someone to use the "slippery slope" logical fallacy to explain why it's confiscation and thus a breach of the constitution.

[overtone]

 

 

So how about having to take a training course in order to be able to buy a firearm ?

It would have to be free, or very low cost - both in time and money. That is of course possible - basic gun safety is pretty simple.

 

Given that, sure - good idea. No Constitutional issues visible.

 

It doesn't handle the background check issue, though - we want a new background check on each gun purchase, whether the buyer has been through training at some time in their life or not.

[waitforufo]

Even Waitforufo has made a suggestion ( along with some other people on both sides of the argument ).

He suggested training.

So how about having to take a training course in order to be able to buy a firearm ?

That is not what I suggested. I suggested that training be provided to all in K through 12 education.

 

Requiring training as a precondition to purchasing a gun would be an infringement on the right to bear arms.

[overtone]

Requiring training as a precondition to purchasing a gun would be an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Not if it were free, and immediately available to all. Your K-12 classes would serve.

 

Notice that simple possession of a firearm would not be covered, in this formulation: keeping and bearing of arms not purchased or previously purchased is not mentioned.

 

The third amendment has some interesting relevance - it has been invoked in court rulings:

 

 

One of the few times a federal court was asked to invalidate a law or action on Third Amendment grounds was in Engblom v. Carey (1982).^[20] In 1979, prison officials in New York organized a strike; they were evicted from their prison facility residences, which were reassigned to members of the National Guard who had temporarily taken their place as prison guards. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled: (1) that the term owner in the Third Amendment includes tenants (paralleling similar cases regarding the Fourth Amendment, governing search and seizure), (2) National Guard troops count as soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment, and (3) that the Third Amendment is incorporated (that is, that it applies to the states) by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment

Edited October 19, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Requiring training as a precondition to purchasing a gun would be an infringement on the right to bear arms.

He shoots and scores!

[iNow]

Requiring training as a precondition to purchasing a gun would be an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Perhaps an infringement, but a constitutional one (as ruled by your very own frequent citation).

 

From DC v. Heller:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… …Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Edited October 19, 2015 by iNow

[StringJunky]

I read a bloke getting done for 'felony of endangerment' for allowing the conditions for his six year old to shoot his 3 year old in the head. So, one can get done for negligence, it seems. Leaving a loaded gun around is a felony if children get hurt with it.

Edited October 19, 2015 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Not if it were free, and immediately available to all. Your K-12 classes would serve.

 

 

 

 

Wait, why does training have to be free? The guns are not free either and gun purchases can be taxed. So I do not see that paying for training would be an infringement.