Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A Thread For Gun Rights Arguments (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: A Thread For Gun Rights Arguments
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here you go, Lyr.

I'll join you in a bit. It's okay if you don't have anything else to add from your last comments in the other thread, I plan to respond to those when I have enough time/interest to do so.

[ December 14, 2012, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me just be clear: this is an issue to be discussed whether you like it or not. Arguing we should keep the status quo is just as political as saying we should change it.

I won't be posting in here again until you change the thread title.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would you like me to change it to?

What a paradox!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to worry. Gun rights activists and favoring politicians (mostly but hardly only Republicans and conservatives) will be expending considerable time, money, and oxygen to explain to us why this *isn't* the time to turn this into a gun rights debate.

But to answer your question in the other thread-absolutely that's the question right now! Properly sensitive mourning and commiseration is all well and good, but I think you can guess how many deaths it has ever prevented unless tied to something that motivates action and discussion, whatever the issue is.

Politically I do sympathize with gun rights proponents, because if there's ever a time they *wouldn't* want to discuss the topic, it's when there are over a dozen dead children-not just adolescents but children-looming over everything. Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'. Politically it's a disastrous time to consider the question for proponents.

Hopefully the response of gun control politicians will be 'tough!'. I'm past sick of the same organizations and politicians (looking at you, NRA) who lobby for fewer controls and more guns, or at the very least resist kicking and screaming efforts at regulation, hiding behind the notion of 'respect' to avoid talking about it. This is the time it needs to be talked about, because once again the question of gun control has inserted itself on the front of the political stage...though in fact it's always there, but usually ignored...since the NRA is a scary organization.

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
What would you like me to change it to?

What a paradox!

I don't think you meant it this way (or at least...well, not overtly), but the title clearly reads as a sharp criticism for those who do want to discuss gun control-as though they are being rude, or disrespectful to the dead and families, by wanting to do so. I've though for a few minutes about other interpretations, but your remarks in the other thread make it difficult to read it another way. The title of the thread itself is an attack.
Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not getting involved here yet, as thinking about this is making me cry.

But if you want a history lesson on gun control and massacred kindergarteners, this is probably useful to read. It hasn't happened again since.

And with that, I'm out until at least tomorrow.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
What would you like me to change it to?

What a paradox!

I don't think you meant it this way (or at least...well, not overtly), but the title clearly reads as a sharp criticism for those who do want to discuss gun control-as though they are being rude, or disrespectful to the dead and families, by wanting to do so. I've though for a few minutes about other interpretations, but your remarks in the other thread make it difficult to read it another way. The title of the thread itself is an attack.
Yeah, I totally see that. It wasn't intentional, really.

Or more specifically, it was meant as a self-deprecating attack that also tagged Lyrhawn, since I'm as guilty as anyone. I didn't need to argue with Lyr the moment he brought up gun rights. And in the Trayvon Martin thread I was behind many, many pages of gun-rights argument.

I see in hindsight that it could look like I was just trying to dig at Lyr or whatever, but I wasn't.

Actually, if anything, it was self-serving: I think it's far, far more likely that anything that I say in a gun rights debate is going to be seen as offensive or insensitive to the victims, at least by most on Hatrack.

I didn't want to do that. I guessed most people in the thread would find it offensive and offputting in a way they aren't bothered by someone saying "we need more gun control."

So I started a new thread, selfishly, so that I could argue with Lyr and whoever else and not be seen as the callous insensitive jerkbag who doesn't care that a classroom full of kindergarteners was just murdered. Ugh. Just typing that is depressing. [Frown]

Anyway, I honestly don't know what Lyr would like me to change the title to. I hope he comes back and sees this and understands it wasn't meant as an attack against him, though. If he still prefers a new title, I'm happy to hear suggestions.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

Politically I do sympathize with gun rights proponents, because if there's ever a time they *wouldn't* want to discuss the topic, it's when there are over a dozen dead children-not just adolescents but children-looming over everything. Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'. Politically it's a disastrous time to consider the question for proponents.

I think I explained in the other post that I'm actually fine with this discussion, now that we're out of the other thread. I don't think it's bad to bring it up.

I do think the whole premise is foolish, though. I mean, you sarcastically suggest a way better solution!

quote:
Well, I don't know, maybe if the teachers or janitors had been strapped this wouldn't have happened, or something-widespread concealed carry being one common 'suggestion'.
One of the problems with trying to prevent events like this, as Lyr said he wants to do in the other thread, is that if we really could reliably predict who would do things like this, keeping a gun out of their hands is about the weakest, most timid action you could take. Why not go Minority Report on their ass.

But we can't. So we don't. We can guess who might be more or less likely to do something like this, but we're wrong a lot. People are complicated, and hard to predict.

So I think any preventative measure that relies primarily on prediction is seriously flawed. Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths.

So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm interested to know how proponents of a law requiring some kind of mental evaluation before purchasing a gun envision the law being drafted and enforced.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Difficultly.

But doing nothing hasn't kept anyone from y'know... opening fire on a crowd at a political rally with a thirty round hand-gun.

In some respects it would have been easier to implement thirty years ago, in other ways it will be more difficult thirty years from now. Either way sick people have suffered little to no hindrance when they arm themselves for mass murder.

quote:
Strapping up all the school teachers takes advantage of the fact that, accurate predictions or not, most teachers aren't psychopaths.
We clearly attended very different kinds of schools.
Posts: 2297 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.

What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of a preventative measure. It's reactionary.

I hate that the discussion is being framed as a very exclusive either-or: take guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees, which is impossible because we can't predict the future, or give more people guns so they can shoot the shooter. I guess it's completely unthinkable to try to limit access to guns generally.

Posts: 9778 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah this thread is awesome and the title is totally totally mature and situationally appropriate and definitely makes me want to argue gun rights in good faith
Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
So we'd have, overall, a net increase in decent people who could take preventative measures in the moment of crisis, rather than guessing when and how a crisis might happen in order to forestall it.

What you are describing is pretty much the opposite of a preventative measure. It's reactionary.

Can you explain a little more about what you mean?

I can think of at least one or two ways it is very straightforwardly "reactionary," but they apply to any step that might be taken as a result of a high profile shooting. Because any such measure would be, well, a reaction to the shooting.

If you mean something beyond that, I didn't understand.

quote:
Originally posted by Jon Boy:
I hate that the discussion is being framed as a very exclusive either-or: take guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees, which is impossible because we can't predict the future, or give more people guns so they can shoot the shooter. I guess it's completely unthinkable to try to limit access to guns generally.

I'm not sure how it's an either/or. Limiting access to guns broadly is a goal shared by lots of people. It would seem to me that taking guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is far less extreme (notwithstanding the fact that it's impossible) than simply limiting access to guns, period.

I think, at its base, the more traditional argument is "limit access to guns" vs. "make access to guns easier."

I tend to think the focus on limiting guns just for crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is sort of an attempt at finding an equitable middle ground. I'm just not sure how effective or reasonable it is.

Parkour: It's okay, I've never seen you argue anything in good faith anyway. If you want to try, though, feel free!

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, dan. Double down on your flippancy. Also tell us that the teachers should be strapped.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm confused. Are you still trying to shame me into not talking about this because I'm being insensitive?

First of all, I made a new thread for that very reason. You, Rakeesh, Lyr, etc. had a point about the title. It's no good to make a new thread for this discussion if the title itself is going to be seen as offensive. Defeats the whole purpose.

But now that we're in the thread, where anyone too shellshocked by the tragedy to want to deal with frank arguments knows they probably shouldn't wander in, I don't see the point in... well, I'm not sure what you'd even suggest, really, as you haven't said it.

Some form of treading more lightly than I have been, I assume? Or just rolling over and conceding that yes, mass killings only happen because of guns, and if we just got rid of the guns then this sort of thing wouldn't happen anymore? That would probably be best, right? Disagreeing with gun control in the light of such a tragedy is really just hideously inappropriate.

I'm not going to do that, sorry.

... And did you seriously just try to scold me with the fact that I repeated Rakeesh's flippant, sarcastic quote? Like it was some really bad word choice I decided to introduce to the conversation? I used his language to make my point.

Do you have a problem with the language, or with my point? If the language, shouldn't you also be deriding Rakeesh for saying such an insensitive comment?

And if it's that you disagree with my point, and have no objection to the language used, then I think you did a poor job conveying that.

I think that you disagree with my point, but actually arguing about it didn't sound as much fun to you as trying to find ways of making me seem like a monstrous, insensitive troll. So you harped on the language I used. Feel free to play that game all you want, man. The people I'm interested in having a discussion with already know to what extent, if any, that's an accurate characterization of me.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't worry Dan, you already gave more of a response then Parkour deserves.

More on this subject later.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm in a tough bind here, on one hand I feel guns should not just belong to whoever whatever willy nilly and some effort should be made to work towards prevention.


On the other hand I want to eventually collect fully working vintage WWII era weapons for use in my 3-4 acres of swampland at ceramic targets because its cool.

edit: forgot a very important word [Big Grin]

[ December 14, 2012, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Treating these incidents like a force of nature that we just have to weather rather than prevent in the future is a big part of the problem. School massacres aren't hurricanes.

I've sort of lost my desire to talk about this much more, I've already exhausted most of my energy on Facebook, and I'm too tired and too sick of it.

And what's the point? Nothing will be done. Our gun control "laws" are a joke. You can order thousands of rounds of ammo in bulk with no checks. You can buy a gun in a story with a simple felony check or at at gun show with absolutely no checks at all. And yet gun rights advocates still bitch every day about how oppressed they are by some imagined police state they live in. It's bullshit and I'm sick of it.

We make people go through weeks of tests before they can drive, we make people go through months of tests before they can fly, we make people go through years of school before they can be pharmacists, all because these are inherently dangerous activities that can kill people. But they aren't meant to kill people. Guns are meant to kill people, but we don't have any sort of structure in place to make sure people handle them responsibly. The heart of that juxtaposition is the problem, and I'm done trying to argue with people about it. This nation is seriously messed up, and no body count will ever change the minds of those who don't see the problem for what it is.

So I give up.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want a hint at my second response, its because you said you've never seen me argue in good faith. Ok, bro! I can see how much you've taken from our prior interaction, I just feel that more enthusiastic about this!
Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Parkour
Member
Member # 12078

 - posted      Profile for Parkour           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lyrhawn: dont give up. This is the exact time to press. This is it.
Posts: 696 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
Lyrhawn: dont give up. This is the exact time to press. This is it.

The NRA won. Democrats don't have the balls to bring it up.

Obama today gave me a little hope. I think his emotional press address was genuine, and I think he's sick of it. He's had to give this speech a half dozen times now and it's the exact speech every time, but nothing ever changes, and nothing ever will. It's like the Les Mis song.

But I think come tomorrow he'll shut up, even though he has nothing to lose politically. This will get put into a drawer until the next shooting, and we'll do this dance all over again.

I'm sad. I'm a little heartened by the fact that, after all of these events, I still have the capacity to be sad, but the type of sadness has changed. It used to be a militant sadness, now its a hopeless one.

This country is broken on the issue of violence, and I don't think it will ever be fixed.

Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm hopeful that, as this shooting doesn't just involve so many people but most of them very young children, perhaps Democrats will approach this fight with something *near* the seriousness that the NRA and Republicans will...if the fight happens.

----

Dan, before I reply-how serious were you about armed teachers being a good idea?

Anyway, as to not being able to predict...well that's a tough question. With an enormously powerful lobbying organization, as well as nearly half of our political system, resisting nearly any effort to actually attempt *to* predict, as well as make it more difficult to get weapons and ammunition if the prediction fails...

Well. I think it's something to throw up your hands and say there's nothing to be done. Perhaps if the anaconda would loosen its coils *just a little*, we might begin to get an idea of what could be done.

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
I'm interested to know how proponents of a law requiring some kind of mental evaluation before purchasing a gun envision the law being drafted and enforced.

I would make it a federal license, like Safety and Physiological Firearms Purchasing License, and have two written tests, two hands on tests, one being for safe handling of a firearm, the other for mental stability. And proof of ownership of a safe storage device, be it a lock on a gun case, a trigger lock or a safe.

When I applied to for an armed security job at my local Navy base, they had a written phyc eval, that had multiple questions dispersed through out like "I am always angry" "I am often angry" "I am rarely angry" "I am never angry", and I suspect they were checking for too hot and too cold answers. I answered "rarely" and passed...so a similar type of written test designed by psychologists and then a half our sit down with a psychologist where they discuss why you want a gun, how you feel about violence, etc.

The one thing that I'm not sure at all how it would work is this: firearms can be passed up and down family trees with ZERO paperwork, legally. My father can give me one his legally registered guns, and it is mine, with no background check or registration necessary...and I could give one to my son (in 15 or 18 years depending on if it is a long gun or a pistol).

I would think that the costs of this program should largely be shouldered by those seeking to purchase firearms, but not to the point that the cost becomes restrictive in and of itself.

I would also say that for those who already own firearms, they would have a full calendar year to come and get certified (at no cost) or turn in their weapons for auction or destruction, or risk making their guns federal crimes, likely I'd say a misdemeanor, but possibly a felony.

To Lyr: Don't give up bro, not all of us gun guys are in favor of NRA style, oppose all restriction, black and white thinking. This country is constantly growing and changing and the more tragedies like this shine a spot light into the clear and definite lack of proper regulation.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf_, a few follow-up questions:

Do you think a federal licensing system as you've outlined would be ruled constitutional?

How frequently must your proposed license be renewed, and at what expense?

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The second amendment says
quote:
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.
And screening for safety and sanity in my book falls under concept of "well regulated".

As to renewal...how about every ten years? At the cost of the applicant.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Parkour:
If you want a hint at my second response, its because you said you've never seen me argue in good faith. Ok, bro! I can see how much you've taken from our prior interaction, I just feel that more enthusiastic about this!

I won't have much time to properly reply till later. But from my phone I just wanted to say:

Honestly, mostly I remember you specializing in drive-by snark. HOWEVER: I sometimes get you confused with Sam. Sam does both lots of drive by snark and actual arguments. So, it's totally possible I've seen you argue substantively in good faith, and just gave Sam credit for your remarks.

If so, I'm sorry. I retract my remark about never seeing you argue in good faith, regardless, because I no longer trust my memory on the subject.

I'll be back to talk about guns and rights and stuff later tonight or tomorrow.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need, why draw the line at mandatory psychops?

Whether or not such a ruling is constitutional (it probably is given various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts) is kinda irrelevant. That's up to the courts to decide as long as it passes a vague common sense test.

You probably thought the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional but it is [constitutional].

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...
quote:
What would happen if the USA stopped trying to "police the world"?...

...The short answer is that many countries which most people cannot find on a map would return to slaughtering each other and the Americans would be blamed for not doing anything about it, again. World economies would struggle as dozens of economic powerhouses would now have to secure their own defenses and world economies would collapse as the world shipping and trade lanes would now be unprotected and open to piracy, terrorism or control by hostile nations.

http://www.quora.com/International-Politics/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-stopped-trying-to-police-the-world
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy   Email Jon Boy         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
Can you explain a little more about what you mean?

I can think of at least one or two ways it is very straightforwardly "reactionary," but they apply to any step that might be taken as a result of a high profile shooting. Because any such measure would be, well, a reaction to the shooting.

If you mean something beyond that, I didn't understand.

You're talking about giving teachers guns so that they can take down shooters. This is not preventative, because it doesn't stop someone from walking into a school and opening fire. At best it allows someone to react quickly after the first shots have been fired. Perhaps "reactionary" was the wrong choice of word on my part, but what you're describing certainly isn't preventative.

quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
I'm not sure how it's an either/or. Limiting access to guns broadly is a goal shared by lots of people. It would seem to me that taking guns away from crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is far less extreme (notwithstanding the fact that it's impossible) than simply limiting access to guns, period.

I think, at its base, the more traditional argument is "limit access to guns" vs. "make access to guns easier."

I tend to think the focus on limiting guns just for crazy people who will go on shooting sprees is sort of an attempt at finding an equitable middle ground. I'm just not sure how effective or reasonable it is.

I think I missed that you were just responding to Rakeesh. I thought you were essentially saying, "Since predicting who will go on a shooting spree won't work, we should rely on concealed-weapons carriers to solve the problem." If that's not what you meant, I apologize.

[ December 15, 2012, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]

Posts: 9778 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...
quote:
What would happen if the USA stopped trying to "police the world"?...

...The short answer is that many countries which most people cannot find on a map would return to slaughtering each other and the Americans would be blamed for not doing anything about it, again. World economies would struggle as dozens of economic powerhouses would now have to secure their own defenses and world economies would collapse as the world shipping and trade lanes would now be unprotected and open to piracy, terrorism or control by hostile nations.

http://www.quora.com/International-Politics/What-would-happen-if-the-USA-stopped-trying-to-police-the-world

Stone, no one is arguing to disband their military, cease peace keeping or stop promoting freedom of navigation. But the Royal Navy didn't spend nearly as much relative to other nations, two power standard not withstanding.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're talking about giving teachers guns so that they can take down shooters. This is not preventative, because it doesn't stop someone from walking into a school and opening fire. At best it allows someone to react quickly after the first shots have been fired. Perhaps "reactionary" was the wrong choice of word on my part, but what you're describing certainly isn't preventative.
I think reactive is a better word than reactionary, because is prescribes a behavior that reacts to a given situation.
Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Blayne, various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts? An appeals court just recently overturned an Illinois state ban on concealed carry. This ruling was based on a previous Supreme Court decision. Bills restricting gun rights have frequently and repeatedly been overturned in the courts. There is enormous precedent. In this country - a constitutional republic - the Constitution is always relevant, especially when crafting legislation. Seeking to pass laws to curb gun violence while ignoring this fact wouldn't be productive.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SCOTUS, or at least the half that approved overturning the ban, is wrong.
Posts: 21434 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
capaxinfiniti...you have asked some good questions but have yet to comment...so, what do you think of the idea I'm suggesting?
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Blayne, various gun laws never seemed to be seriously challenged by the courts? An appeals court just recently overturned an Illinois state ban on concealed carry. This ruling was based on a previous Supreme Court decision. Bills restricting gun rights have frequently and repeatedly been overturned in the courts. There is enormous precedent. In this country - a constitutional republic - the Constitution is always relevant, especially when crafting legislation. Seeking to pass laws to curb gun violence while ignoring this fact wouldn't be productive.

Maybe, but it still isn't relevant given US history. The US during the Civil War for instance, suspended habeus corpus, additionally the Emancipation Proclamation was also not going to hold up to scrutiny. Killing that dude in Yemen, an American citizen, was certainly unconstitutional. The "is it constitutional" rhetorical question you ask, is of no value.

Also, even if it weren't, its a problem that can be fixed. Just as slavery was fixed (by a margin of two votes!)

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A chart

A comic Lyrhawn will find bitterly amusing.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The gubermint already wastes 900 billion$ a year on a military you don't need...

quote:
Stone, no one is arguing to disband their military, cease peace keeping or stop promoting freedom of navigation.
So, how much does it cost to have global military presence for peace keeping and freedom of navigation as 900 billion is "not needed"?
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can we shut up about global military presences and talk about gun control and the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold and already people are trying to make sure that we don't dare use this incident to dare in any way reform gun laws thanks.
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm in moderate support for stricter eligibility laws, but I'm not gonna spend that much effort on it because I don't see it as a solution. This doesn't happen because it's easy, and give me two weeks, and I could come back with an illegally purchased fire-arm with no paper trail linking back to me, or heroine, etc. Advocating it isn't reactionary, but thinking that it's an equalizer is. We make a compromise with freedom, but we'll still wind up frustrated, in my opinion.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
just gonna repost this durm and strang here and let everyone get back to whatever worthless runaround is going to keep our hands tied all the way to the next shooting

quote:
The tragedy here is well and beyond a thing for the children who died. The families are all but wrecked forever in unimaginable anguish. The survivors and their families will live with this forever and the event will shape and clutch and claw at them in one way or another for the rest of their lives, affecting and likely diminishing them in innumerable ways. The school will live in the shadow of this incident. The district will. The state will. The nation will. We'll all become a little bit more paranoid of incidents like these and our schools will become a little bit more cold and withdrawn and afraid and parents will be too and this weird ugly specter will become just a little bit more of our national character. The world will become a more chilled and afraid and unwelcome place and this fear will seep in and be evermore the environment of socialization for children. None of what will come of this (and sure as Harris and Klebold are still people who forever changed our schools, so too will this shooter be) is worth any of the rights that the reactionaries are already circling the wagons to defend, ceaselessly. It is their goal, and their job, to make sure that we don't Politicize the Event. It is their goal, and their job, to keep the talk in circles and at all costs recycle old outrages and get the entire impetus for change that this event should represent stuck and drowned in a world of talking heads and intransigence. In every last one of these shootings, we can always bitterly talk about how we're just not going to change anything and have to go through this again, and again, and again. Always, the Next Shooting.

And today, the Next Shooting is a man murdering family members, then walking into a K-4 and gunning down children. With a big ol' final score. A nice big one. And the NRA-styled crowd does not and will not and can not look at the final tally and the gross hideousness of such an event and say "maybe it's time to reform things." They only say "wow, this will make it a real chore to distract people away from reform and make sure nothing changes, because guns/second amendment." The entirety of this incident is mangled into perversion in their heads. More than anything I think the world would be served by touching up the code of the universe, swapping some assets here and there, and having them nobly be used as the replacements for the children who were killed. Let them take the place of purely innocent kids. Let them lie in a pool of blood, drowning from a sucking chest wound, gargling their last, watching an insane person coldly murder others around them. Let them fade to black with the unpropitious and morbidly horrifying realization that their body will barely be cold by the time people like them are already trying to make sure that no matter what, we never let things like this incident successfully turn into things that are for preventing this incident.

In short, **** this, **** everyone responsible for the most prosperous nation having gaping, callously neglectful holes in the place of a mental safety network, **** all the people whose first reaction to this is to clutch their guns and spew grassy dogshit about how this could only have been prevented if those good citizens, moviegoers, and kindergarten teachers were allowed to carry their own arsenals, **** every pundit and talking head trying to turn it into a oh we'll just kill each other with knives or rocks, **** everyone clutching their pearls and telling everyone not to politicize the issue when it's already direly political like an arrow through the heart of gun zeitgeist in this nation, **** it all, goodnight.

stop defunding medical care networks
stop deprioritizing mental health care support in states
reform gun laws
kick status-quo out
peace

Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 11443

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh hey, ANOTHER public shooting today. This one here in Vegas:

quote:
A man was dead and a woman critically wounded following a shooting Friday night at the Excalibur.

Las Vegas police responded to the Strip hotel about 8:30 p.m. after gunfire erupted in the front lobby of the Strip resort, officer Laura Meltzer said.

Nope, definitely not the time to talk about gun control.

[Wall Bash]

Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
capaxinfiniti...you have asked some good questions but have yet to comment...so, what do you think of the idea I'm suggesting?

My follow-up questions were related to the two main concerns I have with your proposal. These are mostly pragmatic concerns, and don't necessarily mean I disagree with you.

Before the District of Columbia v. Heller case it would have been possible for laws governing gun ownership to be enforced under the "well-regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment, but this decision ensures gun rights outside the context of a militia.

It will be very difficult to create preconditions, such as a federal license, to gun ownership. Because the right to bear arms is an enumerated right, not a privilege, any obstruction to the free exercise of that right will be highly scrutinized by the Court. Every step in the licensing process - the psychological evaluation/screening and gun registration and all associated costs, for example - decreases the chance of the Court allowing such regulations to stand. I know you don't consider the process you detailed to be overly burdensome, but such a system would would be prohibitively difficult for those with limited means, especially if one must undergo such a test at each renewal.

The psychological evaluation itself poses significant concerns. Essentially, it constitutes a mini-trial. A medical professional would have to conduct the test. More probable still, it would have to be multiple qualified medical professionals. I doubt a constitutional right would be made void based on the medical opinion of one person, especially given the nature of psychology. It's not like seeing the tumor on a mammogram. And in cases of test failure, an appeals process would have to be provided, or else allow for a re-test after a reasonable amount of time has passed (considerably less time than that of renewal.) Ultimately, I find it unlikely that the Supreme Court would allow a entire classification of people, who have broken no law, to be denied a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Currently, the only citizens who lose gun rights are felons.

Ten years between renewal sounds like an arbitrary number (perhaps you have a reason for choosing 10) but it too poses certain problems. It's too infrequent to be useful - in that it provides the protections desired by the system - but more frequent tests wouldn't be practical. When you look at the objective of this system - keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally derange, distraught or otherwise mentally unfit - so much occurs in the 10 year span of a life, a person could be 100 percent fit to own a gun at the time of the test then commit a murder/suicide 7 years later, well before the mandatory renewal.

Sorry if this was a short treatment of what you proposed. Those are my main concerns. I wanted to get the broad ideas out there before I retired for the night so it doesn't exactly flow.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
umberhulk
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for umberhulk   Email umberhulk         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no "time" to talk about gun control. Every day is a day to talk about gun control. Turning a tragedy into a rhetorical victory is annoying, even though I'm a proponent of the basic eligibility-law argument.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
...the fact that a bunch of K through 4 kids barely even have their bullet-ridden bodies cold ...

[Angst]

I didn't think even you would stoop this low...my God man, what the hell?

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Capax, people regularly lose the right to vote if you commit a crime, a right far more important than the right to bear arms. I don't find your argument convincing.

Also Capax didn't you support the exact same system for voting registration? Which has the exact same difficulties for people of limited means to acquire id to exercise a fundamental right and a universal human right?

quote:

So, how much does it cost to have global military presence for peace keeping and freedom of navigation as 900 billion is "not needed"?

You do not need 900 billion to accomplish those goals, this is not a difficult proposition to imagine, but one that very likely involves increased cooperation with the other UNSC members.

Much of that budget is due to waste and procuement costs, which could with the political will be streamlined. Secondly you have something well above and beyond the 2 power standard, you have 12 or more super carriers. France only has 1, Britain only has maybe 2. While Russia and China possess carriers they aren't super carriers along the size of the Nimitz or Gerald Ford class.

Things get foggier with the airforce and land army but honestly I feel the marines and special forces units are all you need; while the national guard and a much smaller federal army suitable for homeland defence. As long as you have a draft to keep a core of your population trained and able at all times you can readily reexpand it in an emergency scenario.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vadon
Member
Member # 4561

 - posted      Profile for Vadon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a long post and I wrote it on a mobile device. Sorry for any typos.

I think the problem with this discussion,more than anything, is that people are so locked into their opinions that they no longer listen to what the other people have to say. I think this is an issue because there are good points being made by people on all sides that deserve to be listened to. I'm not someone who says each person deserves to have their opinions treated with equal respect, far from it. But I do think that good ideas deserve to be heard regardless of from whom they originate.

The first thing I'd say is that I believe the advocates of gun rights are correct in their argument that no amount of gun control legislation--even well enforced--will stop these tragedies from happening. If changes in gun control laws wouldn't solve this problem, then bringing it up every time an instance of gun-related crime happens does seem to be making political hay out of a tragedy.

As much as I dislike the NRA there is some truth to their claim that guns don't kill people, people do. These are severely disturbed people who believe that heinous violence will bring them some sort of favorable consequence. Be it media fame, correcting some injustice against them, proving a point, whatever. I don't want to speculate on what makes these folks tick. But I will say that the thought of gun violence being the solution to their ails is not entirely spontaneous.

I remember going through this song and dance on Hatrack when former Congresswoman Giffords was shot. I argued (and still believe) that a lot of our problem is that we glorify violence in our society. We use violence as escapist entertainment, and for those who can distinguish between reality and fantasy that's not really a problem. But the people who commit these atrocities lack the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality--or at the very least, use rational judgement. And these people are culturally inundated with a violence loving society.

Yet I'm not going to say we need to remove all instances of violence in our pop culture. I play violent video games. I watch violent movies. I am a huge batman fan. But I'm not about to go out and be a vigilante crime fighter because I am capable of recognizing that Batman is a fantasy.

What I will say is that we need to change the way we think of our mentally ill. Our cultural problem is our bootstraps mentality that if you need help you are a moocher and weak. We need to remove the stigma of treating mental illness as well as encouraging treatment of those who need it. Even as I write this, I know I ought see therapists for my own issues. But I hate talking about them because of the social norms I feel like I'm violating. It shouldn't be that way.

The biggest solution to these tragedies, I think, is to have a system in place that can help those who need help before they do something atrocious. That is very abstract, I know, but I think it's a point that is often lost on those who ardently support gun control legislation.

All of that being said, to quote Eddie Izzard, while people may kill other people, I think the gun helps. It is absolutely ridiculous to me how accessible guns are. While I don't think that gun control legislation would prevent these tragedies, I think they would help.

The best analogue I can think of to a gun are cars. We are required to insure them-- and if not our car at least the liability our cars are accountable for when we get into an accident. If we want to use them, we need to be licensed in their use proving that we are competent of the rules of the road, know how to use the car, and we are capable of driving. We also have strict rules on the maintenance and registration of our vehicles. Why do we have so many rules on our cars? Because they are extremely dangerous metal beasts that when put in the wrong hands pose a major risk to our communities. But our cars serve an integral part of our lives. They are necessary for us to commute when our public transportation systems are completely useless(I'm looking at you western Washington). So we go through the pains of the DMV to use them.

My question is this: why don't we take a similar approach to guns? A car's purpose is to transport people, but they have the side effect of posing a great deal of risk that you might harm someone. A gun's purpose IS that it poses a risk of harm. Yet these weapons are less tightly regulated than our cars? That just seems absurd to me.

If you want to have a gun, you should prove that you know how to use it and be subject to evaluation as to whether you ought be allowed to have it in the first place. If you want to say that my opinion is unconstitutional, then so be it. If we can't introduce sane gun regulations, then I want to change the second amendment. Gun ownership shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. If you want to say you have a right to self-defense, I'll agree with you. But I'll say you're only allowed to defend yourself with a gun if you've proven yourself as deserving the privilege of owning a gun.

Posts: 1820 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vadon:
It's a long post and I wrote it on a mobile device. Sorry for any typos.I remember going through this song and dance on Hatrack when former Congresswoman Giffords was shot. I argued (and still believe) that a lot of our problem is that we glorify violence in our society. We use violence as escapist entertainment, and for those who can distinguish between reality and fantasy that's not really a problem. But the people who commit these atrocities lack the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality--or at the very least, use rational judgement. And these people are culturally inundated with a violence loving society.

Just on this point I want to say I disagree. Nearly every country in the world imports American entertainment en masse. We watch your movies, play your video games, and listen to your music, but gun deaths are a fraction of the amount they are in the US.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding constitutionality, what the court rules one day is by what they will rule another. Sodomy laws for example have one case saying yes, another saying no. At least one of the same justices was in the majority opinion both times. Times change, people- even justices- change. In the abortion debate, people are always talking about overruling roe v wade. The increase in gun violence may very well change the minds of the court.

People kill not guns is a great mantra but if you have an unarmed man coming in, his death toll might be one maybe two. The crazy man in china who attacked with a knife this week killed no one. People choose to pull the trigger, but without the gun, a whole lot less people would die. Speed and efficiency drastically effect the death toll. Denying that is just plain foolish. Also, making it harder for people to get a gun legally offers more opportunities for some one to be stopped. I don't have any illegal gun connections right now so if the laws weren't so simple, I would have to make some, during which time someone might intervene. It makes a shooting a preplanned event. Maybe the preplanned part wouldn't have mattered yesterday, but for a lot of shootings, it would.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
imogen
Member
Member # 5485

 - posted      Profile for imogen   Email imogen         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure people living in the US who haven't lived in other countries can actually comprehend how alien the gun culture there is.

For most other countries, the idea of being able to shop for a gun at a mall the same way you would shop for clothes is inconceivable. Guns are available, legally, in the US like they are nowhere else in the world.

Posts: 4389 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I know you don't consider the process you detailed to be overly burdensome, but such a system would would be prohibitively difficult for those with limited means...
Hey, remind me: how do you feel about Voter ID laws?
Posts: 36936 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  ...  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2