News What has the US done to tackle gun shootings?

[rootX]

Yes, this was emotionally motivated thread, and that was the reason I put this thread in General Discussion initially and didn't have any references in my post. Otherwise, I can only have limited substantial discussion because I don't know much about America as I pointed out in my OP.

Related article from fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...-fuel-wisconsin-massacre-or-was-it-terrorism/

At present, our mental health care system is so fractured, with followup so unreliable, information so scattered and authority granted to psychiatrists so meager, that those with delusions, even those who have expressed the desire and intent to kill others, falling through the cracks isn't the exception; it's the rule.

 

[Jakeus314]

But, I only wanted to know about if something is being done and how successful the government has been in tackling the gun-violence issue)

I believe we need extreme punishment for these actions. The crimes need to be deterred with truly scary repercussions. Prison is horrible and so is the death penalty, but no where near what should be done. This cruel and unusual thing needs examination if we truly want change. 2c

 

[CAC1001]

Aside from the "high-capacity magazines" (I put that in quotes because I wouldn't say anything over 10 rounds means high capacity, it depends), the AWB banned weapons based on their cosmetic features. According to the proponents of the AWB, having certain types of grips and barrel coverings and so forth makes the weapon more dangerous or deadly. The counter-argument (also the view I hold) is that that's like the difference between giving a set of crappy golf clubs to a person who can golf versus a set of decent clubs. They'll be able to hit the ball with either, it's just the decent clubs will be better-made. A lot of media reports have said it would have made the AR-15 James Holmes used illegal, but that's a misconception, as it never outlawed the AR-15. At most, it would have outlawed certain cosmetics of the AR-15 Holmes had.

You also can improvise, I mean if you want to fire forty rounds and have only ten round magazines, you could carry four pistols, and just shift to a different pistol upon using up the ammunition in one.

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't stop the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, who had assault rifles (automatic fire weapons) and large capacity magazines. California has an AWB, but it didn't stop a gang member in 2005 from pulling out an SKS assault rifle (which had to be converted (the SKS is a semi-automatic rifle), itself something that isn't easy to do as the weapons have to be manufactured where you can't just easily convert them), with a large capacity magazine and armor-piercing rounds which are only supposed to be available to law enforcement and the military, and which I believe you need a special license to even manufacture them.

 

[CAC1001]

One other point I thought I'd make (which has also been addressed to some degree in this thread already in the talk about mentally ill people), which has been pointed out by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, is that we as a society have taken the view that it is better to have lots of legitimately mentally ill people out loose in society so as to prevent the few sane people who could be wrongly locked up from ending up so. This was due to a change in the civil rights laws due to I think a SCOTUS case in the 1980s from groups such as the ACLU that changed these laws around. Beforehand, a person like a Jared Loughner for example, would have been committed into an institution, as so many knew he was mentally ill. Because of the laws now though, until the person does something bad, they can't be committed.

For all the talk about how we need to "do something," something had been in place, but it was un-done by those same proponents of rights for the mentally ill. I'm not saying that's bad, as the mentally ill have been horribly mistreated historically and sane people have been wrongly committed in the past (there's a saying that a Democrat is a Republican who's just been wrongly arrested and a Republican is a Democrat who's just had their home broken into or been through a situation in which law and order has broken down), but for all the talk about "gun control" the real problem may be entirely different (i.e. how to get the legitimately ill people off the streets without infringing on sane people's rights). It would be interesting to compare the laws regarding the mentally ill in the U.S. with the laws regarding how they can be committed in other countries.

 

[ThinkToday]

One other point I thought I'd make (which has also been addressed to some degree in this thread already in the talk about mentally ill people), which has been pointed out by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, is that we as a society have taken the view that it is better to have lots of legitimately mentally ill people out loose in society so as to prevent the few sane people who could be wrongly locked up from ending up so. This was due to a change in the civil rights laws due to I think a SCOTUS case in the 1980s from groups such as the ACLU that changed these laws around. Beforehand, a person like a Jared Loughner for example, would have been committed into an institution, as so many knew he was mentally ill. Because of the laws now though, until the person does something bad, they can't be committed.

I think you are referring to "deinstitutionalisation". This came about during JFKs time with the Community Mental Health Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act .

 

[edward]

Aside from the "high-capacity magazines" (I put that in quotes because I wouldn't say anything over 10 rounds means high capacity, it depends), the AWB banned weapons based on their cosmetic features. According to the proponents of the AWB, having certain types of grips and barrel coverings and so forth makes the weapon more dangerous or deadly. The counter-argument (also the view I hold) is that that's like the difference between giving a set of crappy golf clubs to a person who can golf versus a set of decent clubs. They'll be able to hit the ball with either, it's just the decent clubs will be better-made. A lot of media reports have said it would have made the AR-15 James Holmes used illegal, but that's a misconception, as it never outlawed the AR-15. At most, it would have outlawed certain cosmetics of the AR-15 Holmes had.

This is apples and oranges again. Any weapon that can be used to commit mass murder is an assault weapon. The previous description of grips and bayonet attachment is ludacris now. Holmes used an AR15 with a 100 round rotary magazine. Luckily it jammed. How many shots were fired was never disclosed.

You also can improvise, I mean if you want to fire forty rounds and have only ten round magazines, you could carry four pistols, and just shift to a different pistol upon using up the ammunition in one.

Ironically that is probably what a sane person would think of doing.

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't stop the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, who had assault rifles (automatic fire weapons) and large capacity magazines. California has an AWB, but it didn't stop a gang member in 2005 from pulling out an SKS assault rifle (which had to be converted (the SKS is a semi-automatic rifle), itself something that isn't easy to do as the weapons have to be manufactured where you can't just easily convert them), with a large capacity magazine and armor-piercing rounds which are only supposed to be available to law enforcement and the military, and which I believe you need a special license to even manufacture them.

Those guys were criminals and knew exactly what they were doing and why. They also knew where and how to obtain the weapons, which were most likely very expensive unless they stole the weapons themselves.

A person who goes off of the deep end isn't going to be able to do that. Even that is a moot point now that slide stocks and 100 round magazines are available for purchase online.



There are already so many semi automatics and high capacity magazines in the general public it would be impossible to enforce any kind of ban.

We are in a difficult situation to say the least. There are methods available that can detect unstable people, yet filling out a test with 500 true or false personal questions would most likely be declared a violation of privacy.

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

 

[SixNein]

The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.

On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.

 

[CAC1001]

This is apples and oranges again. Any weapon that can be used to commit mass murder is an assault weapon. The previous description of grips and bayonet attachment is ludacris now. Holmes used an AR15 with a 100 round rotary magazine. Luckily it jammed. How many shots were fired was never disclosed.

Any gun can be used to commit a mass murder though.

Ironically that is probably what a sane person would think of doing...

Those guys were criminals and knew exactly what they were doing and why. They also knew where and how to obtain the weapons, which were most likely very expensive unless they stole the weapons themselves.

A person who goes off of the deep end isn't going to be able to do that. Even that is a moot point now that slide stocks and 100 round magazines are available for purchase online.

Remember though that being insane is not the same as being stupid. And otherwise sane criminals are also the ones society has to be concerned about as well.

 

[CAC1001]

The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.

Remember, assault rifles are not available for sale. And any gun can be used offensively. A gun is gun is a gun generally, they're machinery capable of killing (remember unless you believe in Creationism, then humans are biologically animals, so anything that can kill a human can make an excellent hunting weapon and vice versa). There are AR-15s that fire a larger-caliber round, such as 7.62 mm, that are for hunting larger game, but which otherwise look like an "assault weapon." The U.S. Army's M24 sniper rifle system and the U.S. Marine Corps's M40 sniper rifle system are both based off of one of the most popular hunting rifles in existence, the Remington 700. The 700 is not a civilian version of a military sniper rifle, it's the opposite, those sniper rifles are militarized versions of a hunting rifle. Almost all bolt-action hunting rifles today draw their core design from the Mauser rifles from the late 19th century that were used for military purposes. Then there's all manner of handguns and shotguns that for both civilian, police, or military use.

On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.

Was it? There are plenty of Westernized countries that, given enough economic crisis and radical politics, could experience another tyrannical government. Modern liberal democracies do not make obsolete the right to bear arms regarding a tyrannical government. In the United States, it sounds incredibly rare because of how stable our system is and how large our country is (such an instance would probably lead to another civil war if it really happened). But rare doesn't make it impossible.

Also, the concept of the right to bear arms was not created by the Founding Fathers. A lot of people think the right for people to bear arms was a novel concept because of the war they'd just fought with England, but actually, the right to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. By the time the Constitution was being written, the idea that people have a fundamental right to bear arms was something that was considered as normal then as our idea that people have a right to free speech and freedom of religion and so forth today is.

The question was over whether to codify it into the Constitution or not. In terms of what the Founders meant by the word "arms," they meant weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens that they would be expected to muster to milita conscription with. At the time, the weapons used for war, hunting, personal protection, etc...were pretty much the same, and really to a good degree, that is still the case. Yes, there are guns designed solely for hunting, but there are plenty of guns used for all of these things, and military guns can easily be adopted for hunting (they make some of the best hunting weapons) and of course for personal protection purposes, and hunting guns can be adopted for military purposes as I've pointed out.

The difference today is that in addition to handguns, rifles, and shotguns, the military has a whole slew of additional weapons that didn't exist before, that are not commonly owned by citizens (tanks, bombs, aircraft, etc...). Now if one wants to say that citizens should have a right to those to be able to stand up to a modern tyrannical government, well that would require amending the Constitution as interpreting the Second Amendment as covering that would likely be a form of right-wing judicial activism as you are stretching the meaning of the word "arms." The left-wing judicial activist argument is that the word arms only meant weapons of the time and not modern weapons, but by that argument, then one could say the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of free speech and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply against modern forms of search and seizure.

So the word arms today applies to weapons held by both civilians and the military so long as they are commonly-owned types of weapons (handguns, rifles (so long as they are not automatic fire), and shotguns).

 

[rootX]

On related topic, I recall some US military personnel were involved in compromising the US interests in ME/Afghanistan (killing innocent people/burning holy books etc). I believe these personnel are closely related to the US public shooters. The solution for dealing with incompetent military members might be useful at home also.

The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.

A normal person wouldn't do that. It's either terrorists or mad people who are behind these kinds of attacks IMO. It's interesting to note that while guns are widely available but Al-Qaeda has never managed to use them in the US. The point is that it's not that easy to kill large amounts of people even when you are very determined. Waking one morning and feeling like playing with your gun in public is bit easier as the recent massacres suggest.

 

[edward]

It seems like all we are doing is coming up with reasons why the OP can not be answered.

 

[SixNein]

Remember, assault rifles are not available for sale. And any gun can be used offensively. A gun is gun is a gun generally, they're machinery capable of killing

You seem to have missed the point. My overall point is that public risk is a big factor in the discussion. So when we talk about what guns and components should or should not be available to the public, we should consider how much risk is involved. Yes any gun can kill; however, guns have different capabilities to kill over a period of time. And according to those rates, they can benefit offensive use over defensive use. For example, how does a machine gun empower gangs and lone wolf individuals compared to legally abiding citizens?

Was it?

Of course it was different. Just look at the way war was conducted then and now. In addition, compare a gun 300 years ago to a modern machine gun. If you are going to argue "Anything can kill; therefore, guns", you might as well extend that argument to the right to own nukes. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people right?

There are plenty of Westernized countries that, given enough economic crisis and radical politics, could experience another tyrannical government. Modern liberal democracies do not make obsolete the right to bear arms regarding a tyrannical government. In the United States, it sounds incredibly rare because of how stable our system is and how large our country is (such an instance would probably lead to another civil war if it really happened). But rare doesn't make it impossible.

Gun ownership isn't going to stop a tyrannical government. Instead, education is the real protection from such things.

Also, the concept of the right to bear arms was not created by the Founding Fathers. A lot of people think the right for people to bear arms was a novel concept because of the war they'd just fought with England, but actually, the right to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. By the time the Constitution was being written, the idea that people have a fundamental right to bear arms was something that was considered as normal then as our idea that people have a right to free speech and freedom of religion and so forth today is.

What did arms mean then compared to now? In a basic nutshell, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The question was over whether to codify it into the Constitution or not. In terms of what the Founders meant by the word "arms," they meant weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens that they would be expected to muster to milita conscription with. At the time, the weapons used for war, hunting, personal protection, etc...were pretty much the same, and really to a good degree, that is still the case. Yes, there are guns designed solely for hunting, but there are plenty of guns used for all of these things, and military guns can easily be adopted for hunting (they make some of the best hunting weapons) and of course for personal protection purposes, and hunting guns can be adopted for military purposes as I've pointed out.

We are a nuclear power with a gigantic military. We have weak neighbors and we are flanked by fish. The whole argument that we need these guns in the domestic area in case we get invaded is simply risible.

The difference today is that in addition to handguns, rifles, and shotguns, the military has a whole slew of additional weapons that didn't exist before, that are not commonly owned by citizens (tanks, bombs, aircraft, etc...). Now if one wants to say that citizens should have a right to those to be able to stand up to a modern tyrannical government,

Ideas are more dangerous to tyrannical governments then guns. Your not going to win any kind of rebellion unless the majority is on your side. Unless of course, the international community steps into help.

well that would require amending the Constitution as interpreting the Second Amendment as covering that would likely be a form of right-wing judicial activism as you are stretching the meaning of the word "arms." The left-wing judicial activist argument is that the word arms only meant weapons of the time and not modern weapons, but by that argument, then one could say the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of free speech and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply against modern forms of search and seizure.

The word "arms" as expressed in the constitution did mean arms of the day. The question for us to resolve is how should we interpret that today in light of new technologies and the realities of our time? For the most part, this is a job for the supreme court. But the legislator could clarify it.

 

[SixNein]

A normal person wouldn't do that. It's either terrorists or mad people who are behind these kinds of attacks IMO. It's interesting to note that while guns are widely available but Al-Qaeda has never managed to use them in the US. The point is that it's not that easy to kill large amounts of people even when you are very determined. Waking one morning and feeling like playing with your gun in public is bit easier as the recent massacres suggest.

How many people dying do you think is reasonable? What is your tolerance?

In other words, how much risk to the public are you willing to accept?

 

[russ_watters]

On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.

Are you American? That's an odd thing to not understand:

Clearly, their intent would have to be updated if they lived today. But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and has to be obeyed unless 2/3 of us agree to change it. I'm in favor of that, but thus far, it hasn't gotten the needed support.

How many people dying do you think is reasonable? What is your tolerance?

That's a very difficult question. The answer can include some facts and logic, but also includes a significant component of opinion. Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher gun murder rate than most other western countries. Seems to indicate a problem. Trouble is, we also have a much higher car accident death rate. Is that also a symptom of a problem? To really answer that question, we have to investigate why and what we get out of it (ie, more miles driven = more deaths).

 

[CAC1001]

You seem to have missed the point. My overall point is that public risk is a big factor in the discussion. So when we talk about what guns and components should or should not be available to the public, we should consider how much risk is involved. Yes any gun can kill; however, guns have different capabilities to kill over a period of time. And according to those rates, they can benefit offensive use over defensive use. For example, how does a machine gun empower gangs and lone wolf individuals compared to legally abiding citizens?

Again though, machine guns are already illegal, minus a few exceptions. To own a machine gun, you have to go through all manner of legal arm-twisting, and the weapon must be registered pre-1986. It also will cost you an arm-and-a-leg to acquire. Otherwise, the fastest rate-of-fire for a weapon is semi-automatic (semi-automatic (one round fired for each trigger pull).

Of course it was different. Just look at the way war was conducted then and now. In addition, compare a gun 300 years ago to a modern machine gun. If you are going to argue "Anything can kill; therefore, guns", you might as well extend that argument to the right to own nukes. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people right?

I explained what the word "arms" in the Second Amendment means. It does not extend to machine guns or nukes or anything in between. Those are not arms commonly owned by citizens that they'd bring to militia duty with. Also, I wasn't referring just to warfare, but the question of whether there is a need for people to still own arms in modern societies. My point was the existence of modern liberal democracies does not mean that people no longer need guns. Liberal democracies still have violent criminals and are fragile systems in which law and order can break down during certain natural disasters, economic disasters if severe enough, or where even the government could collapse in extreme cases.

Gun ownership isn't going to stop a tyrannical government. Instead, education is the real protection from such things.

Education is what keeps a liberal democracy a liberal democracy, but if the liberal democracy fails and a tyrannical government forms, then education isn't going to mean anything at that point. That is where firearms ownership comes in. And I believe firearms ownership could very much stop a tyrannical government. Look at the fighting occurring in Syria. Those people never had a right to bear arms and were going up against tanks, artillery shellings, attack helicopters, and all the works, but still are fighting there. In America, this is assuming said tyrannical government would be able to maintain complete control of the existing military, which probably would not be the case. A lot of military would probably either defect or aid the resistance movement (or individual states might break off while retaining their own National Guard units). And yeah I know all that is a highly-improbably scenario, but highly improbable doesn't mean impossible.

What did arms mean then compared to now? In a basic nutshell, you are comparing apples to oranges.

Arms then as the Founders intended meant the weapons commonly owned by citizens that would be used to form up a militia.

We are a nuclear power with a gigantic military. We have weak neighbors and we are flanked by fish. The whole argument that we need these guns in the domestic area in case we get invaded is simply risible.

Where did I ever say we needed guns for fear of invasion?

Ideas are more dangerous to tyrannical governments then guns. Your not going to win any kind of rebellion unless the majority is on your side. Unless of course, the international community steps into help.

Guns are not the be-all, end-all, but they are a very helpful tool to have. That's like saying the Internet isn't useful to a rebellion as its the ideas that count. Sure, but access to the Internet can allow the ideas to be spread a lot more thoroughly.

The word "arms" as expressed in the constitution did mean arms of the day. The question for us to resolve is how should we interpret that today in light of new technologies and the realities of our time? For the most part, this is a job for the supreme court. But the legislator could clarify it.

The problem with that interpretation is that then one could say the First Amendment only meant the communications mediums of that time as well. If the Founders had meant the arms of the day, I think they would have explicitly written muskets, not arms. Arms is a general term as advancements in weapons can occur as years go by.

 

[CAC1001]

That's a very difficult question. The answer can include some facts and logic, but also includes a significant component of opinion. Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher gun murder rate than most other western countries. Seems to indicate a problem. Trouble is, we also have a much higher car accident death rate. Is that also a symptom of a problem? To really answer that question, we have to investigate why and what we get out of it (ie, more miles driven = more deaths).

To expand on those points, Japan has a significantly lower gun violence rate than the European countries, even though all have restrictive gun laws. And most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in the inner cities between gangs. If we could stop the gang violence in the major cities, it would reduce America's gun violence rate by an astronomical amount. The causes of the gang violence is a wholly separate issue though.

 

[lisab]

To expand on those points, Japan has a significantly lower gun violence rate than the European countries, even though all have restrictive gun laws. And most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in the inner cities between gangs. If we could stop the gang violence in the major cities, it would reduce America's gun violence rate by an astronomical amount. The causes of the gang violence is a wholly separate issue though.

It's very tough to make an apples-to-apples comparison between countries on an issue like this because culture plays a *huge* role in how individuals react. You use Japan as an example, but they have a tremendous social pressure to conform and not be a "squeaky wheel". Makes it hard to compare them to the US on social issues, since Americans value individualism so strongly.

I agree with your point about gangs. Damn vermin, they are. But we have only to look as far as our screwed up drug laws to see the root of that problem.

 

[russ_watters]

And yeah I know all that is a highly-improbably scenario, but highly improbable doesn't mean impossible.

So then we should think about the Now implications of having a gun policy that is based partly/largely on a highly improbable possibility. Is it worth it?

Arms then as the Founders intended meant the weapons commonly owned by citizens that would be used to form up a militia.

Where did I ever say we needed guns for fear of invasion?

That was one of the purposes of the militia.

 

[Curious3141]

I've only skimmed through this thread, and for that, I apologise. But I was moved to post after having digested the news of the Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre by that Nazi crazy. An incident like that simply would not have happened if civilians were barred from owning and carrying guns (and the law was strictly enforced).

I can already foresee some of the counter-arguments the pro-gun faction might make. Like, for example, that instead of curtailing gun ownership, gun ownership and marksmanship training should be made universal (this argument has actually been used before in the aftermath of other shooting tragedies). The problem with this line of thinking is that most people would be understandably reluctant to carry firearms in a sacrosanct place of worship, and even more reluctant to actually use them. So what's the alternative? Guards and metal detectors at the entrances of places of worship? Not only might this offend religious sensibilities, it is a very oppressive measure indeed. *That* would be like building a police state, which is ironically the very thing that liberal gun ownership laws are ostensibly in place to protect against. There is almost no one who doesn't find modern air travel security to be a royal PITA. Do you really want to see that sort of system proliferate throughout every arena of your daily lives?

The fact remains that, unless guns are kept out of the hands of *all* civilians who don't have an official need to arm themselves, this sort of tragedy is going to recur again and again. Background checks are pretty useless, and there is no way to accurately assess a person's current intent, let alone predict his future state of mind. Excluding people with a history of mental illness is not going to do much either - the man who shot those innocent Sikhs was likely not "crazy", just an evil psychopath who knew exactly what he was doing. He was evil, just like Anders Behring Breivik is evil.

Let's take the second amendment arguments. I think they're old hat, frankly. Do you think there's really a need for a "well-regulated militia" to ensure the security and freedom of the State? What does that say about your opinion of how shaky the foundations of US democracy and liberty are? If you truly believe it's necessary for every citizen to go around armed (or at least own one firearm at a minimum) in order to preserve the sanctity of the State, then there's something very wrong with your opinion of how stable your country is.

OK, let's, for the sake of argument, play devil's advocate here, and take that guff about the necessity of gun ownership to defend your freedoms from the hideous State apparatus at face value. So what's the sticking point at which you'd personally be prepared to mount an armed defence? A tax increase? Increased video surveillance? Phone taps or internet-traffic surveillance enforced nationwide? A lot of these things have been introduced in one form or another in recent history, yet there's no massive armed revolution in the offing.

How about if the police or Feds come to arrest you on a charge you know yourself to be completely innocent of? Would you defend yourself with your trusty gun? There's a chance they could be fabricating those charges (just the sort of thing a corrupt State might resort to) and once they get you away from your guns, they could potentially detain you in lockup indefinitely, and basically do whatever the heck they wanted with you. Would these thoughts be running through your mind, and would you, as a law-abiding, gun-owning, second-amendment-supporting citizen, take pre-emptive action against the *potentially* corrupt State official at your doorstep demanding you surrender your immediate freedom to his custody? Well, I should hope not - if you're sane. You're probably thinking it's an honest mistake, which can be cleared up with the help of legal counsel and the due process that's your guaranteed right in America. But *why*, exactly are you thinking this instead of assuming the paranoid worst-case scenario? The answer is simple: because, deep down, you're convinced the system still functions as it should. That social justice still prevails. And this deeply-held conviction makes your strident belief in the need to own guns for reasons stated in the Second Amendment all the more incongruous.

Let's take it up a notch. What if your government decided, through duly enacted process of law, to make all personal firearms illegal and started requiring you to surrender your weapons to the nearest police station? Would this be seen as a gross violation of your personal freedom? Would you resist it passively by simply ignoring the new law and holding onto your gun(s) (knowing that eventually, agents of the State will come for your firearms, and you, for having broken the law)? Or would you put up an active armed resistance, seeing it as the beginning of the end of "true freedom" in your country?

The point I'm trying to make is that there's no clear-cut line in the sand that most people (let alone everyone) can agree upon as the threshold beyond which personal freedoms have to be defended from the State using firearms. The collapse of your civil liberties is not going to happen abruptly like a "Red Dawn" scenario (I'm referencing the Patrick Swayze movie here) where a militia becomes the last beacon of hope and the last bastion of the American way. If it happens, it's more likely to happen slowly and gradually, and indeed many feel it IS already happening with the insidious erosion of your civil liberties since 9-11 and the passing of the Patriot Act. Like the well-worn cliche of the frog in water brought to a slow boil, you won't feel the heat till its too late. Since no one is likely to be defending their own Constitutional freedoms using their guns, why bother with them?

What about those who want to keep guns for hunting or target practice? There are ways to achieve this without the need for guns to be stored at home. There could be gun clubs with well-protected armouries to hold the guns and ammo. Members of these clubs could book these guns out, use them within a defined area (which might include designated hunting grounds away from populated areas), then return them to the armoury after they're done. No guns or ammo can be brought outside the limits of the club. RFID tags and metal detectors can be used to enforce this. No matter which way you cut it, there's really no *need* as such to have guns at home, where children can get at them with disastrous results.

My last point is this: if stalwart gun rights advocates still insist on the need to hold onto their guns, why stop there? Why not allow grenades or rocket launchers at home? Why not personal weapons of mass destruction - like that clever reference in a Futurama episode to "mutated Anthrax for duck-hunting"? Where should the line be drawn, and more importantly, who are you to decide the line is drawn at firearms, but no further?

For these reasons (and others I won't be getting into), I think it's high time that liberal gun ownership is scrapped in the USA. Other countries are getting on fine despite strict gun control laws, and I don't see the US as being any safer. Quite the reverse, actually.

(I'm not going to enter into a debate about using guns for defending one's home, property or person because, if gun control is properly (even harshly) enforced, then even criminals won't be able to get hold of them, so there shouldn't be a need to use firearms for personal defence to counter this threat. Admittedly, doing this is going to be a very messy task in the US, where guns are pretty rampant, but it has been done successfully in other countries. My own country has the automatic death penalty for crimes committed with a firearm. Draconian? Sure, but coupled with strict border controls, it does the job.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

An incident like that simply would not have happened if civilians were barred from owning and carrying guns (and the law was strictly enforced).

And knives. And a list of other objects too long to fit in this post.

 

[Curious3141]

And knives. And a list of other objects too long to fit in this post.

How many people can you kill per minute with a knife, before you're taken down or otherwise neutralised?

Now compare that with a firearm (even a handgun), and you'll see how silly your argument is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How many people can you kill per minute with a knife, before you're taken down or otherwise neutralised?

Now compare that with a firearm (even a handgun), and you'll see how silly your argument is.

People per minute? What's that got to do with it? He killed six and wounded three. Here is an example where the killer used a knife to kill 8 and wound 15.
Wiki, and therefore unreliable.

 

[SixNein]

Again though, machine guns are already illegal, minus a few exceptions. To own a machine gun, you have to go through all manner of legal arm-twisting, and the weapon must be registered pre-1986. It also will cost you an arm-and-a-leg to acquire. Otherwise, the fastest rate-of-fire for a weapon is semi-automatic (semi-automatic (one round fired for each trigger pull).

Sure, but do you agree with the law?

I explained what the word "arms" in the Second Amendment means. It does not extend to machine guns or nukes or anything in between. Those are not arms commonly owned by citizens that they'd bring to militia duty with. Also, I wasn't referring just to warfare, but the question of whether there is a need for people to still own arms in modern societies. My point was the existence of modern liberal democracies does not mean that people no longer need guns. Liberal democracies still have violent criminals and are fragile systems in which law and order can break down during certain natural disasters, economic disasters if severe enough, or where even the government could collapse in extreme cases.

I think people need to have something at least as strong as a pistol, a moderate rifle, and shotguns. A pistol levels the playing field as far as size. A women could defend herself against a huge guy with a pistol. The others are useful for hunting. But I do consider public risk when deciding what types of weapons or components of weapons should or should not be sold for domestic use. How does a weapon effect gangs and lone wolf terrorist?

Education is what keeps a liberal democracy a liberal democracy, but if the liberal democracy fails and a tyrannical government forms, then education isn't going to mean anything at that point. That is where firearms ownership comes in. And I believe firearms ownership could very much stop a tyrannical government. Look at the fighting occurring in Syria. Those people never had a right to bear arms and were going up against tanks, artillery shellings, attack helicopters, and all the works, but still are fighting there. In America, this is assuming said tyrannical government would be able to maintain complete control of the existing military, which probably would not be the case. A lot of military would probably either defect or aid the resistance movement (or individual states might break off while retaining their own National Guard units). And yeah I know all that is a highly-improbably scenario, but highly improbable doesn't mean impossible.

A bad government isn't going to get formed or continue to exist unless it has the will of a majority. These governments were created because people wanted them by and large. And even in oppressive areas today, you'll find a great deal of internal support for those governments.

As far as Syria is concerned, it had defectors from the military. In addition, what makes you think that the rebels are going to install some freedom loving government? From where I sit, the new government may be just as bad or worse then the existing one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/human-rights-abuses-syrias-regime-condemned

Arms then as the Founders intended meant the weapons commonly owned by citizens that would be used to form up a militia.

We already have a standing army with its own support. Solders don't need to bring their own weapons anymore.

The problem with that interpretation is that then one could say the First Amendment only meant the communications mediums of that time as well. If the Founders had meant the arms of the day, I think they would have explicitly written muskets, not arms. Arms is a general term as advancements in weapons can occur as years go by.

The courts generally decide if new communication mediums should be protected based upon the principles of the constitution.

 

[mheslep]

As a non-local, I have no clue what is been done in the US to prevent shootings from reoccurring. What keeps on happening in the US, most people up here call it insanity. The shooting news catch international attention yet prevention measures and actions from the governments don't come in the international news.

We had two shootings here recently. Politicians acted reasonably to tackle the violence issue.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/24/harper-toronto-gun-summit.html

"The fact of the matter is, most of the guns that end up in the hands of young criminals are illegal guns and they're coming from south of the border," McGuinty said, noting that the prime minister indicated "he's going to take another look at that."
...
The mayor, who has already met with Toronto's police chief and McGuinty regarding the recent shootings, declared a "huge victory" Monday after he was assured by the premier that the province would ensure that $5 million in permanent funding would be earmarked to fund a special police squad to curb violence.
...
McGuinty also pledged $7.5 million in permanent funding for the provincial anti-violence intervention strategy (PAVIS), the provincial extension of TAVIS, which funds similar units in several other Ontario municipalities.

Has US also pledged any money to reduce the gun violence or created organizations to prevent random shootings?

...

Why do you believe pledging money on strategies and "special ...squads" is an example of politicians "acting reasonably", as opposed to political pandering?

If you accept that guns largely enter Canada illegally across its southern border as the quote suggests, what do you suppose would stop guns entering the US illegally across its southern border should the US somehow end private gun ownership?

 

[CAC1001]

So then we should think about the Now implications of having a gun policy that is based partly/largely on a highly improbable possibility. Is it worth it?
That was one of the purposes of the militia.

What kind of gun policy would you suggest? And while for resisting tyranny and invasion, the Second Amendment isn't solely about those things. Codifying into the Constitution the right to bear arms wasn't solely about preservation of the militia, but preservation of the militia was seen as very important as governments historically had disbanded the militia by disarming the people and then forming their own militias to oppress people.

 

[rootX]

Why do you believe pledging money on strategies and "special ...squads" is an example of politicians "acting reasonably", as opposed to political pandering?

They acted reasonably as in responding to the massacre rather than not responding to it. It appears US politicians did not act at all to the recent gun shootings. It was an opinionated post. Otherwise, it's very hard to come up with reasonable actions, backed by proper analysis study, required to deal with abuse of the guns by unfit people.

 

[Curious3141]

People per minute? What's that got to do with it? He killed six and wounded three. Here is an example where the killer used a knife to kill 8 and wound 15.
Wiki, and therefore unreliable.

Your example is a poor one. The circumstances were different in the two cases. In the case of the Sikh temple shooting, the targets (and indeed the victims) were mostly adults. The knife massacre in Japan involved children, and children are far more susceptible to mortal injury - they tend to be less mature in recognising a deadly threat, they may be slower to react correctly to it, they are physically weaker and slower to defend themselves, and, finally, because of their physiology, they exsanguinate (bleed out) faster and are more susceptible to the effects of rapid blood loss.

All I'm asking you to do is to recognise that guns are far more efficient at dispatching targets than knives. If you disagree, then ask your military and police to switch from guns to knives.

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone way off topic.