1 2 3 4 5 ... 47
Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 12:22 a.m.
Javelin said:
02Pilot said:

Speaking as a historian, the fundamental question to me lies in one's interpretation of the Constitution, not necessarily the precise language, but the circumstances behind it, and the intent and relevance of it 230+ years later, as well as the validity of the Anti-Federalist arguments against an organized militia. The Second Amendment, for those unfamiliar, reads:

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.

Anti-Federalists argued that such a militia would be another tool of the state potentially available to impose tyranny on the populace.

It seems fairly clear that many people recognize guns as a tool for defense. While much time has passed since those arguments at the end of the 18th Century, the basic questions remain: where does the greatest need for defense lie, or put another way, what is the greatest potential threat to individual liberty and to the continuation of the social order? If one believes that the greater danger is individuals who may use guns against them criminally, then the potential solution lies in greater law enforcement presence and other state-sponsored programs to reduce the danger posed by these individuals. If, on the other hand, one believes the greater danger lies in the potential state use of organized violence (of which states possess a monopoly by definition), then the potential solution lies in greater individual ownership of guns capable of deterring state use of violence against the populace. In either case, there must realistically be an acceptance of a level of abuse, abuse that either takes the form of overzealous imposition of state power, or irresponsible use of violence by individuals. Which is the more tolerable?

As a historian you should point out that the second ammendment was written (1789) 58 years before the invention of the modern metallic-cased cartridge bullet (1847) and 154 years before the select-fire, semiautomatic assault rifle (1943).

That argument is a slippery slope though too, the First Amendment was made in a time before I could instantly talk to dozens of people around the world with a box held in my hand.

 

Since this is a car forum, cars nowdays are faster than ever, a family sedan is faster than an old Lamborghini. Does this mean that a driver's license should be a privilege only held by select few? Or maybe cars should be capped at 200hp?

 

I still firmly believe that we have a person problem, and until we are brave enough to face it......it will continue.

Steve_Jones
Steve_Jones Dork
5/29/22 12:25 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

Makes sense and a much better reply, thank you. 

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 12:27 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

Why should "guns" in your entire post include assault rifles? That's a legitimate question that even Pro-2nd people are asking today. You can own a car, but not an armed tank. You can own a plane, but not one with missiles on it. You can own a gun, but it shouldn't be a weapon of war. 

Also there's the points of licensure (I need a license to cut hair but not own an assault rifle), training (I need to drive on a road for 50 hours before being able to operate a car solo, but I need 0 training to operate an assault rifle as a civilian), and age (I have to be 21 to buy a beer and 25 to rent a car but only 18 to buy an assault rifle) amongst many, many other arguments and realities such as the disparity in education, familiarity, training, and continuing recertification I needed as a member of the armed forces just to use and keep a pistol versus the actual 0 anything I need as a civilian to own and use an assault rifle. 

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 12:33 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

We have a person problem (which is really a universal mental health care problem, which sadly gets political) AND a gun problem. Full stop. The Constitution was written in a way to change with the times and we must be willing to change it. Not to mention the whole "well regulated Militia" part.

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/29/22 12:38 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

Good post, thanks for the perspective.  I can't say I disagree with anything you said.

In support of your point I would say there are other areas that have high gun ownership rates that are absolute hell holes of gun death (e.g. Chicago)

 

Guns, as the military like to call things, are a "force multiplier" there primary feature, use, and sadly problem is that they make killing easier.  Useful for a 60 year old in their home alone, tragic for a teen with serious issues.  But there certainly are other ways to kill people.

Without guns, as noted previously, those that want the world to burn, or just kill a rival, will find a way.  Guns just make it a bit easier.

Also as noted previously, guns are not, in any realistic scenario, going away, so there is no sense arguing that either way.

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 12:48 a.m.
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

Why should "guns" in your entire post include assault rifles? That's a legitimate question that even Pro-2nd people are asking today. You can own a car, but not an armed tank. You can own a plane, but not one with missiles on it. You can own a gun, but it shouldn't be a weapon of war. 

Also there's the points of licensure (I need a license to cut hair but not own an assault rifle), training (I need to drive on a road for 50 hours before being able to operate a car solo, but I need 0 training to operate an assault rifle as a civilian), and age (I have to be 21 to buy a beer and 25 to rent a car but only 18 to buy an assault rifle) amongst many, many other arguments and realities such as the disparity in education, familiarity, training, and continuing recertification I needed as a member of the armed forces just to use and keep a pistol versus the actual 0 anything I need as a civilian to own and use an assault rifle. 

It doesn't but most importantly I didn't specifically mention "assault rifles" in any way shape or form, you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I meant them.

I didn't specifically mention any certain type of gun on purpose but your reply really underscores a problem with this particular argument: people will really read what they want to in this issue. Please note, I'm not trying to attack you or single you out, there is no emotional aspect to this but I feel the need to mention it.

 

To answer your reply though, an AR-15(I'm just throwing that out there because it's a decent example) isn't the same order of magnitude from car to tank, nor unarmed plane vs f15 from other guns. Wars were fought with bolt action rifles, muskets and revolvers as well. The difference is far less than you'd think.

 

Personally I do own an AR and find it to be an ok multi-tool of a gun. Being able to swap between 22lr and 50 Beowulf is pretty handy really. In the end though I prefer a nice lever action over an AR because it's a much better tool for my purposes.

 

I do really think though that banning a certain type of gun is a much worse idea than actually punishing those that do wrong although I understand why some will see it differently.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 12:51 a.m.

In reply to aircooled :

Certain guns, such as fully automatic "machine guns", though certainly have gone away in the past. Does anybody outside of the military really need to own an assault rifle? It's not good at hunting, or target shooting, or personal defense. It exists only to lay down suppressive fire that's designed to kill people. I should know, I shot Expert in the military and was in a firefight. I have never felt the urge to own or fire one (an assault rifle specifically, not guns in general) again since the day I got out. 

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 12:52 a.m.
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

We have a person problem (which is really a universal mental health care problem, which sadly gets political) AND a gun problem. Full stop. The Constitution was written in a way to change with the times and we must be willing to change it. Not to mention the whole "well regulated Militia" part.

What about the parts of the Constitution that don't involve guns, what parts do you think need to be changed ?

Teh E36 M3
Teh E36 M3 UltraDork
5/29/22 12:54 a.m.

Oh- here's an idea I just thought of- let's use science/statistics to figure this out. Determine who is using these weapons to murder and prohibit them from buying. Not on a specific person level but a demographic level. Lots of potential pitfalls, but let's pretend that men 16-28 are the perpetrators of mass violence with firearms: prohibit them from the purchase or possession thereof. 

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 12:55 a.m.
Javelin said:

In reply to aircooled :

Certain guns, such as fully automatic "machine guns", though certainly have gone away in the past. Does anybody outside of the military really need to own an assault rifle? It's not good at hunting, or target shooting, or personal defense. It exists only to lay down suppressive fire that's designed to kill people. I should know, I shot Expert in the military and was in a firefight. I have never felt the urge to own or fire one (an assault rifle specifically, not guns in general) again since the day I got out. 

Actually the AR platform is very good for accurate long range stuff, there are many people that hunt with an AR and it's good at personal defence because it's a fairly simplistic and easy to use gun.

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 12:58 a.m.
Teh E36 M3 said:

Oh- here's an idea I just thought of- let's use science/statistics to figure this out. Determine who is using these weapons to murder and prohibit them from buying. Not on a specific person level but a demographic level. Lots of potential pitfalls, but let's pretend that men 16-28 are the perpetrators of mass violence with firearms: prohibit them from the purchase or possession thereof. 

But who decides? People are not easily categorized or at the very least not effectively categorized.

Taking away people's rights before they actually do anything to warrant it is not a great path to go down

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 1:04 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

I mentioned assault rifle because that's specifically the weapon of choice in these mass murders that precipitated this whole conversation. Yes, wars were fought with all sorts of weapons. None have had quite the drastic change in circumstances as the assault rifle. The ability to lay down person-stopping fire at that rate, range, and capacity is what makes these shootings so deadly. 

The Texas Tech shooting took 96 minutes to kill 14 people with a highly trained, ex-Marine shooter from an elevated vantage point with a bolt-action. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people and wounded over 400 and fired off over 1,000 rounds in 10 minutes with an assault rifle. Sandy Hook was 26 people in 15 minutes with an assault rifle shot by a 20 year old that had never shot a gun before. The latest one in Texas was an 18 year old that never shot before killing 21 with an assault rifle. And before you say "what about Virginia Tech" because he only used pistols, it took 2 hours and 36 minutes to kill 30 people.

Simply put nothing damages people harder or faster than assault rifles, that's why militaries use them. Even as a gun owner, I can confidently say that banning them is the right thing to do. 

 

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 1:06 a.m.
Antihero said:
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

We have a person problem (which is really a universal mental health care problem, which sadly gets political) AND a gun problem. Full stop. The Constitution was written in a way to change with the times and we must be willing to change it. Not to mention the whole "well regulated Militia" part.

What about the parts of the Constitution that don't involve guns, what parts do you think need to be changed ?

Well we certainly changed the one on slaves and then 3/5ths votes didn't we? And included women's rights to the same rights. And moving forward we can certainly change more. That's a bad straw man argument.

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 1:08 a.m.
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

I mentioned assault rifle because that's specifically the weapon of choice in these mass murders that precipitated this whole conversation. Yes, wars were fought with all sorts of weapons. None have had quite the drastic change in circumstances as the assault rifle. The ability to lay down person-stopping fire at that rate, range, and capacity is what makes these shootings so deadly. 

The Texas Tech shooting took 96 minutes to kill 14 people with a highly trained, ex-Marine shooter from an elevated vantage point with a bolt-action. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people and wounded over 400 and fired off over 1,000 rounds in 10 minutes with an assault rifle. Sandy Hook was 26 people in 15 minutes with an assault rifle shot by a 20 year old that had never shot a gun before. The latest one in Texas was an 18 year old that never shot before killing 21 with an assault rifle. And before you say "what about Virginia Tech" because he only used pistols, it took 2 hours and 36 minutes to kill 30 people.

Simply put nothing damages people harder or faster than assault rifles, that's why militaries use them. Even as a gun owner, I can confidently say that banning them is the right thing to do. 

 

I understand your perspective and thoughts, I can't say I necessarily agree with them though.

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 1:11 a.m.
Javelin said:
Antihero said:
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

We have a person problem (which is really a universal mental health care problem, which sadly gets political) AND a gun problem. Full stop. The Constitution was written in a way to change with the times and we must be willing to change it. Not to mention the whole "well regulated Militia" part.

What about the parts of the Constitution that don't involve guns, what parts do you think need to be changed ?

Well we certainly changed the one on slaves and then 3/5ths votes didn't we? And included women's rights to the same rights. And moving forward we can certainly change more. That's a bad straw man argument.

We did but the wording of your post makes me think that there are other things you thought should be changed in the here-and-now that I was interested in hearing them. It wasn't an argument at all really

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/29/22 1:11 a.m.

It also might be a good time to point out that almost no one, including legally, assumes "bear arms" includes all arms.  There has always been a line (at least in recent history), it's just a mater of where it is drawn.

I honestly don't know how restricting access to some can ever be considered un-constitutional.  (Or how restricting any can be constructional?)

Am I wrong here? Anyone have a perspective on what can and cannot be restricted legally (constitutionally). I believe there was a recent ruling about how CA cannot restrict assault rifles (maybe that was because of the vague definition?) but I don't know specifics.

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 1:13 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

Why not? As a fellow gun owner, articulate the need for an assault rifle. What about universal background checks? Federal and/or state gun licensing? Mandatory safety training and recertification? Why should we not do all of those things? 

In the early 1900s when cars started killing people, laws changed. We got rules of the road, stop signs, license plates, driver's training and driver's licenses, etc, etc. Why should we as firearm participants not facilitate the same?

Javelin
Javelin GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
5/29/22 1:16 a.m.
Antihero said:
Javelin said:
Antihero said:
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

We have a person problem (which is really a universal mental health care problem, which sadly gets political) AND a gun problem. Full stop. The Constitution was written in a way to change with the times and we must be willing to change it. Not to mention the whole "well regulated Militia" part.

What about the parts of the Constitution that don't involve guns, what parts do you think need to be changed ?

Well we certainly changed the one on slaves and then 3/5ths votes didn't we? And included women's rights to the same rights. And moving forward we can certainly change more. That's a bad straw man argument.

We did but the wording of your post makes me think that there are other things you thought should be changed in the here-and-now that I was interested in hearing. It wasn't an argument at all really

Well since you asked, giving land more rights of representation (Senate) than people (House) should absolutely be changed. We aren't the rag tag bunch of loosely affiliated colonies of the 1700's anymore and frankly it's a huge reason why we add a country have a number of problems (and non-politically I might add, it's the structure that's the problem).

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 1:22 a.m.
Javelin said:

In reply to Antihero :

Why not? As a fellow gun owner, articulate the need for an assault rifle. What about universal background checks? Federal and/or state gun licensing? Mandatory safety training and recertification? Why should we not do all of those things? 

In the early 1900s when cars started killing people, laws changed. We got rules of the road, stop signs, license plates, driver's training and driver's licenses, etc, etc. Why should we as firearm participants not facilitate the same?

I'd have to say that going down the "need" path isn't the right way to look at it, at some point someone needs to have the final say on what people "need" and that more than likely won't end well. My thoughts on it is it's a right as a citizen we have and that right shouldn't be taken away from an individual without the individual doing something to warrant it.

 

I'm fine with the current level of background checks and think they are important.

 

I'm not a fan of licencing for the same reasons I mentioned above, it's already a right afforded to us etc.

 

I'm ambivalent about recertification because I don't feel that recertification would lead to less gun violence.

Does that answer your questions? I need to sleep soon but I'll try to stick around a bit longer

 

 

barefootcyborg5000
barefootcyborg5000 PowerDork
5/29/22 1:22 a.m.

In reply to Javelin :

I would ask you to define "assault rifle"

No, not trying to be pedantic. It is a term that is thrown around a lot and mostly in error I think. Most folks use it synonymously with "AR15" but there is little difference between an armalite design and say a Ruger mini 14. And I'm not trying to be overly specific. Ranchers around here use both because the Remington .223 is incredibly effective against wild hogs and coyotes which both have state bounties. Nobody uses bolt guns because both animals travel in packs and often take multiple shots to stop. 
My marlin 60 is a plain looking little .22, and being manufactured after 1982 it has a smaller capacity than designed, as regulated by federal law, but still 14+1. Nobody is going to bother trying to regulate that but simply stating "more than x rounds" gets pretty murky pretty fast. Grandpas .308 lever gun can fire just as quickly (if you want to actually hit anything) as my rifle. 

Then what do we do about the 400,000,000 (known) weapons in circulation? Clinton's assault rifle ban was temporary, and didn't do much about the weapons already in private possession. Do we make millions of owners insta-felons? I'm open to the discussion, but there needs to be clearly defined terms that make actual sense and don't criminalize millions of law abiding citizens. 
 

I tell you this, have the feds ship me 5-round magazines for my 308 and I'll send in my 20-round ones for destruction. I have no issue with that. Same with my 5.56. I'll send in my standard capacity units for 10-rounders. The only reason I have what I have is because the smaller capacity units are 2-3x the price. Still doesn't do anything about my marlin. 

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 1:25 a.m.

In reply to Javelin :

Interesting and I can't say I've thought much on the topic so it's hard for me to make much of a response.

 

I'll probably come back around to it at a later date

aircooled
aircooled MegaDork
5/29/22 1:47 a.m.

One more for you Antihero please:

In your town, for the people who open carry, what would say (I know it's a bit of a guess) is there reason for open carrying?  When they get up and go to the store, why do they strap the gun on? Is it for protection?  If so, what, in general, from? Some sort of civic responsibility? Something else?  

Not trying to trap you, genuinely curious.

(and no, I am not really expecting you to speak for all those people, just an educated guess, then you can sleep :) )

Antihero
Antihero GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
5/29/22 2:00 a.m.
aircooled said:

One more for you Antihero please:

In your town, for the people who open carry, what would say (I know it's a bit of a guess) is there reason for open carrying?  When they get up and go to the store, why do they strap the gun on? Is it for protection?  If so, what, in general, from? Some sort of civic responsibility? Something else?  

Not trying to trap you, genuinely curious.

(and no, I am not really expecting you to speak for all those people, just an educated guess, then you can sleep :) )

I would say it's a mixture of all of those. Some people carry because they are going out in the woods and keep the gun on them during the day. It's a better solution than leaving it somewhere. Some are carrying for defence against people.

 

There are a lot of people that carry because they can basically.

 

It's hard to really describe well how I personally feel about guns except this: I don't feel anything. To me it's a tool with no real emotional impact on me. Sure I might feel like I want one or that I enjoy using them but I get the same feeling from an exceptionally cool hammer or that tool that is in the back of my tool chest that does one thing exceptionally well. I assume that there are people like me in the mix as well.

SV reX
SV reX MegaDork
5/29/22 2:17 a.m.

In reply to Antihero :

I'm not sure where you live. Sounds like a place like Uvalde. 
 

I'm not trying to be dramatic. But I have a friend who lived there. It was a simple, rural place where people felt safe. 
 

It could have happened anywhere. A false sense of security didn't prevent anything. 
 

So what are some of the things we can do to prevent something like this in the future?  It's not a theoretical question. It's a specific question about a specific action that has happened too many times with very similar details. 

Boost_Crazy
Boost_Crazy Dork
5/29/22 3:27 a.m.

The fact is that guns exist. Anything short of eliminating the guns won't prevent these kinds of tragedies. Limiting access to guns sounds good, but in practice has a much greater impact on law abiding citizens than criminals. It can be argued that it actually helps criminals, because they are less likely to face resistance. As others have mentioned, cracking down on criminals who possess guns would make the greatest impact on overall gun violence. Mass shooters are another story. They care more about hurting and killing others more than they care about their own lives. No laws are going to deter someone with that mindset. It was mentioned earlier that 75% of mass shootings were done with legally purchased guns. All that means is that the perpetrators tried the legal method first. Is doesn't mean that they would have given up if they had been denied or of the laws were stricter. We are talking about people who were willing to die. Unless we are are willing to lock up people who fail background checks, they would have made little difference. 
 

So let's talk about eliminating guns. Why do we even have guns? Why do we have the second amendment? As a deterrent to government overreach. At the time, the average citizen could possess a "military weapon." Times have changed. Technology and our civilization have advanced. Someone mentioned earlier that we have a stable democracy and we don't need to worry about our government. But consider, perhaps that is because of the second amendment? Do you think we would be where we out now if over the last 200+ years our government could have imposed it's will by force? "But the average citizen is no match for our modern military." True. But our military is made up by our citizens. And it's different to force your will on someone who cannot resist, than on someone who can- despite the strength disparity. The military can round up a town of unarmed people no problem. A town of armed people- that's going to look a lot different, even if they win, and a much tougher call to make. 

Let's take the whole resist your government part out of this, and break it down to an individual level. Why do law abiding individuals want guns? They want to protect themselves and their families. As much as I support the police- they are not here to protect you. The chance of them being in the right place in time is slim. Your phone will not likely save you. We on this board are also primarily men- I think everyone who has posted so far is a man. Many gun owners are women. The average woman is at a distinct size and strength disadvantage to a man, and many rely on the force multiplier for protection. 

How about more restrictions on the guns themselves? If we can't always prevent the bad guys from getting guns, can we limit the damage they can do? Unfortunately, many of the proposed limits are much more likely to affect law abiding gun owners rather than mass shooters. An illegal gun or magazine is the least of their worries. Many of the proposed restrictions are put forward by people who have little understanding of how guns work outside of movies. "You shouldn't need more than 7 shots." Because in the movie the hero can shoot the bad guy with a handgun 50 yards away with a single shot and he drops dead instantly. In the real world, a trained police officer will often empty his clip from 15 yards and miss every one. Or put three in the chest of the guy with the knife and still get stabbed. Telling Joe and Suzie home owner that they better make their shots count is not very realistic. Handguns are far outmatched by long guns. Handguns are usually little more than scary noise makers in a defensive situation, long guns are much more effective. 
 

So what do we do? What steps can we take that would be more effective than symbolic in stopping mass shootings? My thoughts- 
 

1) I'm okay with stricter background checks to deal with mental illness BUT- it's a real slippery slope. We need a clear definitions of mental illness that increase the risks of violence. Previous proposals would have included PTSD, meaning taking guns from a large number of veterans and law enforcement. I'm not okay with that as a wide net. I think we also need to re-evaluate how we handle crimes committed by minors and their records. I understand why some criminal records of minors should not be sealed, but I think that violent crimes should not be. 
 

2) The frequency of these incidents has increased dramatically. I've heard reports that there is a lot of correlation between the increases in mass shootings and the use of social media. I'd be much more inclined to limit use of social media by minors than to limit gun sales to 18 year olds. I have no idea how to get that genie back in the bottle though. Maybe better education about social media and it's effects to teens would be a more realistic target. 
 

3) I think there should be a quick reporting process on social media sites to address threats. Threats could be addressed in a similar manner as someone making a threat on an airplane. The process would need to get notification to the local authorities ASAP. Of course, this could open a whole new can of worms with fake reports, SWATting, etc.,- hopefully those much smarter than me could solve the technical and legal issues.
 

1 2 3 4 5 ... 47

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
TcyHs7LC8stqiOevkqWOccsbr8c6LaxvMnwa28xLyavmROI3m9qSSdmP4CiAZ6Hh