yoink 321 #101 April 14, 2013 Quote And the whole point is -- criminals and nutters will get guns regardless -- despite any non-constitutional new gun laws you impose on the vast majority of law-abiding citizens -- so nothing you seem prepared to do is going to stop mass shootings! This is where we disagree. - conceptually, at least. I'M prepared to do whatever it takes to limit the availability of guns to the dangerous minority - even if that means I suffer through loss of rights. In the same way I can't make skydiving 100% safe, I can't stop ALL shootings. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop as many as we can, or try to make skydiving as safe as possible... (Warning - this next sentence may well give some of you a conniption fit. Don't worry, it's a thought exercise only. Even I'm not daft enough to suggest it!) Constitutionality aside (bear with me), if you made guns ILLEGAL - all of them, in every form, (selling, trading, owning etc) and asked law abiding citizens to hand their guns in for destruction (however that worked) it would reduce the availability of these weapons to both criminals and nutters - primarily the latter, I admit, but then these are the guys shooting up schools. It wouldn't do too much in the short term, but a hundred years from now? Two hundred? When the CULTURE of gun ownership has changed? That's a different prospect. My issue is that pro-gun people have 2 arguments that they trot out: 1) It's not constitutional... What would it take to alter that? What if 50 people went on a rampage every month and killed a hundred people each? What is the NUMBER or SITUATION that would make you even consider altering the 2nd amendment? It's just an old document. Laws get changed every day and have done since society evolved. What's so special about this one? 2) Nothing you can do will fix it all, instantly. So we should do nothing instead... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #102 April 14, 2013 Quote Constitutionality aside (bear with me), if you made guns ILLEGAL - all of them, in every form, (selling, trading, owning etc) and asked law abiding citizens to hand their guns in for destruction (however that worked) it would reduce the availability of these weapons to both criminals and nutters - primarily the latter, I admit, but then these are the guys shooting up schools. Let's see.... when on the soil that is now America, did a government start collecting guns... and what was the result... just a thought exercise of course, but I think there might be another very bloody war. In the end there would be a lot of gun owners who fought for their rights who were killed, and (albeit less, but still) a lot of government troops who were also killed. And even more citizens who would see the the government will do whatever it takes to disarm and control it's citizens. Which is why that thought experiment will likely never become action. Quote My issue is that pro-gun people have 2 arguments that they trot out: 1) It's not constitutional... What would it take to alter that? What if 50 people went on a rampage every month and killed a hundred people each? What is the NUMBER or SITUATION that would make you even consider altering the 2nd amendment? It's just an old document. Laws get changed every day and have done since society evolved. What's so special about this one? The process for modification is well defined. If you want to get rid of the 2nd, then start a movement to do so. Until then, we are a nation of laws, and can't pick and choose which laws to ignore (unless you work in the whitehouse or the capitol building in DC). *** 2) Nothing you can do will fix it all, instantly. So we should do nothing instead... We should do nothing that will make it worse. And nothing that will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #103 April 14, 2013 Quote And the whole point is -- criminals and nutters will get guns regardless -- despite any non-constitutional new gun laws you impose on the vast majority of law-abiding citizens -- so nothing you seem prepared to do is going to stop mass shootings! So let's abandon seat belt laws because nothing will prevent all road accidents. Lets abolish laws against bank robbery because we can't stop all bank robbers. Let's leave all our doors open when we leave the house because burglars will always get in. Let's not pre-flight airplanes before flying, because things go wrong anyway. YOUR LOGIC SUCKS!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #104 April 14, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn effect you're saying that... In effect you're saying that... In effect you're saying that... QuoteI'M prepared to do whatever it takes to limit the availability of guns to the dangerous minority - even if that means I suffer through loss of rights. I've written about this before regarding gun ownership, but I also see parallels to a thought I had regarding some other fun speakers corner topics, too. In short, it's pretty hard to argue with people who don't stand to gain anything by coming around to your side. But, on the topic of marginalizing people... I'd like to conduct an admittedly ridiculous analysis. I will start by saying I don't stand very firmly behind all these numbers or all the sources (one calls the AR-15 a civilian equivalent of the M-16, but whatever.) Between 1981 and 2010 There were 31,326 violent firearm deaths/year including suicides, police killing people, etc. That source also estimates between 1% and 6% of gun crimes involve "assault weapons", so I'm going to split the different and say 3.5% leading to 1,096 violent assault weapon deaths/year. Life expectancy in the US is about 78 years and pulled out of my ass I'm going to say the average victim is 16 years old. So each of these deaths results in 544,000 lost hours. or a total of 596M lost hours/year. It's really hard to say how many assault weapons they're are but I just found an article that supports a number of about 5,000,000. Suppose that an average assault weapon receives 6 hours of use 20 times a year. Could be going to the range, cleaning it, ogling it, whatever. That's about 600M hours per year. So the scope of the marginalization is probably on the same order of magnitude. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #105 April 14, 2013 QuoteQuote And the whole point is -- criminals and nutters will get guns regardless -- despite any non-constitutional new gun laws you impose on the vast majority of law-abiding citizens -- so nothing you seem prepared to do is going to stop mass shootings! So let's abandon seat belt laws because nothing will prevent all road accidents. Lets abolish laws against bank robbery because we can't stop all bank robbers. Let's leave all our doors open when we leave the house because burglars will always get in. Let's not pre-flight airplanes before flying, because things go wrong anyway. YOUR LOGIC SUCKS! frankly I am against seat belt laws anyways as an infringement of free choice - that said I wear one, and encourage others to wear them, but I still think it should be individual choice. I have no problem at all with laws against bank robbery, because the whole system is set up that when someone COMMITS a bank robbery, they are sought out and subjected to the justice system, the same way murderers (and nutters) are sought out and subjected to the justice system when they break laws against murder or assault. I believe that locking doors is an individual choice, subject to discussions between you and your insurance agent. Far be it from me to tell you what to do. And as for pre-flights, again, I don't really care what you do with your plane as well as you're not taking passengers. So frankly, while I agree with one or two of your suggestions, the others, like your ideas on gun control, SUCK!If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #106 April 14, 2013 Quote Let's see.... when on the soil that is now America, did a government start collecting guns... and what was the result... just a thought exercise of course, but I think there might be another very bloody war. In the end there would be a lot of gun owners who fought for their rights who were killed, and (albeit less, but still) a lot of government troops who were also killed. And even more citizens who would see the the government will do whatever it takes to disarm and control it's citizens. Which is why that thought experiment will likely never become action. I agree on all of the above, which is whyit will never be done. However, I also think it's a terrible reflection on the culture of society that it is EXPECTED that a large number of people would violently refuse to adhere to a law that was democratically passed. The basis of civilized society is that all laws apply equally to all citizens - you don't get to pass on being subject to a law just because you don't agree with it. And to make the next step to actively killing your own people who are abiding by it makes those people nothing short of murderers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #107 April 14, 2013 Quote... nothing that will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. A universal background check does not stop you buying the gun. It just ensures that said citizen IS law abiding. So you should have no problem with it. Come on folks, its really not that hard.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #108 April 14, 2013 did you read my post that you quoted, or are you just using those words to make your point. Because I said nothing about background checks. I have very little problem with background checks. They are an unfunded mandate and they control how a private citizen can sell personal property. That's the only problem I have with background checks. If it's for the good of all, then tax everyone to pay for it. But let's not pretend that background checks (being pushed in response to a criminal act) would stop any criminal act. Cars kill more people than guns. You don't need a license or a background check to purchase and use a car on private property. Gun control isn't about guns any more than the 2nd amendment is about hunting.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #109 April 14, 2013 Quotea law that was democratically passed. we don't live in a democracy. you hereby fail social studies. Quote The basis of civilized society is that all laws apply equally to all citizens - you don't get to pass on being subject to a law just because you don't agree with it. That's right, you have to work in an elected or appointed position in our current government structure to be able to pick and choose which laws you abide by. Quote And to make the next step to actively killing your own people who are abiding by it makes those people nothing short of murderers. True it would essentially be murder. How is it seen historically? It all depends on who wins. The victors write the history. Were the insurgents executed for treason, or did the freedom fighters overthrow the oppressive regime... It all depends on the author's point of view.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #110 April 15, 2013 Quote we don't live in a democracy. you hereby fail social studies. Now you're just sounding ridiculous... Quote True it would essentially be murder. How is it seen historically? It all depends on who wins. The victors write the history. Were the insurgents executed for treason, or did the freedom fighters overthrow the oppressive regime... It all depends on the author's point of view. Who cares about history? This isn't a grey area we're discussing. If a law was passed by a legal government in this democratic country then resisting it, especially with lethal force is both criminal and immoral. You can put whatever justification you want on it - it's not like you're living in some dictatorship where rebellion might be be justified. This would simply be a case of 'no, I've decided I'm outside the law and I'll kill anyone who tries to impose it'. How would that, in any measure of reality or sanity, be the RIGHT thing to do? Why do you get to pick and choose what applies to you? Either you reap all the benefits of living in society and share the burdens, or you get none of either... Once again - this will never happen. Precisely because you don't see a problem with this scenario. That's just batshit crazy to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #111 April 15, 2013 You keep talking about some democratic country. Where do you live?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #112 April 15, 2013 Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #113 April 15, 2013 The US is a Republic. Not a democracy.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #114 April 15, 2013 Quote Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? It's a republic. lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #115 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuote we don't live in a democracy. you hereby fail social studies. Now you're just sounding ridiculous... Quote True it would essentially be murder. How is it seen historically? It all depends on who wins. The victors write the history. Were the insurgents executed for treason, or did the freedom fighters overthrow the oppressive regime... It all depends on the author's point of view. Who cares about history? This isn't a grey area we're discussing. If a law was passed by a legal government in this democratic country then resisting it, especially with lethal force is both criminal and immoral. You can put whatever justification you want on it - it's not like you're living in some dictatorship where rebellion might be be justified. This would simply be a case of 'no, I've decided I'm outside the law and I'll kill anyone who tries to impose it'. How would that, in any measure of reality or sanity, be the RIGHT thing to do? Why do you get to pick and choose what applies to you? Either you reap all the benefits of living in society and share the burdens, or you get none of either... Once again - this will never happen. Precisely because you don't see a problem with this scenario. That's just batshit crazy to me. hmmm. let;s see. I think the nazis actually passed laws before they started taking property and freedoms from jews, and then herding them off to concentration camps. Those actions had the full backing of the law. I think that putting japanese americans in camps on the west coast was done under law. Slavery was legal. Are you saying the north had no right to invade the southern states to free slaves those states' citizens legally owned? Prohibition was legally passed too, it worked out well didn't it. The fact remains that it is possible for minorities to (seem to) pass laws infringing on the majority. The majority would be perfectly right in fighting back against such laws until they can be examined and determined to be out of line. Or in fact, as the 2nd says, to fight back against a tyrannical government...If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skypuppy 1 #116 April 15, 2013 QuoteQuote... nothing that will infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens. A universal background check does not stop you buying the gun. It just ensures that said citizen IS law abiding. So you should have no problem with it. Come on folks, its really not that hard. A background check, or buying card would not be a problem, so long as it didn't infringe upon a person's right to privacy with regards to medical conditions, etc. and as long as it was not a 'registration' which supplies a list to authorities of private property owned by all citizens. In other words, if it's a background check for a buy, the information is supposed to be destroyed within a week. Or it could be a 'buying' card, indicating the individual has passed a background check and is approved to buy 1 or 10 or 15 guns, whatever he wants.If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoink 321 #117 April 15, 2013 Quote Quote Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? It's a republic. By democratic process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #118 April 15, 2013 Quote Quote Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? It's a republic. A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. So everyone is right, and wrong at the same time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #119 April 15, 2013 Quote So everyone is right, and wrong at the same time. you're getting soft here. Though this is the right statement, I'd have expected you to just acknowledge that everyone is wrong. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #120 April 15, 2013 lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #121 April 15, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? It's a republic. A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. So everyone is right, and wrong at the same time. I know I'm showing my age, but I'm still trying to decide if Certs is a breath mint or a candy mint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #122 April 15, 2013 Quote Quote Quote Just so we're clear, you're contending that the US is not a democratic country? It's a republic. A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. So everyone is right, and wrong at the same time. No Professor, YOU, are wrong. We are a Representative (Constitutional) Republic. We are not a democracy, Democracy is Crap, we simply have democratically elected representatives... with the Constitution taking specific steps to protect the minority. And one of those steps (also meant to protect states) needs to be fixed... by repeal of the 17th Amendment. I Vote, to lock up this thread.... its getting stupider by the day. And Kallend already lost the argument concerning the OT, mental illness... that is without "panels of experts". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #123 April 15, 2013 QuoteI'm willing to give up some rights to ensure that the dangerous people don't have access to these weapons And Benjamin Franklin would criticize you harshly. Additionally, you have no ability to know who is dangerous and who is not. If a threat is made, it can be prosecuted... and there are always warnings signs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #124 April 15, 2013 Quotethere are always warnings signs. QFT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #125 April 15, 2013 QuoteWho cares about history? Dee Dee Dee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
