Texas A&M Shooting

[Ajidica]

Yeah, except when there are people like me who would violently resist efforts to seize my gun. And don't think I'm the only one that would.

Easily solved.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Where did I argue for the seizing of guns? Just make them hard to acquire, and run a government buy-back program. Gun numbers would decline. Over 10-20 years, you'll change the culture.

A great leap forward.

Something like that, if it were even politically fathomable, would change America's gun owning culture. But not in the direction you'd want.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Yeah, except when there are people like me who would violently resist efforts to seize my gun. And don't think I'm the only one that would.

You're not making your case.
The kind of people who would violently protect their guns from the government are exactly the kind of people I wouldn't want to be armed in the first place.

 

[Grisu]

Things like this happen occasionally, but not nearly as often as in the USA (but more often in Germany than in other European countries I think).
I do believe availability of guns is a significant factor but it's not the most important one. In Switzerland for example every male is required by law to have a gun and a minimum amount of ammunition, but then again Switzerland actually has this 'well regulated militia' that the second amendment talks about (just imagine the US government trying to establish a state controlled milita...).

I think theres something seriously screwed up about American (and to a lesser extend German) society that makes people want to kill each other.

just to nitpick a bit, the ammunition at home is no longer true..the practice got changed a few years ago so that now you only keep the gun at home, without ammunition (not that it's hard to get ammo if you'd want to)

 

[Bugfatty300]

You're not making your case.
The kind of people who would violently protect their guns from the government are exactly the kind of people I wouldn't want to be armed in the first place.

Depends on the government I'd say.

Of course I don't think violence would be necessary. Just significant amounts of non-compliance would put a wrench into any significant move towards strict gun control in the US. See Canada's long arm registration law for example. There's simply too many guns and far too few police resources to go after them.

Then again if the government declares martial law and starts going house to house searching for guns and confiscating them by force then that government isn't one I'd or anyone else here would want so...viva la revolución.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Depends on the government I'd say.

Oh don't give me that 'resistance against tyranny' thing.
We're talking about the USA and not effing Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia where 'The Men' come for innocent people.
Rule of thumb: If you can publicly say "I need a gun to protec myself from the government" and the government doesn't immediately send a goon squad to kill you or send you to a labor camp for 20 years, then you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the government.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Oh don't give me that 'resistance against tyranny' thing.
We're talking about the USA and not effing Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia where 'The Men' come for innocent people.
Rule of thumb: If you can publicly say "I need a gun to protec myself from the government" and the government doesn't immediately send a goon squad to kill you or send you to a labor camp for 20 years, then you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the government.

Well good then!

As far as I'm concerned strict gun control would never work in the American society as long as it is a functioning democracy because the the voters will not accept it not to mention restrictions on police power resources would prevent any kind of effective enforcement.

I doubt America will collapse into a military dictatorship any time soon so I find discussing the implementation of strict gun control, confiscations, etc in the US to be pretty moot, redundant and largely speculative. This has been the discussion so far so why not start talking about armed resistance?

 

[AlpsStranger]

The same could be said for slavery in the 1850s, segregation in the 1950s, and the continuing discrimination against homosexuals today.

Complete b*llshit Forma, and I'm quite offended at the tone you've taken here.

1) Slavery is hardly the same as an occasional shooting incident. They're not even partially morally equivalent. It's a stupid comparison. Same with segregation.

2) I forget where I said it, but either here or another thread I mentioned gay rights as the very cause I wanted to support in lieu of wasting my efforts on gun control.

3) The 2nd amendment is actually there. Yes, I agree that it's a case where technology changed the definition fundamentally. Yes, I agree that it would be written differently if AK-47s had existed when it was drafted.

So go ahead, call me names and throw yourself face-first onto the cheese grater that is the gun control debate. Demand that your politicians martyr themselves on a lost cause so we can get more Republicans elected.

 

[Aroddo]

Maybe americans shouldn't start with outlawing all guns.
Maybe the should start with taking away all the irrational joy americans feel at killing, war and violence.
I swear, I sometimes think that americans watch war coverage of their invasion-of-the-year with a big raging boner.
News media seems to lose all viewers unless they are doing a 24/7 violence-report-o-gasm.

The USA practically worships the god of war. First find a better god, then think of taking away the tools for murder.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Easily solved.

You have lost your mind. It's no wonder they get by with accusing anyone on the left of wanting a dictatorship.

You really want run-of-the-mill American gun owners to be threatened with attack helicopters to confiscate their guns?

Did it ever occur to you that many of those chopper pilots have families that probably own guns?

Isn't it going to be a little awkward when you ask people to fight their own brothers, cousins, and fathers?

 

[bhsup]

You're not making your case.
The kind of people who would violently protect their guns from the government are exactly the kind of people I wouldn't want to be armed in the first place.

I guess I should clarify that. I was assuming he was talking about legislators just deciding "we're gonna ban guns" and pass a law that does so, and someone gets S.C. stamp of approval. Basically ruling the 2nd amendment void by congressional vote.

Now if somehow a Constitutional amendment actually made it all the way through to ratification that overturned the 2nd amendment, well then that's the law of the land and I'd be pissed as hell about it but I'd comply. But I didn't think that's what he was referring to.

 

[Ajidica]

You have lost your mind. It's no wonder they get by with accusing anyone on the left of wanting a dictatorship.

You really want run-of-the-mill American gun owners to be threatened with attack helicopters to confiscate their guns?

Did it ever occur to you that many of those chopper pilots have families that probably own guns?

Isn't it going to be a little awkward when you ask people to fight their own brothers, cousins, and fathers?

I thought it was rather obvious I was being only 25% serious.
But seriously, if there was an uprising against the government do you really think that an untrained, uncoordinated group of people with little in the way of military training (or haven't done it recently) with guns of various quality could really stand up against trained soldiers and a fully equipped modern army? For me, that is why the whole 'we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government' argument is sort of silly.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I thought it was rather obvious I was being only 25% serious.

Sorry. It's not always easy to tell when someone is being facetious online.

But seriously, if there was an uprising against the government do you really think that an untrained, uncoordinated group of people with little in the way of military training (or haven't done it recently) with guns of various quality could really stand up against trained soldiers and a fully equipped modern army?

No, I think the US Military would turn on the government if they were forced to attack US citizens. Any government, and that includes a liberal government that I would generally support, has serious problems if it's having to use the army on its people.

A few hardcore militia nuts? Sure, the national guard would do what it had to do. But if we're talking about 20+% of the country even I would be siding with the gun nuts. It's just a bad scene. It's one of the only scenarios in which I would be on the same side as Ted Nugent and that's f***ed up in ways I can't even describe.

For me, that is why the whole 'we need our guns to protect ourselves from the government' argument is sort of silly.

It is mostly silly, but that's no reason to deliberately smack yourself in the political balls over it.

The media-friendly mass shootings are not a big enough issue to require a response that epic.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Complete b*llshit Forma, and I'm quite offended at the tone you've taken here.

The "tone" seems to be all coming from you, not me.

1) Slavery is hardly the same as an occasional shooting incident. They're not even partially morally equivalent. It's a stupid comparison. Same with segregation.

That's good because I never claimed or even insinuated they were "comparable". Now did I?

My point is that in 1850 slavery was still very much in existence but support against it was growing, just like segregation in the 1950s. That taking stands against them would have been perceived as being incredibly unpopular in the South, yet some people were doing so.

Just because some issues are unpopular doesn't mean that people shouldn't take moral stands against them, especially those who are not politicians who are trying to get elected no matter how much they feel they must hide their real opinions to do so.

2) I forget where I said it, but either here or another thread I mentioned gay rights as the very cause I wanted to support in lieu of wasting my efforts on gun control.

Why do you apparently think anybody should be limited to taking a stand against only one moral issue? Why can't someone support both as well as speaking out for abortion or any other moral issue they feel is important?

3) The 2nd amendment is actually there. Yes, I agree that it's a case where technology changed the definition fundamentally. Yes, I agree that it would be written differently if AK-47s had existed when it was drafted.

As I explained above, the Second Amendment doesn't really even pertain. We have always had gun control despite the Second Amendment. And it took the 14th Amendment to give gun rights to blacks.

So go ahead, call me names and throw yourself face-first onto the cheese grater that is the gun control debate. Demand that your politicians martyr themselves on a lost cause so we can get more Republicans elected.

I haven't called you a single name, now have I? OTOH you have just disparaged my opinions without any actual basis while even claiming that I am essentially ruining the political chances of the Democrats to possibly win again against the Republicans.

Clinton successfully campaigned for gun control. He certainly didn't "martyr" the Democratic Party by doing so.

 

[Phrossack]

Maybe americans shouldn't start with outlawing all guns.
Maybe the should start with taking away all the irrational joy americans feel at killing, war and violence.
I swear, I sometimes think that americans watch war coverage of their invasion-of-the-year with a big raging boner.
News media seems to lose all viewers unless they are doing a 24/7 violence-report-o-gasm.

The USA practically worships the god of war. First find a better god, then think of taking away the tools for murder.

Your usual hyperbole aside, I think you're more or less right here. I also think that, in order to bring about this shift in cultural attitude, there would have to be a devastating war that left the US in such a shambles and with so many dead that the American people could not stomach the thought of war for generations.

Throughout US history, however, most wars have been largely beneficial to the US (not necessarily good for the average American or the world as a whole) . Conquering the Natives basically made the US what it is today what with the windfalls in land, agriculture, resources, and still more land, shamefully immoral as much of it was. Attacking Mexico won enormous amounts of the same. The Civil War may have weakened jingoism a bit, for a time, but it was forgotten. War with Spain was successful and much glorified in an age of imperialism and nationalistic dick-measuring contests even though the results were, again, heinous. The US won in WWI, and then came WWII, which has been ceaselessly glorified. Korea not so much, but it wasn't defeat, either. Vietnam changed things, but certainly not for everyone, and the next generation forgot it anyway. More recently, Iraq and Afghanistan have been smaller in scale, less bloody for the US, and less reported than Vietnam. And I'm not even counting the dozens of little wars.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Where did I argue for the seizing of guns? Just make them hard to acquire, and run a government buy-back program. Gun numbers would decline. Over 10-20 years, you'll change the culture.

That sounds like an amazing way to subsidize gun smuggling.

 

[GhostWriter16]

OK, the people that are comparing gun ownership to slavery really need to learn the definition of "Freedom."

Because it would cause a civil war overnight, Corsair. Can you imagine Limbaugh or Beck the day that "Obama came for our guns." The assumption would immediately be that Obama was going to cancel elections, institute Sharia law, and start putting Christians in death camps.

Not only that, but I'd agree with them.

I don't really think Obama's "Going after our guns". If for no other reason, he doesn't want to get killed.

Eh, the founding fathers also instituted things like the Alien and Sedition acts, which blatantly violate the first amendment. The Federalists were never fans of the bill of rights.

This is, once again, the best description of the situation I have heard

The government can collect taxes, why can't it collect guns? Is the American state really unable to enforce laws on its citizens if those citizens own guns? Have gun-owners been immune to the rule-of-law in the US in the past?

Any legislation restricting gun-ownership will be signposted years in advance. People would see it coming a mile off and have time to get used to it. It could also be introduced on an area-by-area basis, encompassing the whole US over a long period of time (like gay marriage legalisation).

I simply do not buy this unenforceability argument of yours. I see no reason why this law should be impossible to implement other than the political powers-that-be being opposed to it. And if that alone is grounds to give up on something then Americans may as well abandon every idea and viewpoint that isn't shared by the Republicrat leadership.

I think you would lose, and rightfully so. Why are you so against freedom?

Something tells me you need a little knowledge of Ben Franklin.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither, and lose both."

Corsair, you're being silly.

Massive gun confiscation would be viewed as a confirmation of the most insane conspiracies of the far Right. It would be nothing but borrowing trouble.

IF we were ever to move to a low-gun society, it would have to be generations from now. Many who are now alive are way past changing their minds about this.

It's just not a battle a sane man wants to start. And sorry to sound cruel, but an occasional mass shooting is a pretty dumb justification for starting Civil War 2.

Indeed.

Yeah, except when there are people like me who would violently resist efforts to seize my gun. And don't think I'm the only one that would.

That sounds like an amazing way to subsidize gun smuggling.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Gun control laws might be needed to ensure security, although Canada has a higher ownership of weopons then Americans and have significant less gun crime then America. This... is a consideration.

Granted much of the guns in Canada are for hunting... but would not America have high number of its civilian held weopons for hunting?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Gun control laws might be needed to ensure security, although Canada has a higher ownership of weopons then Americans and have significant less gun crime then America. This... is a consideration.

Granted much of the guns in Canada are for hunting... but would not America have high number of its civilian held weopons for hunting?

Not exactly.

The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
....
France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

Note: The huge disparity doesn't really doesn't have any thing to do with gun control laws or lack there of. It's an uniquely American cultural thing. And people say the US has no real culture of it's own.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That would seem to be a very misleading statistic. Again:

It would appear that a relatively small percentage of individuals own a large number of firearms.