The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[rah]

Some of the NRA tv shows were pretty hilarious also. The fashion show one had me in stitches. Fashion for concealed carry for women.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I might understand the theorical idea for rights that are inherent to humanity take on life (like freedom, equality and so on).
But to being able to bear firearms ?
That's just a very weird, US-specific right that has nothing to do with the root of mankind of with happiness or with dignity or whatever. To value it more than life (actually, to value it at all) is what I find so completely baffling. Life not worth living if you can't go legally buy and walk with a Colt sounds beyond caricature.

The claim that guns are necessary to maintain liberty overlooks (seemingly wilfully, at this point) both the other countries who've managed to figure it out, and our own history of oppression despite the 2nd Amendment. There's been no positive correlation shown between a widespread, civilian ownership of guns and liberty. "Positive correlation" meaning that when one variable goes up or down, the other does too. Correlation doesn't prove causation - does having guns promote liberty, or does liberty allow people to own guns? - but in this case, causation is down the road a bit, because we can't even demonstrate a strong correlation between the two.

 

[Arwon]

To me, that's a clear indication that limitations on other rights are a-okay, but the right to bear arms must remain untouched.

That's pretty funny I'll be honest

 

[El_Machinae]

I did mean it in a negative way, because it means that the conversation is not honest. It doesn't matter if our argument is sound regarding magazine size not benefiting people in the wilderness, because you will seek any answer to that question. You will make efforts to make it convincing, but that's about it. It's just a rabbit hole. 15 paragraphs later oh, and you didn't even care about whether or not your position was correct. You'll just modify it to be more convincing next time.

You'll notice that you believe that it's okay to shoot the Walmart shopper if he's pointing his gun at people. It's just a psychological quirk that you think of a pointed gun as indicating threat, but a holstered gun isn't. The difference between a holstered gun and a pointed gun is about 2 seconds. It's just a social consensus that a pointed gun is a huge multiple more threatening then a holstered gun. And yet, preventing me from brandishing absolutely limits my ability to defend myself and others.

It's clear that the Walmart shoppers found the longarm threatening, enough so that they wisely decided to flee the premises if they were responsible for any of their loved ones. Given that they had only 2 seconds which they could use to respond, I'm sure I think they did the right thing.

Given that I would have thought he was a threat as well, I would have wanted to brandish for purely defensive reasons. Mainly because he had the initiative, and I don't see why we should let bad guys have the initiative. But the entire social cohesion falls apart if the good guy with the gun brandishes defensively against the person he's afraid of.

The idea that social cohesion can also fail merely by bringing a weapon to the place where people don't want guns, even subconsciously, we can see why one solution to this problem is to prevent the guy from bringing the gun in the first place. Because the alternative is families fleeing the area proactively, because they're not stupid.

Shall not be infringed is strong language, I agree. And yet, I think that the accused murderer should not be allowed to sit in the witness stand with a 45 on each hip and hand grenades on his vest.

You'll have a hard time figuring out whose right is being violated when I yell fire in the theater. It's a social convention, one in which we recognize that people's undocumented right to respond wisely to a threat outweighs your right to free speech.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll again present you with the test case to your theory. The War on Drugs in the United States was a clear example of government overreach, and using violence inappropriately in order to battle a social ill. Other advanced countries had to deal with the same issue.

Overall, would you say that the Second Amendment resulted in a superior response by the United States when it came to abusing its own citizens? Did the bad policies back down more quickly? Did the militant bureaucrats rethink their tactics knowing that the other side was heavily armed?

The Second Amendment didn't help with slavery. It didn't help with women suffrage. It absolutely made things worse with the War on Drugs. I understand the theory that you're trying to apply, that's why we run experiments. The experiment has been run, and now we have people suggesting that 30 round magazines are necessary for hunting and Nightclub night club goers be damned

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Doing the above is using your right to violate the rights of others, and gets punished accordingly.

Yeah so yelling fire in a theater which may lead to a deadly stampede is unlawful but 30 round magazines which may be used to mow down classes full of kindergartners is not because you're fine with one right being infringed but not the other.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's just a psychological quirk that you think of a pointed gun as indicating threat, but a holstered gun isn't.

This is a very salient point, at least for me. Knowing that a person is armed suggests an implicit risk (or even a threat), particularly if the reason for the weapon isn't evident. Furthermore, the presence of a weapon is an actual risk to the safety of the people around you, not merely a perceived one, whether they're aware of the weapon or not.

 

[El_Machinae]

I live in a society where we don't have concealed carry. All this means is that I can treat a concealed weapon as a threat to respond to. It means that I don't have two seconds to respond to a true threat, I have as much time as exists between when I spot the gun and when the person decides to use it.

On the other hand, I treat a longarm in the back window of a truck as a non-event. Something to note, but that's about it. With that gun, I'm back to my two seconds rule. Obviously it's more like 30 in that case.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Commodore Humans have no inherent rights beyond what we grant ourselves and we we can ungrant those at will.

 

[Dekker]

Just because I think he had a right to do what he did, doesn't mean I don't also think he was an idiot for doing it.

But that is his right at all costs. You thinking him an idiot does not seem to fall in line with your defense for rights at all costs. So some rights should be, handled responsibly?

 

[Commodore]

I might understand the theorical idea for rights that are inherent to humanity take on life (like freedom, equality and so on).
But to being able to bear firearms ?
That's just a very weird, US-specific right that has nothing to do with the root of mankind of with happiness or with dignity or whatever. To value it more than life (actually, to value it at all) is what I find so completely baffling. Life not worth living if you can't go legally buy and walk with a Colt sounds beyond caricature.

It's not the right to a firearm, it's the inherent right to self-defense that all humans should have. In order to preserve that right, the people must have access to the absolute best tools available. Without that access, you really don't have the ability to exercise that right, and if you don't have the means to exercise a right, then you don't really have that right.

The government should not be dictating how one gets to exercise their rights beyond stopping you from violating the rights of others. That's why I'm also against things like compulsory voting laws. People should certainly have the right to vote, but they should also have the right to choose not to vote. Because again, if the government is telling you how to exercise your rights, then you don't really have those rights.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's not the right to a firearm, it's the inherent right to self-defense that all humans should have. In order to preserve that right, the people must have access to the absolute best tools available. Without that access, you really don't have the ability to exercise that right, and if you don't have the means to exercise a right, then you don't really have that right.

The government should not be dictating how one gets to exercise their rights beyond stopping you from violating the rights of others. That's why I'm also against things like compulsory voting laws. People should certainly have the right to vote, but they should also have the right to choose not to vote. Because again, if the government is telling you how to exercise your rights, then you don't really have those rights.

"Best tools"? So you're contending that firearms are the best tools? Not sure why you stop there.

Then there's the obvious question of "access"? To preserve this "sacred right of self defense" shouldn't these "best tools" be available to everyone, not just to people who can afford them? Shouldn't such a critical issue of rights be lifted above economics? Should we be issuing every citizen the most powerful firearm they can manage?

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's not the right to a firearm, it's the inherent right to self-defense that all humans should have. In order to preserve that right, the people must have access to the absolute best tools available. Without that access, you really don't have the ability to exercise that right, and if you don't have the means to exercise a right, then you don't really have that right.

The government should not be dictating how one gets to exercise their rights beyond stopping you from violating the rights of others. That's why I'm also against things like compulsory voting laws. People should certainly have the right to vote, but they should also have the right to choose not to vote. Because again, if the government is telling you how to exercise your rights, then you don't really have those rights.

Since [you say] guns are not essential to self defense, with a suitable alternative, you would agree to ban them all together?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Since [you say] guns are not essential to self defense, with a suitable alternative, you would agree to ban them all together?

That isn't what he said, as I read it. He seems to be saying that guns ARE essential to self defense.

 

[El_Machinae]

Now is when I point out that I've never been mugged while wearing a bomb vest

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now is when I point out that I've never been mugged while wearing a bomb vest

I was never mugged while operating a nuclear submarine.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That isn't what he said, as I read it. He seems to be saying that guns ARE essential to self defense.

It's not the right to a firearm, it's the inherent right to self-defense that all humans should have.

I don't know; it seems to me he is saying that the right to self defense tops guns and that guns are just our current way of providing for it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm not doubting the utility. I'm doubting that the utility bump between a 10-round magazine and a 30 round magazine is worth (let's say) a doubling of casualties when it comes to mass shooting incidents.

This is a false dichotomy. There is a multitude of factors that determine casualty rates in incidents like these, and magazine capacity isn't a very big one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is a false dichotomy. There is a multitude of factors that determine casualty rates in incidents like these, and magazine capacity isn't a very big one.

But restricting magazine size can certainly reduce the potential for high numbers of dead and and maimed. More time reloading gives more time for people to get away and for responders to take action.

 

[Bugfatty300]

But restricting magazine size can certainly reduce the potential for high numbers of dead and and maimed. More time reloading gives more time for people to get away and for responders to take action.

On paper maybe. Not so much in practice.