Well I guess mostly what I'm saying is we need to go back to that. Too much nowadays it seems a lot of people are willing to blame anything, anything at all (including the gun) than blame the individual.
People are complicated, and blame is multifactorial. One doesn't absolve the individual by recognizing that guns can make a situation worse, or by looking at ways in which such situations can be avoided in the first place.
The gun doesn't make you use it; it is up to you to understand when and when not to use it. Just like our founders it should be only a last resort, though I would hardly blame anyone for trying to talk down a mugger and go right for the shooting.
Your grammar is a bit off here and I may be misinterpreting you, but nebulous comments like that are highly problematic. If there is an opportunity to talk a mugger down, I would most definitely blame someone for not taking it.
The use of deadly force is reasonable if and only if you are in immediate mortal danger, and there are no comparable options for avoiding that mortal danger. There is, of course, some need for discussion as to what is "reasonable" (e.g. duty to retreat), but nebulous statements like the one you are making are in direct contradiction of your own statements about personal responsibility.
Another element is that you must understand that if you draw a firearm you must be willing to follow through with the implied threat of killing whomever you draw it on, so it is not something to be done lightly. I don't want to restrict ownership for sane sober adults (though I do agree with ensuring any unstable individual can't get a hold of weapons), but I do think it needs to be impressed, very firmly, that it is a big responsibility to carry a firearm.
Do you see anyone arguing that it isn't a big responsibility?
Also, I agree with your point, and I think it requires something like mandatory training as a prerequisite for gun ownership. How else would you expect to impress this upon people?
[...] such as the Newtown massacre (though I'll remind everyone a Chinese man did the same thing with a knife) they are thankfully few and far between considering the overwhelming amount of responsible gun owners, and yes, they are tragic, but I consider them a small price to pay to have the most expedient method of defending oneself available.
This reasoning is massively flawed because of the previous point. Any death that would be prevented is part of the price being paid here, not just the ones that could "only" have been prevented in this way. When you're talking about a "price to pay" that happens to consist of human lives, it warrants very serious consideration.
Gun deaths in the United States number in the tens of thousands per year, and while they can't all be prevented by regulating guns, I think it's clear that a significant proportion of them could be. There is an argument to be had as to how big that proportion is, but that's the real "price to pay" here - it's measured in hundreds (if not thousands) of deaths. Perhaps that price is worth it, but I think you're accepting it far too willingly.
Also, that price is being paid simply for, in your own words, the "most expedient" method, and I don't think that's reasonable. Yes, effective means of self-defense are a great thing to have, but why aren't nonlethal (or at least less lethal) methods satisfactory? If there are critical shortcomings to those other means, isn't the thing to do to work to overcome those shortcomings? If tasers truly aren't good enough, I think the U.S. is entirely capable of developing technologies that are. The issue is that people simply don't care enough.
Of course, it's true that it might well be possible to avoid many or all of these gun deaths without any restrictions on guns at all. Decision-making is about finding the best possible options, and it's always important to think about alternative solutions. In this case, though, unless you have other suggestions, I think the trade-off between gun regulation and the absence thereof weighs heavily in favor of regulation.
I truly support anyone's use of tasers, or pepper spray, or bear spray for all I care. But to quote a meme: police shoot hundreds of people to death and no one bats and eyelash, police taser one person and they die and everyone loses their freaking minds. I don't really care as yes it is clear the taser is a lot less lethal than a handgun, but people have gotten up in arms (pardon the turn of phrase) about the fact that there is a one-in-a-million chance that being tazed may kill you. American hysteria you can say. But yes, I can get behind tasers and whatnot.
I truly support anyone's use of tasers, or pepper spray, or bear spray for all I care. But to quote a meme: police shoot hundreds of people to death and no one bats and eyelash...
Yes we do. Quoting meme only propagates meme, not make it true. Who do you think these "people" are who go apeshit about taser deaths? Gun control advocates? No, it's those who fear tasers would mean their guns might be taken away.
Arguing that tasers are not "non-lethal" but rather "less-lethal" and are less than optimally effective at disabling an antagonist isn't an unreasonable argument. It's not an inherently pro gun argument either. It's also worth noting that NYC has made tasers illegal as well. NYC isn't precisely known for it's huge pro-gun lobby.
All that said and done, a march forward in non lethal self defense technology is the clear answer to the Gun problem. We're not there yet, but opposing the current forms of less-lethal technology isn't going to get us anywhere. If tasers aren't legal to buy and popular, where is the funding going to come from to make better ones?
First, one thing that people need to be reminded of is that the Second Amendment has two clauses to it. The one everyone in the pro-gun camp thinks of is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," but the first clause says that the purpose of the right to bear arms is to have a "well-regulated militia" that is "necessary to the security of a free state."
"Well-regulated" in the language of the authors of the amendment basically means "well-trained." Back in that era, yeah, sure, lots of people had guns for purposes ranging from defense to hunting to shooting animals out to eat your livestock/crops/etc., but they also were pretty much expected to participate in the local militia, which more or less served as an ad-hoc police/light military force in times and places where there was no other force serving the same purpose. Think of modern day volunteer firefighters, only instead of fighting fires these people kept the peace from robber gangs, invading French Canadians, hostile Native American tribes (let's not debate whether they actually were hostile or not -- that's a separate argument), wild animals, and so on. Generally, as part of these militias, there was at least some basic training that you were expected to participate in (not sure if it was legally mandated, but it certain was expected). As a result, the vast majority of gun owners in that era had at least some proper training in the use of their firearms. While they lacked in military discipline, they certainly had enough skill in marksmanship and the like to make up a decent contingent of the Revolutionary forces and help win the war.
Now, while the Framers certainly thought that having the general public keep and bear arms would be a good idea should the need for another Revolution rise again, that first clause states that they never intended for any yahoo to run around cluelessly with a gun firing at "threats" willy-nilly. The social contract at the time, even if it wasn't necessarily codified by laws, was that "sure, you can own a gun, but at the very least you're expected to have some training in how to properly use it and you can and will be called upon to help defend the village from marauders."
One of the modern problems is that too many people are buying guns without the proper training on how to use them safely. Things were bad enough when the only guns were single shot muzzle-loading muskets, but with modern firearms the danger of an untrained yahoo wielding firearms is that much greater. Given that the social contract of ad hoc firearms training to serve in the local volunteer militia no longer exists, my interpretation of the amendment says that the Framers would be comfortable with legislating that anyone who wishes to own a firearm would be required to have some sort of independent training in lieu of serving in some sort of community volunteer militia.
Interestingly enough, some of the most pro-gun people I know are actually pretty reasonable about requiring some sort of safety/usage training akin to getting a driver's license to allow someone to own a gun. Mandatory registration is a much more difficult issue for them to follow, but mandatory safety and usage training is perfectly reasonable to them -- especially since they often do such training independently anyway. To be honest, safety and usage training that, as a side-effect, resulted in those who have no business owning guns being disallowed from owning them would probably help fix a lot of the gun problems in this country on its own. People with military and/or law enforcement training (and a clean record -- no "went berserk shooting up a camp" people or anything like that) would be exempt as their training would likely be a superset of what a civilian training course would be, but the general idea is that we don't want untrained yahoos having access to guns. I know several people who are either retired military or semi-active duty (formerly active and now in the reserves), and all of them have the utmost respect for gun safety. They certainly have far more knowledge about it than I do (as they have pointed out my own mistakes when handling their guns in the past).
So we should get rid of our standing army and go back to a militia style system?
That alone could solve a ton of America's problems.
Er, up, nope. There was a Regular Army back then too. The Regular Army is roughly equivalent to our modern standing army. The closest thing we have to the militia system these days is that National Guard.
If that includes the idea that we won't be sending forces abroad for.. basically anything, then yeah I'm down with that.
That opens up another whole can of worms. I'm all for making sure we're very careful about where and when we send forces abroad, but sometimes it's just gotta be done. You don't want a blanket ban.
So require national guard service as a prerequisite to gun licensing?
Well, I personally wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that idea. However, I can see how some may be, so it may not be a realistic, or even reasonable, policy.
Perhaps we split the difference and, while not requiring explicit national guard service have something closer to what the Civil Air Patrol does. They basically meet for a couple of hours a week to go over some of their business, do some training, and to train others. Outside of that, they're really only called on to help with search and rescue operations. It provides a useful community service (search and rescue operations, even outside of whatever educational stuff they do), gives an opportunity for people to be trained (in aviation in this case), and also trains new people (also in aviation). It's the closest modern thing I can think of to the volunteer militias of the 18th century.
When having a conversation about dinosaurs or evolution, someone will suddenly bring up the Bible or Noah's ark or creationism. Suddenly everyone else goes quiet, as they realize that all this time they've been debating using what they hope is their best grasp of science, but that the someone has been filtering it all through religious dogma. Nothing they say from then on will ever penetrate the willing ignorance of the creationist. Or nothing about the current point. They know they'll have to go right back to the basics and re-educate the creationist from scratch, to get them to catch up with the rest of the modern world.
This is exactly how I feel in debates about gun control. As soon as someone brings up the Second Amendment, all serious conversation stops. I know that NOTHING will get through the dogma, and there's no point in continuing the conversation until we go back to basics and explain things from the ground up.
Explain things from the ground up again. And again. And again.
Well, I don't agree that a fundamental precept of law and society written into one of the founding documents of our nation isn't relevant to a discussion that encompasses civil rights, but I do agree that simply screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT!!!" isn't an argument.
The thing is, the Second Amendment is the law of the land. As long as it's the law of the land, everything done with regards to gun control has to be done within interpretations of what it permits. The only way to prevent that from happening is to repeal the Second Amendment via a new amendment to the Constitution, but there is zero chance of that happening any time soon, if ever. Heck, after 200+ years, we only have 27 amendments total to the Constitution, and the last one was 30 years ago. It's not something that gets done often or gets taken lightly.
Whatever solutions I've proposed works within the framework of what the current law of the land allows. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, by all means, go ahead and state that and your case for it. However, I'm trying to be pragmatic here and find a middle ground that accomplishes most of what gun control advocates want while still allowing law abiding citizens to own guns within reason.
Generally, however, I'm opposed to any idea of amending the Constitution to repeal any of the enumerated rights (and remember, the 9th also protects rights not explicitly enumerated). Yes, I know it's going down the slippery slope logical fallacy here, but given how there are lots of people in this country who would love to get away with trashing the First, Fourth, and Fifth, etc., amendments, I feel that repealing one member of the Bills of Rights may open the door to repealing others.
Heck, the argument I'm hearing about "I'll just shut up when someone comes up with dogma about the Second Amendment" sounds a lot like the crap I'm hearing from folks concerning NSA spying and the Fourth Amendment.
Since the majority of gun ownership involves the US (and its Constitution) bringing up the 2nd is perfectly valid (if not required) in this context.
As has been pointed out, most of the rest of the civilized world already has gun control. To ignore the legal realities of the US is asinine.
Do not expect the US Constitution to be amended any time in the near future over this either. Not only is the amendment process very hard but we are talking about part of the Bill of Rights.
Heck, after 200+ years, we only have 27 amendments total to the Constitution, and the last one was 30 years ago. It's not something that gets done often or gets taken lightly.
Also, aren't the vast majority of constitutional amendments about adding rights rather than removing them? The 18th amendment is the only one I can think of that falls roughly within that category, and it was repealed.
In a conversation about changing laws, saying we have to stick with current laws is dumb. Super dumb. We're having a conversation about the rights of people not to be needlessly killed outweighs the rights of people to use guns as weapons of self defense when all logic and evidence shows that using weapons as such is more dangerous for all involved than not.
And even then, nothing I have stated or proposed goes against the second amendment. If people want to own guns? Great! Let's say "well regulated militia" means gun club, or hunting club, or any other membership-based sports shooting group. With that group, or on ranges or in hunting places (or with hunting permits) you are allowed to bare arms. Okay?
All gun ownership is fine. Really. As long as guns are stored securely, I don't even mind if there is no gun database or ownership registry.
Now pass a law that utterly forbids using any firearm for any reason against any human being ever.
If you want to keep a gun in case of revolution against the government, fine! By participating in that you're going to be waaaaaay outside the law already. Until it's time to start shooting government-backed soldiers who are oppressing you, STOP FUCKING SHOOTING EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY!!!
All right, I'll take you guys on a different tack.
Is there ANY legitimate reason not to have a national gun ownership and transfer registry, and require its use for all firearms transactions of any kind?
If we had that in place, along with uniquely identifiable serial numbers and severe penalties for the initiators of illegal transfers where guns are then used in crime, I would be fine with literally no other changes to gun laws in the US.
The US already has laws where the penalty is increased if a gun is used during a crime. Does this mean we are done here?
No. I care way more about guns being used not during crimes, and people dying. Or being used by the hypothetical future victims of perceived crimes.
Also laws the US already has, as stated above, are what need changing or amending or adding to to, at least, start to reduce people dying. Pointing at utter failure and saying "this is working!" doesn't cut it.
I have to register if I give another person too much CASH, but not a gun.
Another law I disagree with and see as an invasion of privacy. Also a law that was passed to fight, you know, drugs and gangsters but actually is used against everyone.
Also the law is not as simple as that. It tracks banking transactions. If you just keep your money as cash and do not go to the bank you do not leave a paper trail that requires registration and notification. Damn Rym, you just bolstered the anti gun registry argument!
Is there ANY legitimate reason not to have a national gun ownership and transfer registry, and require its use for all firearms transactions of any kind?
Nope, and I've been saying for long time that it's fucking mental that you don't already have that.
If we had that in place, along with uniquely identifiable serial numbers and severe penalties for the initiators of illegal transfers where guns are then used in crime, I would be fine with literally no other changes to gun laws in the US.
Firearms already come with uniquely identifiable serial numbers, or at least, many of them do. I would see that as a logical extension of the ownership and transfer registry.
I'd also like to see the gun show/private sale loophole closed - Not so that you couldn't sell any guns at guns shows, but simply so that all private transferal of ownership must be registered with the government.
The ironic message I am getting from Rym is,"since we have already given up all of these privacy rights, why not give up some more?" I keep expecting to read, "do it for the children."
Here's a tangent: so the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Why aren't more people fighting for the right to carry swords? More swordfights, fewer gunfights. Make it entertaining for spectators.
Comments
The use of deadly force is reasonable if and only if you are in immediate mortal danger, and there are no comparable options for avoiding that mortal danger. There is, of course, some need for discussion as to what is "reasonable" (e.g. duty to retreat), but nebulous statements like the one you are making are in direct contradiction of your own statements about personal responsibility.
Do you see anyone arguing that it isn't a big responsibility?
Also, I agree with your point, and I think it requires something like mandatory training as a prerequisite for gun ownership. How else would you expect to impress this upon people? Um, so what? The idea that a certain approach has to be the "only" way of avoiding a bad outcome in order to be valid is ridiculous. This reasoning is massively flawed because of the previous point. Any death that would be prevented is part of the price being paid here, not just the ones that could "only" have been prevented in this way. When you're talking about a "price to pay" that happens to consist of human lives, it warrants very serious consideration.
Gun deaths in the United States number in the tens of thousands per year, and while they can't all be prevented by regulating guns, I think it's clear that a significant proportion of them could be. There is an argument to be had as to how big that proportion is, but that's the real "price to pay" here - it's measured in hundreds (if not thousands) of deaths. Perhaps that price is worth it, but I think you're accepting it far too willingly.
Also, that price is being paid simply for, in your own words, the "most expedient" method, and I don't think that's reasonable. Yes, effective means of self-defense are a great thing to have, but why aren't nonlethal (or at least less lethal) methods satisfactory? If there are critical shortcomings to those other means, isn't the thing to do to work to overcome those shortcomings? If tasers truly aren't good enough, I think the U.S. is entirely capable of developing technologies that are. The issue is that people simply don't care enough.
Of course, it's true that it might well be possible to avoid many or all of these gun deaths without any restrictions on guns at all. Decision-making is about finding the best possible options, and it's always important to think about alternative solutions. In this case, though, unless you have other suggestions, I think the trade-off between gun regulation and the absence thereof weighs heavily in favor of regulation.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/new-discovery-shows-slave_n_419326.html
Well if Futurama is anything to go off the Egyptians actually influenced the aliens. But I digress.
The most ardent opponents of civilian less-lethal conceal-and-carry are gun advocates and gun lobbyists.
All that said and done, a march forward in non lethal self defense technology is the clear answer to the Gun problem. We're not there yet, but opposing the current forms of less-lethal technology isn't going to get us anywhere. If tasers aren't legal to buy and popular, where is the funding going to come from to make better ones?
"Well-regulated" in the language of the authors of the amendment basically means "well-trained." Back in that era, yeah, sure, lots of people had guns for purposes ranging from defense to hunting to shooting animals out to eat your livestock/crops/etc., but they also were pretty much expected to participate in the local militia, which more or less served as an ad-hoc police/light military force in times and places where there was no other force serving the same purpose. Think of modern day volunteer firefighters, only instead of fighting fires these people kept the peace from robber gangs, invading French Canadians, hostile Native American tribes (let's not debate whether they actually were hostile or not -- that's a separate argument), wild animals, and so on. Generally, as part of these militias, there was at least some basic training that you were expected to participate in (not sure if it was legally mandated, but it certain was expected). As a result, the vast majority of gun owners in that era had at least some proper training in the use of their firearms. While they lacked in military discipline, they certainly had enough skill in marksmanship and the like to make up a decent contingent of the Revolutionary forces and help win the war.
Now, while the Framers certainly thought that having the general public keep and bear arms would be a good idea should the need for another Revolution rise again, that first clause states that they never intended for any yahoo to run around cluelessly with a gun firing at "threats" willy-nilly. The social contract at the time, even if it wasn't necessarily codified by laws, was that "sure, you can own a gun, but at the very least you're expected to have some training in how to properly use it and you can and will be called upon to help defend the village from marauders."
One of the modern problems is that too many people are buying guns without the proper training on how to use them safely. Things were bad enough when the only guns were single shot muzzle-loading muskets, but with modern firearms the danger of an untrained yahoo wielding firearms is that much greater. Given that the social contract of ad hoc firearms training to serve in the local volunteer militia no longer exists, my interpretation of the amendment says that the Framers would be comfortable with legislating that anyone who wishes to own a firearm would be required to have some sort of independent training in lieu of serving in some sort of community volunteer militia.
Interestingly enough, some of the most pro-gun people I know are actually pretty reasonable about requiring some sort of safety/usage training akin to getting a driver's license to allow someone to own a gun. Mandatory registration is a much more difficult issue for them to follow, but mandatory safety and usage training is perfectly reasonable to them -- especially since they often do such training independently anyway. To be honest, safety and usage training that, as a side-effect, resulted in those who have no business owning guns being disallowed from owning them would probably help fix a lot of the gun problems in this country on its own. People with military and/or law enforcement training (and a clean record -- no "went berserk shooting up a camp" people or anything like that) would be exempt as their training would likely be a superset of what a civilian training course would be, but the general idea is that we don't want untrained yahoos having access to guns. I know several people who are either retired military or semi-active duty (formerly active and now in the reserves), and all of them have the utmost respect for gun safety. They certainly have far more knowledge about it than I do (as they have pointed out my own mistakes when handling their guns in the past).
That alone could solve a ton of America's problems.
Perhaps we split the difference and, while not requiring explicit national guard service have something closer to what the Civil Air Patrol does. They basically meet for a couple of hours a week to go over some of their business, do some training, and to train others. Outside of that, they're really only called on to help with search and rescue operations. It provides a useful community service (search and rescue operations, even outside of whatever educational stuff they do), gives an opportunity for people to be trained (in aviation in this case), and also trains new people (also in aviation). It's the closest modern thing I can think of to the volunteer militias of the 18th century.
This is exactly how I feel in debates about gun control. As soon as someone brings up the Second Amendment, all serious conversation stops. I know that NOTHING will get through the dogma, and there's no point in continuing the conversation until we go back to basics and explain things from the ground up.
Explain things from the ground up again. And again. And again.
Don't you get that feeling from this thread?
Whatever solutions I've proposed works within the framework of what the current law of the land allows. If you want to repeal the Second Amendment, by all means, go ahead and state that and your case for it. However, I'm trying to be pragmatic here and find a middle ground that accomplishes most of what gun control advocates want while still allowing law abiding citizens to own guns within reason.
Generally, however, I'm opposed to any idea of amending the Constitution to repeal any of the enumerated rights (and remember, the 9th also protects rights not explicitly enumerated). Yes, I know it's going down the slippery slope logical fallacy here, but given how there are lots of people in this country who would love to get away with trashing the First, Fourth, and Fifth, etc., amendments, I feel that repealing one member of the Bills of Rights may open the door to repealing others.
Heck, the argument I'm hearing about "I'll just shut up when someone comes up with dogma about the Second Amendment" sounds a lot like the crap I'm hearing from folks concerning NSA spying and the Fourth Amendment.
As has been pointed out, most of the rest of the civilized world already has gun control. To ignore the legal realities of the US is asinine.
Do not expect the US Constitution to be amended any time in the near future over this either. Not only is the amendment process very hard but we are talking about part of the Bill of Rights.
And even then, nothing I have stated or proposed goes against the second amendment. If people want to own guns? Great! Let's say "well regulated militia" means gun club, or hunting club, or any other membership-based sports shooting group. With that group, or on ranges or in hunting places (or with hunting permits) you are allowed to bare arms. Okay?
All gun ownership is fine. Really. As long as guns are stored securely, I don't even mind if there is no gun database or ownership registry.
Now pass a law that utterly forbids using any firearm for any reason against any human being ever.
If you want to keep a gun in case of revolution against the government, fine! By participating in that you're going to be waaaaaay outside the law already. Until it's time to start shooting government-backed soldiers who are oppressing you, STOP FUCKING SHOOTING EVERYONE ELSE ALREADY!!!
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/1999/federal-penalties-for-firearms-misuse.aspx old link but I am on my phone and don't have time to wade through links to laws to be sure they are relevant.
Is there ANY legitimate reason not to have a national gun ownership and transfer registry, and require its use for all firearms transactions of any kind?
If we had that in place, along with uniquely identifiable serial numbers and severe penalties for the initiators of illegal transfers where guns are then used in crime, I would be fine with literally no other changes to gun laws in the US.
Also a privacy issue. Also do not want such a registry to fall into the wrong hands. Etc...
Also laws the US already has, as stated above, are what need changing or amending or adding to to, at least, start to reduce people dying. Pointing at utter failure and saying "this is working!" doesn't cut it.
Also the law is not as simple as that. It tracks banking transactions. If you just keep your money as cash and do not go to the bank you do not leave a paper trail that requires registration and notification. Damn Rym, you just bolstered the anti gun registry argument!
I'd also like to see the gun show/private sale loophole closed - Not so that you couldn't sell any guns at guns shows, but simply so that all private transferal of ownership must be registered with the government.