Nah, you can. Not just through the old grandfathered in full auto weapons, there's specific types of license where you can get a hold of serious business brand-new automatic weaponry. It's just really expensive(like, out of the reach of most people expensive), and a pain in the ass - it's how FPSrussia, the guy who is internet famous for getting a hold of crazy weapons exploits to get a hold of that kind of hardware as a civilian. Same with the execrable "Sons of Guns" show, those guys from Moss Pawn, etc, etc. But it's far from common, because of the aforementioned cost and massive arse-pain.
There can be reasonable limits on any right, but extreme care must be taken to ensure that those rights are preserved.
One might say this is directly contradictory to your earlier statement re: taxation on constitutionally guaranteed rights. Care to reconcile the two points?
Frankly, I find the second amendment argument lose-lose in my book. Suppose the second amendment was repealed. Would everyone be ok with forfeiting all the guns? If so, you're only okay with it because the law says so, and not because it's right. Doesn't sit well with me. Are you not ok with forfeiting all the guns? Then your argument was intellectually dishonest in the first place.
When it comes to a fundamental right, taxing it for the sake of discouraging the free exercise of that right (i.e. a "sin tax") is wrong. That's what I was trying to get at in my earlier statement.
I believe the right to bear arms exists independent of the second amendment. However, if the second amendment were repealed and all firearms were banned, I would probably forfeit my guns because I don't want to go to prison for life. I wouldn't be okay with it, but I would abide by it because I don't want to leave my family without me. Of course, the chance of that occurring is basically nil, at least in today's political climate.
Well, that's a mark in your favor. There's plenty of people who would, in that situation, decide to try an armed revolution, and even more ludicrous, think that they'd actually stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Well, that's a mark in your favor. There's plenty of people who would, in that situation, decide to try an armed revolution, and even more ludicrous, think that they'd actually stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
I'm fairly pragmatic in most things. It really isn't all that hard to manufacture a device that would allow me to convert one of my guns to full automatic fire (Google "lightning link"). I believe that I have a right to do so if I choose. However, I don't do it because I've made the risk/reward calculation for myself, and the risk of going to prison for 10 years is simply more than I'm willing to accept.
My preferred course of action is to advocate for gun rights by speaking out, donating to organizations that I think are doing a good job fighting for gun rights (hint: not the NRA), and trying to work to elect politicians who share my views. In other words, working within "the system" to ensure that rights are preserved. Some people I know are even running for office in their states.
One can make a reasoned argument in favor of a right to self-defense, but I don't think that translates into a fundamental right to bear arms - especially not ones that cause as much harm as guns do.
One can make a reasoned argument in favor of a right to self-defense, but I don't think that translates into a fundamental right to bear arms - especially not ones that cause as much harm as guns do.
I would argue that the right extends to arms mainly because they are a force equalizer - anyone of nearly any physical capacity can learn to effectively employ a firearm for self defense. As I mentioned earlier regarding less-lethal options, none of the currently available technologies on the market are objectively equal or superior to firearms for the purpose of self defense based on the criteria I outlined. If that were to change, then it could be argued that there is no need for firearms in a self defense context.
I don't want to press the point too much, but I find it really uncomfortable reading your posts here. Can't you see how dismissing the fact that a gun is deadly, and designed to be so, is a massive negative for everyone except you?
On one side you are stacking up "not objectively equal or superior to firearms for the purposes of self defense".
On the other side we are saying "any intentional or unintentional loss of life trumps all other factors".
Your argument that guns are more effective is the very argument that creeps me out. Shouldn't every decision come down to "What will be less likely to cause someone to die?"
You can bring up as many hypothetical examples where you are forced to kill someone or be killed yourself, but those situations are so rare that they don't make more than a tiny dent on all the people who are killed by guns, intentionally, in self defense, by accident or by suicide. In every one of those situations, someone not having a gun will lead to more people not dying. And that is the only objective measurement we should be legislating and promoting to increase.
Your right to kill someone is not, in my opinion, close to your right not to be hurt or inconvenienced. Not even close.
I'm not going to get into it again here, as it's already been done to death in the other thread.
I would argue that the right extends to arms mainly because they are a force equalizer - anyone of nearly any physical capacity can learn to effectively employ a firearm for self defense. As I mentioned earlier regarding less-lethal options, none of the currently available technologies on the market are objectively equal or superior to firearms for the purpose of self defense based on the criteria I outlined. If that were to change, then it could be argued that there is no need for firearms in a self defense context.
Quite a lot of technologies are, however, objectively equal or superior to firearms for the purpose of self defense based on the criterion of not killing quite so many people.
I saw your list of criteria already, but it seems highly arbitrary to me. On what grounds are those the criteria? Why isn't "people not dying" on your list?
With regards to self-defense, the question is not one of whether anything else is "as good" as a gun. In terms of rights, it comes down to a tradeoff between that right and others, including rather more important ones like the right not to be killed.
Also, if your main goal is to preserve the right to self-defense, I think you (and everyone else) would be much better served advocating the development of better technologies. By contrast, the advocacy for guns has essentially the opposite effect; possible alternatives are stifled rather than encouraged.
Is this the point where we the discussions turns towards the question of life value between the criminal and the victim?
We did it already. In this thread. I got mixed up which thread I was in.
But the question is moot. Even if some specific person's life IS less valuable than some other specific person's life, and there is a clear and unambiguous choice between one person dying or the other, it has no place in this discussion.
Why not? Because in the case of using a gun as self defense, who is doing the choosing? Someone who is:
A. Afraid. B. Thinks their life is in danger at the hands of the other person. C. Has seconds or less to make up their mind. D. The single LEAST objective judge given the situation.
In other words, the person who is making the decision, and is holding the tool used to enact that decision, is only going to make ONE decision. And that is, from their point of view, the logical decision. Of course it is!
Bringing in the relative worth of human life into using guns as self defense is fucking stupid.
And if you think you having a gun allows you the right to chose, then fuck you. Use your fucking brain, read what I just wrote again.
If somebody is attacking me with deadly force, they have made a decision. They have decided that my life is worth so little that they are willing to kill me in order to get what they want, or at least that's the statement they are making to me by doing so. If they want to avoid making that statement, then maybe they should use pepper spray or a taser.
I have a right to defend myself and my family against deadly force. That right is clear and unambiguous, and if you disagree then go ahead and call me a murderer or a shithead or whatever epithet you feel like using, but you will not change my mind. I also have the right to choose the most effective means at my disposal to make that defense, up to and including means which are potentially lethal to my attacker. I do not believe that the attacker's life is worth less than mine, but I do believe the attacker understands and accepts the possibility of being killed in response to their use of deadly force.
If some technology is ever developed that can quickly and consistently incapacitate an attacker with little to no risk of death, then I will be first in line to buy it. Companies like Taser are working every day to develop such a technology, and I wish them the best of luck.
It's even worse than Luke says. Someone who feels the need to own a gun for self defense is someone who is very afraid of a hypothetical and extremely unlikely situation. They won't just be afraid in a real situation, they'll be fucking terrified.
How common is a stranger attacking someone with deadly force? It doesn't seem like it's common enough to warrant even considering in one's daily life.
Do you live in the center of a crime-ridden, violent ghetto with daily street shootings? Do you live in Afghanistan?
In New York, I'm more likely to shoot myself with a handgun than I ever would be attacked by anyone, gun or no. Violent crime committed by strangers is extremely rare.
Ignoring the whole morality of murder, why advocate against the addition of technology to ID the murder weapon? Why and what is the point of the need for full auto?
The problem with tech that can be used to ID a murderer is the chance that it could be altered/abused and used to frame an innocent person for a crime.
Full auto is only useful for suppressive fire. Which is not used in self defense.
The problem with tech that can be used to ID a murderer is the chance that it could be altered/abused and used to frame an innocent person for a crime.
That's ridiculous as an argument. By that logic, we shouldn't have VINs and license plates on cars, because I could use them to frame an innocent person for a crime.
So now the conversation has shifted from one about the right to self defense, to the likelihood of ever needing to defend oneself.
Every day we take precautions against unlikely scenarios. We have first aid kits, we have fire extinguishers, we wear seatbelts, and so on and so forth. We don't live in constant fear of these unlikely scenarios, but we prepare for them so that if we're the unlucky one whose apartment catches on fire, we can maybe keep the whole building from burning down.
I am well aware that I personally am very unlikely to ever need to use my gun in self-defense. I do not live in constant fear of being attacked. I go to work, I come home, I play games, and so on. I've prepared for an unlikely scenario, just like I've prepared for so many others, and it does not unduly affect my day-to-day life. I also get the side benefit of having a hobby (sport shooting) that I thoroughly enjoy.
Ignoring the whole morality of murder, why advocate against the addition of technology to ID the murder weapon? Why and what is the point of the need for full auto?
Microstamping is easily circumvented. A quick pass with a file over the firing pin, and the microstamp is obliterated. Revolvers retain the spent cases, and since microstamping only affects the case there would be no additional evidence. If microstamping was mandated criminals would just use revolvers exclusively or obliterate the microstamps. The only effect would be to increase cost and inconvenience for law-abiding gun owners, while having no effect on the ability of police to solve crimes. All cost, no benefit.
The problem with tech that can be used to ID a murderer is the chance that it could be altered/abused and used to frame an innocent person for a crime.
That's ridiculous as an argument. By that logic, we shouldn't have VINs and license plates on cars, because I could use them to frame an innocent person for a crime.
The key difference is VINs and license plates have a primary purpose other than affixing blame in criminal cases. The only purpose for the 'gun IDs' is to affix blame.
That doesn't sound so bad. It forces inconvenience on people attempting to do something illicit, more likely to catch an ignorant criminal, and places a greater responsibility on law-abiding gun owners. Providing that it can limit more crimes to revolvers even, that still limits the quick ease of standard semi auto reloading.
That doesn't sound so bad. It forces inconvenience on people attempting to do something illicit, more likely to catch an ignorant criminal, and places a greater responsibility on law-abiding gun owners. Providing that it can limit more crimes to revolvers even, that still limits the quick ease of standard semi auto reloading.
What is the point of the microstamping when it is easily obliterated? Serial numbers are often filed off of stolen guns, not much more work to file the stamp off of the firing pin.
If somebody is attacking me with deadly force, they have made a decision.
Let's stop right there with your first sentence. The reality of the situation is actually:
If YOU THINK someone is attacking you with what YOU THINK is deadly force, then YOU THINK they have made a decision.
And there lies the problem of any deadly weapon as a self defense device. With any other kind of self defense device, if you are mistaken in any any of your assumptions, your assumed attacker isn't dead. With a gun, you are literally telling us the best course of action is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which is utterly barbaric and ignorant.
Microstamping is easily circumvented. A quick pass with a file over the firing pin, and the microstamp is obliterated.
A law-abiding person would have no need to ever do this. Simultaneously, it should be a serious felony to possess a weapon that has had its microstamping removed.
The key difference is VINs and license plates have a primary purpose other than affixing blame in criminal cases. The only purpose for the 'gun IDs' is to affix blame.
You know, I'm not sure I'm on board with this. Has there ever been a case in a country with mandatory firearm registration where a registered firearm has been used to frame the legal owner of the firearm?
So now the conversation has shifted from one about the right to self defense, to the likelihood of ever needing to defend oneself.
You can't go very far in a discussion about rights without considering the scope and applicability of those rights. Besides, as far as the rights alone are concerned, a right to self-defense can exist without guns. Plenty of countries have a right to self-defense but won't let you have a gun.
The question of where to strike the balance is a pragmatic one, and the likelihood of needing to defend yourself is quite clearly relevant. If violence never happened at all, the right to self-defense would be entirely pointless. That's not to say that being unlikely means it can be ignored - my point is that the relative importance of self-defense is proportional to how likely you are to actually need it.
Moreover, that self-defense concern is weighed against the potential to save lives, or otherwise reduce potential harm. You can't reasonably argue on this issue without making that comparison.
Microstamping is easily circumvented. A quick pass with a file over the firing pin, and the microstamp is obliterated. Revolvers retain the spent cases, and since microstamping only affects the case there would be no additional evidence. If microstamping was mandated criminals would just use revolvers exclusively or obliterate the microstamps. The only effect would be to increase cost and inconvenience for law-abiding gun owners, while having no effect on the ability of police to solve crimes. All cost, no benefit.
In a universe where every criminal has that amount of foresight and planning, having a weapon for self-defense isn't really going to help you anyway. After all, they simply have to do what they want to do when you're not there, or wait for a moment when you don't have your gun at the ready.
You're implying that everyone falls into two categories - law-abiding citizens who would never do anything wrong ever, and hardened criminals who are willing and able to take any and all measures they can. That's simply not how the world works - the truth is that there is a significant gray area in between.
Perhaps many, even most criminals would indeed go to the effort of obliterating the microstamps, but there would almost certainly also be a significant number who would not.
The key difference is VINs and license plates have a primary purpose other than affixing blame in criminal cases. The only purpose for the 'gun IDs' is to affix blame.
Affixing blame or, in better terms, holding people accountable, is probably the most important factor in how a legal system works; it's hardly a trivial issue.
Gun IDs have several important benefits, and they come with little associated cost.
Comments
I believe the right to bear arms exists independent of the second amendment. However, if the second amendment were repealed and all firearms were banned, I would probably forfeit my guns because I don't want to go to prison for life. I wouldn't be okay with it, but I would abide by it because I don't want to leave my family without me. Of course, the chance of that occurring is basically nil, at least in today's political climate.
My preferred course of action is to advocate for gun rights by speaking out, donating to organizations that I think are doing a good job fighting for gun rights (hint: not the NRA), and trying to work to elect politicians who share my views. In other words, working within "the system" to ensure that rights are preserved. Some people I know are even running for office in their states.
On one side you are stacking up "not objectively equal or superior to firearms for the purposes of self defense".
On the other side we are saying "any intentional or unintentional loss of life trumps all other factors".
Your argument that guns are more effective is the very argument that creeps me out. Shouldn't every decision come down to "What will be less likely to cause someone to die?"
You can bring up as many hypothetical examples where you are forced to kill someone or be killed yourself, but those situations are so rare that they don't make more than a tiny dent on all the people who are killed by guns, intentionally, in self defense, by accident or by suicide. In every one of those situations, someone not having a gun will lead to more people not dying. And that is the only objective measurement we should be legislating and promoting to increase.
Your right to kill someone is not, in my opinion, close to your right not to be hurt or inconvenienced. Not even close.
I'm not going to get into it again here, as it's already been done to death in the other thread.
I saw your list of criteria already, but it seems highly arbitrary to me. On what grounds are those the criteria? Why isn't "people not dying" on your list?
With regards to self-defense, the question is not one of whether anything else is "as good" as a gun. In terms of rights, it comes down to a tradeoff between that right and others, including rather more important ones like the right not to be killed.
Also, if your main goal is to preserve the right to self-defense, I think you (and everyone else) would be much better served advocating the development of better technologies. By contrast, the advocacy for guns has essentially the opposite effect; possible alternatives are stifled rather than encouraged.
But the question is moot. Even if some specific person's life IS less valuable than some other specific person's life, and there is a clear and unambiguous choice between one person dying or the other, it has no place in this discussion.
Why not? Because in the case of using a gun as self defense, who is doing the choosing? Someone who is:
A. Afraid.
B. Thinks their life is in danger at the hands of the other person.
C. Has seconds or less to make up their mind.
D. The single LEAST objective judge given the situation.
In other words, the person who is making the decision, and is holding the tool used to enact that decision, is only going to make ONE decision. And that is, from their point of view, the logical decision. Of course it is!
Bringing in the relative worth of human life into using guns as self defense is fucking stupid.
And if you think you having a gun allows you the right to chose, then fuck you. Use your fucking brain, read what I just wrote again.
I have a right to defend myself and my family against deadly force. That right is clear and unambiguous, and if you disagree then go ahead and call me a murderer or a shithead or whatever epithet you feel like using, but you will not change my mind. I also have the right to choose the most effective means at my disposal to make that defense, up to and including means which are potentially lethal to my attacker. I do not believe that the attacker's life is worth less than mine, but I do believe the attacker understands and accepts the possibility of being killed in response to their use of deadly force.
If some technology is ever developed that can quickly and consistently incapacitate an attacker with little to no risk of death, then I will be first in line to buy it. Companies like Taser are working every day to develop such a technology, and I wish them the best of luck.
Of course, Tasers are banned in my state.
Do you live in the center of a crime-ridden, violent ghetto with daily street shootings? Do you live in Afghanistan?
In New York, I'm more likely to shoot myself with a handgun than I ever would be attacked by anyone, gun or no. Violent crime committed by strangers is extremely rare.
Full auto is only useful for suppressive fire. Which is not used in self defense.
Every day we take precautions against unlikely scenarios. We have first aid kits, we have fire extinguishers, we wear seatbelts, and so on and so forth. We don't live in constant fear of these unlikely scenarios, but we prepare for them so that if we're the unlucky one whose apartment catches on fire, we can maybe keep the whole building from burning down.
I am well aware that I personally am very unlikely to ever need to use my gun in self-defense. I do not live in constant fear of being attacked. I go to work, I come home, I play games, and so on. I've prepared for an unlikely scenario, just like I've prepared for so many others, and it does not unduly affect my day-to-day life. I also get the side benefit of having a hobby (sport shooting) that I thoroughly enjoy.
If YOU THINK someone is attacking you with what YOU THINK is deadly force, then YOU THINK they have made a decision.
And there lies the problem of any deadly weapon as a self defense device. With any other kind of self defense device, if you are mistaken in any any of your assumptions, your assumed attacker isn't dead. With a gun, you are literally telling us the best course of action is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which is utterly barbaric and ignorant.
The question of where to strike the balance is a pragmatic one, and the likelihood of needing to defend yourself is quite clearly relevant. If violence never happened at all, the right to self-defense would be entirely pointless. That's not to say that being unlikely means it can be ignored - my point is that the relative importance of self-defense is proportional to how likely you are to actually need it.
Moreover, that self-defense concern is weighed against the potential to save lives, or otherwise reduce potential harm. You can't reasonably argue on this issue without making that comparison. In a universe where every criminal has that amount of foresight and planning, having a weapon for self-defense isn't really going to help you anyway. After all, they simply have to do what they want to do when you're not there, or wait for a moment when you don't have your gun at the ready.
You're implying that everyone falls into two categories - law-abiding citizens who would never do anything wrong ever, and hardened criminals who are willing and able to take any and all measures they can. That's simply not how the world works - the truth is that there is a significant gray area in between.
Perhaps many, even most criminals would indeed go to the effort of obliterating the microstamps, but there would almost certainly also be a significant number who would not. Affixing blame or, in better terms, holding people accountable, is probably the most important factor in how a legal system works; it's hardly a trivial issue.
Gun IDs have several important benefits, and they come with little associated cost.