Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[ptatc]

Must be awful living life with such paranoia.

I think alot of it is just how much control should the government have. I know it's not on the same scale but a good example is the seat belt. When the government mandated them, I remember the commercials the government put out saying "it's for the good and safety for everyone, we will never fine people for not wearing them, it's just too make everyone safer." Fast forward 30 years and there are fines for not wearing them.

[Jake]

I think alot of it is just how much control should the government have. I know it's not on the same scale but a good example is the seat belt. When the government mandated them, I remember the commercials the government put out saying "it's for the good and safety for everyone, we will never fine people for not wearing them, it's just too make everyone safer." Fast forward 30 years and there are fines for not wearing them.

 

It's a classic debate, particularly if you apply the "harm" test to governance. If something doesn't harm others, then you should be able to do it -- right?

 

Except...it seems like not buckling your seatbelt only affects you. The potential harm is your own. On the other hand, what about those you leave behind? Your death in that car crash (preventable by wearing a seatbelt) could potentially ruin/harm the lives of the other driver involved, your mom, dad, brother, sister, wife, children, grandmother, etc. This is not just emotionally, but in many cases financially and otherwise. The other driver is likely to have worse insurance payouts or criminal charges if you die, if you want to make it technical. Those people would probably have wished the government had mandated that seatbelt be buckled with the threat of $50 coming out of your pocket.

 

On the other hand, we all have to deal with SOME bad s*** in our lives and the government cannot prevent all of those things or the price paid to prevent every bad thing would be a lack of good things (freedom?).

 

This is also especially relevant when it comes to helmets on motorcycles and drugs as well. Things that seem to concern only you often can be argued to affect others immensely.

[Quin]

Video Games Are Not The Problem

 

I love that argument. It's the one that both the left and right media bring up. But the only thing that video games have made me want to do is that after playing five Assassins Creed video games, I want to climb everything.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Quinarvy

[StrangeSox]

It's a classic debate, particularly if you apply the "harm" test to governance. If something doesn't harm others, then you should be able to do it -- right?

 

Except...it seems like not buckling your seatbelt only affects you. The potential harm is your own. On the other hand, what about those you leave behind? Your death in that car crash (preventable by wearing a seatbelt) could potentially ruin/harm the lives of the other driver involved, your mom, dad, brother, sister, wife, children, grandmother, etc. This is not just emotionally, but in many cases financially and otherwise. The other driver is likely to have worse insurance payouts or criminal charges if you die, if you want to make it technical. Those people would probably have wished the government had mandated that seatbelt be buckled with the threat of $50 coming out of your pocket.

 

On the other hand, we all have to deal with SOME bad s*** in our lives and the government cannot prevent all of those things or the price paid to prevent every bad thing would be a lack of good things (freedom?).

 

This is also especially relevant when it comes to helmets on motorcycles and drugs as well. Things that seem to concern only you often can be argued to affect others immensely.

 

Not buckling your seat belt affects us all through higher insurance premiums

 

[DukeNukeEm]

Not buckling your seat belt affects us all through higher insurance premiums

I've heard this crock of s*** before.

 

After the first states put seat belt laws on the books insurance rates actually rose faster. 1% increase per year over the next 5 years, really saved Americans a ton of money, right!? Also there's evidence that not fining people who didn't wear seat belts was equally effective as fining them.

 

But who cares, government gets paid, we get to "PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and feel good and you pretend to save money on car insurance.

 

[DukeNukeEm]

It's a classic debate, particularly if you apply the "harm" test to governance. If something doesn't harm others, then you should be able to do it -- right?

 

Except...it seems like not buckling your seatbelt only affects you. The potential harm is your own. On the other hand, what about those you leave behind? Your death in that car crash (preventable by wearing a seatbelt) could potentially ruin/harm the lives of the other driver involved, your mom, dad, brother, sister, wife, children, grandmother, etc. This is not just emotionally, but in many cases financially and otherwise. The other driver is likely to have worse insurance payouts or criminal charges if you die, if you want to make it technical. Those people would probably have wished the government had mandated that seatbelt be buckled with the threat of $50 coming out of your pocket.

 

On the other hand, we all have to deal with SOME bad s*** in our lives and the government cannot prevent all of those things or the price paid to prevent every bad thing would be a lack of good things (freedom?).

 

This is also especially relevant when it comes to helmets on motorcycles and drugs as well. Things that seem to concern only you often can be argued to affect others immensely.

Once you start down this road, of the government protecting us from literally everything, you get a stupid population coerced into homogenous behavior.

[Balta1701]

Once you start down this road, of the government protecting us from literally everything, you get a stupid population coerced into homogenous behavior.

No you don't. Not everything is a slippery slope, not everything must be. Allowing the first person to own a gun doesn't have to be a slippery slope to armed 18 year olds in college. That's a choice we make. Using the government as a tool to mitigate some risks doesn't mean you hand over everything to the government. Every society in the world gets to decide where to strike that balance.

[Jenksismyhero]

I can't believe the callousness here. Yes there's a big f***ING difference.

 

My point was if you ban all of these weapons you want to ban - assault weapons and handguns - but still allow shotguns or rifles, the number might be 10, 15 20, whatever. It's still going to be more than a couple which would put in the same terrible massacre category you're trying to prevent.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes you can.

 

You can almost perfectly prevent gun accidents involving children under 11.

 

If children under 11 do not have access to guns...you have controlled the problem.

 

That's my point. It's 100% avoidable but for a f*** up of some irresponsible parent/adult. In the other situation, you're at the mercy of the criminal trying to do you harm. YOUR personal ability to control the situation goes away.

[BigSqwert]

My point was if you ban all of these weapons you want to ban - assault weapons and handguns - but still allow shotguns or rifles, the number might be 10, 15 20, whatever. It's still going to be more than a couple which would put in the same terrible massacre category you're trying to prevent.

And yet you ignore the article from Australia where homicide and suicides plummeted significantly and there were no more mass shootings after the laws changed.

[StrangeSox]

My point was if you ban all of these weapons you want to ban - assault weapons and handguns - but still allow shotguns or rifles, the number might be 10, 15 20, whatever. It's still going to be more than a couple which would put in the same terrible massacre category you're trying to prevent.

 

So we reduce the casualties in mass shootings by 50%+ and reduce the widespread availability of handguns, reducing the non-mass-shootings as well. Sounds good to me.

[Y2HH]

And yet you ignore the article from Australia where homicide and suicides plummeted significantly and there were no more mass shootings after the laws changed.

 

...and how would they import illegal guns into Australia?

 

Much different world over here, when you have Mexico as your neighbor. If Australia bans guns, it'd be an order of magnitude harder to get them into the country than it would be here, via Canada, or more likely, from Mexico/South America.

[Jenksismyhero]

And yet you ignore the article from Australia where homicide and suicides plummeted significantly and there were no more mass shootings after the laws changed.

 

Our society is unique so I don't really think that would apply like you think it would.

[Y2HH]

So we reduce the casualties in mass shootings by 50%+ and reduce the widespread availability of handguns, reducing the non-mass-shootings as well. Sounds good to me.

 

I think his point, which your attempting to ignore, is that guns are guns...and if the person could do it with a handgun, they can do it with a a rifle/shotgun, and if they still have the rifle/shotgun, it could potentially not reduce anything.

[Jenksismyhero]

So we reduce the casualties in mass shootings by 50%+ and reduce the widespread availability of handguns, reducing the non-mass-shootings as well. Sounds good to me.

 

That happens and then you're done complaining about guns right?

[BigSqwert]

Our society is unique so I don't really think that would apply like you think it would.

Twenty 6 and 7 year olds get killed in a shooting spree and your response is basically "Oh well, s*** happens. No need to change anything."

[StrangeSox]

I think his point, which your attempting to ignore, is that guns are guns...and if the person could do it with a handgun, they can do it with a a rifle/shotgun, and if they still have the rifle/shotgun, it could potentially not reduce anything.

 

Guns are guns, but not all guns are equal for all purposes. Most violent crime is committed with handguns because they are cheap, available and easy to carry and conceal.

 

edit: it wasn't clear in that previous post but I also want meaningful restrictions on assault rifles, something with a good definition of what an "assault rifle" is that doesn't focus solely on cosmetic features.

Edited December 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

That happens and then you're done complaining about guns right?

 

We enact sane gun control and significantly reduce the gun violence in this country? Yeah, I'm done complaining about guns at that point.

 

You do remember that I was arguing against Balta about guns just last week after the 7C ruling, right?

[Y2HH]

Twenty 6 and 7 year olds get killed in a shooting spree and your response is basically "Oh well, s*** happens. No need to change anything."

 

Again, I'm not sure that's what he's saying at all.

 

My interpretation of what he said, and if it's what he meant, I agree with him... Australia's situation is unique to Australia. As I stated, the United states is surrounded by other countries with completely different laws. Australia has nothing of the sort to contend with. So applying their model to the US wouldn't work the same as you'd like to think.

 

Our situation is unique to us...we MUST contend with the reality that our neighbors exist (less so Canada than Mexico), but it must be something we think about when we implement our solution.

 

I think we've all agreed that better tracking of weapons, where they're bought, by who, when, what types...and if/when they're used in crimes that we actually do something about it. A base set of national laws must go into effect to set some rules of legal purchase, and the local laws can then say what types of weapons are actually allowed...but we need a better vetting system/tracking system for gun purchasing.

[StrangeSox]

The United States is surrounded by other countries with stricter gun laws and many of the guns used in Mexico are smuggled from the US. Most of the ones seized there are from here.

[Y2HH]

The United States is surrounded by other countries with stricter gun laws and many of the guns used in Mexico are smuggled from the US. Most of the ones seized there are from here.

 

Tons and tons of guns are smuggled into the US from Mexico, especially automatic weapons. If you'd like to believe otherwise, feel free.

[StrangeSox]

Source?

 

We have the gun manufacturers and the loose gun laws. Why would they need to be smuggled into here from somewhere with tighter restrictions?

[Jenksismyhero]

Twenty 6 and 7 year olds get killed in a shooting spree and your response is basically "Oh well, s*** happens. No need to change anything."

 

Go read my posts in this thread. You're ignoring what I've said.

[Jenksismyhero]

We enact sane gun control and significantly reduce the gun violence in this country? Yeah, I'm done complaining about guns at that point.

 

You do remember that I was arguing against Balta about guns just last week after the 7C ruling, right?

 

Yeah I realize you're not for an all-out ban. But at the end of the day your arguments to ban certain types of guns apply logically to all guns. So apparently even you seem to believe that 10 people dead with a shotgun is acceptable. 26 people dead from an automatic rifle is not. How callous of you.

[Y2HH]

Source?

 

We have the gun manufacturers and the loose gun laws. Why would they need to be smuggled into here from somewhere with tighter restrictions?

 

Some may be manufactured here, but after they're in Mexico, they can then be transported back and sold illegally to people in the US that otherwise would have no means of buying them here. Some are from Russia, etc...it's just that the US has a very unique path to shipping illegal guns, through various means, where Australia would be a lot harder to do that with...considering they're not surrounded by anyone nearly that large, or with nearly the lawless problems they have in Mexico.

 

Mexico may have "strict laws", but it's pretty common knowledge the mexican police and bought and paid for...hence the f***ing warzone that it is outside of US tourist destinations.

 

You can't go into a gun store in the US and buy an AK-47, either, but someone I know confiscated a few of them this year in Chicago.