Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[StrangeSox]

Frequent is bulls*** and you know it. These events are increasing at an alarming rate, but generally violent crime is on the decline and the majority of gun crime is still being committed by gangbangers and other criminals. The heat of passion killings and random acts of violence are still rare.

 

The desire to reform our gun laws isn't based solely on mass shootings.

 

Gangs can get guns because it's so damn easy to get guns legally, meaning that there's a large supply to steal from or an ability to have easy straw-purchases.

[Reddy]

You can't be serious here. Speed limit laws? Drug laws?

and you don't see us repealing those laws do you? would anyone suggest we should??

[StrangeSox]

You can't be serious here. Speed limit laws? Drug laws?

 

You're pointing out two sets of laws that are routinely enforced.

[Reddy]

question for the pro gun crowd:

 

A father of one of the slain kids comes up to you and asks, "what can we do to better protect our kids from this kind of thing happening in the future?"

 

what do you say?

[southsider2k5]

It is interesting how true most of the unbolded parts are.

 

The other part that is interesting in a historical context is how the national government treats any militias now. They pretty much send the FBI to wipe them out. That's why they are hard to find. It isn't that people don't believe in them or their usefulness anymore, the government that we were warned against has crushed them... right or wrong. People are allowed to organize into armed groups anymore.

[StrangeSox]

The other part that is interesting in a historical context is how the national government treats any militias now. They pretty much send the FBI to wipe them out. That's why they are hard to find. It isn't that people don't believe in them or their usefulness anymore, the government that we were warned against has crushed them... right or wrong. People are allowed to organize into armed groups anymore.

 

There are plenty of militia groups out there. The FBI gets involved when they start actually threatening violence, and even then, the cases can get tossed. If anything, the government pays too little attention to these groups.

[southsider2k5]

You're pointing out two sets of laws that are routinely enforced.

 

And an astronomical percentage of the time, people who breaks these laws, get away with it. That's my point exactly. What percentage of times do you get caught speeding? A law unto itself isn't a significant deterrent. Threat of punishment is what stops people from breaking laws. Just saying that if we had a law on the books, none of this would have happened is about the ultimate strawman. Reality dictates something completely different.

[Soxbadger]

The other part that is interesting in a historical context is how the national government treats any militias now. They pretty much send the FBI to wipe them out. That's why they are hard to find. It isn't that people don't believe in them or their usefulness anymore, the government that we were warned against has crushed them... right or wrong. People are allowed to organize into armed groups anymore.

 

Turns out letting people organize into armed groups wasnt a good thing.

 

Otherwise the mafia, latin kings and every other street gang would claim their rights were constitutionally derived.

 

The world of the late 18th century is not comparable.

[Steve9347]

Turns out letting people organize into armed groups wasnt a good thing.

 

Otherwise the mafia, latin kings and every other street gang would claim their rights were constitutionally derived.

 

The world of the late 18th century is not comparable.

Exactly. s*** written in 1791 should not be controlling us today.

[StrangeSox]

And an astronomical percentage of the time, people who breaks these laws, get away with it. That's my point exactly. What percentage of times do you get caught speeding? A law unto itself isn't a significant deterrent. Threat of punishment is what stops people from breaking laws. Just saying that if we had a law on the books, none of this would have happened is about the ultimate strawman. Reality dictates something completely different.

 

Only if these are laws they would normally break, which is quite a big assumption. I don't refrain from shooting up heroin because it's illegal, along with numerous other laws. If I had guns, I wouldn't need a law to keep them safely locked away. But for some who may be more lax about gun safety, a law can be persuasive, even if enforcement is rare.

[Jenksismyhero]

Only if these are laws they would normally break, which is quite a big assumption. I don't refrain from shooting up heroin because it's illegal, along with numerous other laws. If I had guns, I wouldn't need a law to keep them safely locked away. But for some who may be more lax about gun safety, a law can be persuasive, even if enforcement is rare.

 

For the amount of crime that's committed from someone stealing a gun from a persons home and using it in a crime, I feel like that's an unreasonable restriction. Most people own guns to be able to protect themselves. Whether or not you believe that is reasonable is irrelevant. Forcing people to lock away their guns and ammo in separate places completely defeats that purpose. IMO that's an unreasonable restriction that's not going to result in a significant change in gun crimes.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Exactly. s*** written in 1791 should not be controlling us today.

 

Its more that we should look at the people who wrote the words and their intentions, as opposed to the words themselves. They were bound by the thinking of their time. The US was a trendsetter, it was going against what had become the norm for how a country is run. The founding fathers were radical liberals who went against conservative ideology. It would be folly to think that such forward thinkers would constantly be binding themselves to the past. Because if that was the case, then the US would never have been founded.

 

It is important to recognize where we have come from. It is important to build on others before us (the same way our founding fathers took from Locke, Montesquieu, etc), but build is the important word. The US constitution is not meant to be an end, it is a beginning. And as time passes you change.

 

I hate to tell Scalia, but the Constitution is living, anything that can be changed is not dead.

[StrangeSox]

So if it's not from thefts, where are gangs getting their guns? Because we should care about cutting down on that violence as well.

 

I would be interested in some backing for the claim that most people own their guns for self-defense as opposed to hunting or recreational target shooting or just collecting, but it's not irrelevant if I believe that's reasonable or not. In fact, it's central to this issue: is your desire to own a gun and the ease with which we let you fulfill that desire a reasonable trade-off for the increased gun violence we experience as a result of the saturation of guns in this country?

 

edit: 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The majority of the rest are from straw-purchases, which are possible because we make it easy to get guns in this country.

Edited December 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Only if these are laws they would normally break, which is quite a big assumption. I don't refrain from shooting up heroin because it's illegal, along with numerous other laws. If I had guns, I wouldn't need a law to keep them safely locked away. But for some who may be more lax about gun safety, a law can be persuasive, even if enforcement is rare.

 

That's the point exactly. It isn't the law that changes behavior. People are going to do what they are going to do. The only real deterrent to that is a real threat of punishment. If this woman wasn't locking her guns up with a mentally unstable kid around, what's the real rationale that she would have done it because her government told her to do so? She was already more lax in a more extreme situation than most would be. I don't see another law as having changed this situation.

[flippedoutpunk]

So if it's not from thefts, where are gangs getting their guns? Because we should care about cutting down on that violence as well.

 

Can I tell you one of the answers that I know with 100% certainty and see and hear little birds in the neighborhood mentioning quite frequently? Well, just think, if Mexico can smuggle hundreds and hundreds of living human beings and inanimate drugs across the border on a daily basis, weapons are just as easy to smuggle. Its like when I was in Iraq and we would constantly blow up gigantic weapons cache's on an almost daily basis, only to find that these guys have been outfitted yet again by a neighboring country within the week.

[Soxbadger]

That's the point exactly. It isn't the law that changes behavior. People are going to do what they are going to do. The only real deterrent to that is a real threat of punishment. If this woman wasn't locking her guns up with a mentally unstable kid around, what's the real rationale that she would have done it because her government told her to do so? She was already more lax in a more extreme situation than most would be. I don't see another law as having changed this situation.

 

So put a real deterrent in.

 

If your gun is used in a violent crime and it was not safely secure, you get charged with murder, under felony murder rule. ( am taking it to the absurd, but you can create deterrents.)

 

You want to own a gun, you want to put other peoples lives at risk, take ownership of that awesome responsibility.

[StrangeSox]

That's the point exactly. It isn't the law that changes behavior. People are going to do what they are going to do. The only real deterrent to that is a real threat of punishment. If this woman wasn't locking her guns up with a mentally unstable kid around, what's the real rationale that she would have done it because her government told her to do so? She was already more lax in a more extreme situation than most would be. I don't see another law as having changed this situation.

The existence of the law itself can have persuasive force even without threat of stringent enforcement. It provides a standard or a code that you are aware of and are expected to follow. Here is one study of safe-storage laws that found considerable reduction of accidental death of minors.

 

What do you see as possibly changing this situation? Is there any form of additional gun control you'd support?

Edited December 17, 2012 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

Can I tell you one of the answers that I know with 100% certainty and see and hear little birds in the neighborhood mentioning quite frequently? Well, just think, if Mexico can smuggle hundreds and hundreds of living human beings and inanimate drugs across the border on a daily basis, weapons are just as easy to smuggle. Its like when I was in Iraq and we would constantly blow up gigantic weapons cache's on an almost daily basis, only to find that these guys have been outfitted yet again by a neighboring country within the week.

 

It IS an economic certainty that even if you banned and removed all gun the US today, that someone would go into business replacing them, and making s***loads of money doing it. It goes to one of the top arguments for legalization of drugs and pro-abortion... Do you want to have the process controlled and monitored by the government, or do you want it driven completely underground?

[Soxbadger]

Can I tell you one of the answers that I know with 100% certainty and see and hear little birds in the neighborhood mentioning quite frequently? Well, just think, if Mexico can smuggle hundreds and hundreds of living human beings and inanimate drugs across the border on a daily basis, weapons are just as easy to smuggle. Its like when I was in Iraq and we would constantly blow up gigantic weapons cache's on an almost daily basis, only to find that these guys have been outfitted yet again by a neighboring country within the week.

 

Eh there is no need to smuggle guns into the US as the US likely already has the most guns in the world. Smuggling is supply and demand. In the US its way cheaper to steal or buy a gun, then to try and buy one smuggled from Mexico.

 

You dont hear a lot about heroin being smuggled into Afghanistan, you dont smuggle things where you can get them easily. The only type of weapons that the US would be smuggling in, would be military grade stuff for the very high level cartels. And those cartels dont want random gangs having that type of equipment.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

It IS an economic certainty that even if you banned and removed all gun the US today, that someone would go into business replacing them, and making s***loads of money doing it. It goes to one of the top arguments for legalization of drugs and pro-abortion... Do you want to have the process controlled and monitored by the government, or do you want it driven completely underground?

 

Yet there would not be 300 million guns circulating on the black market, and it'd be highly unlikely that most Law Abiding Citizens, like Nancy Lanza, would have several of them laying about their house unsecured.

[Jenksismyhero]

Eh there is no need to smuggle guns into the US as the US likely already has the most guns in the world. Smuggling is supply and demand. In the US its way cheaper to steal or buy a gun, then to try and buy one smuggled from Mexico.

 

You dont hear a lot about heroin being smuggled into Afghanistan, you dont smuggle things where you can get them easily. The only type of weapons that the US would be smuggling in, would be military grade stuff for the very high level cartels. And those cartels dont want random gangs having that type of equipment.

 

I think he meant if guns get banned or are made illegal.

[Jenksismyhero]

So if it's not from thefts, where are gangs getting their guns? Because we should care about cutting down on that violence as well.

 

I would be interested in some backing for the claim that most people own their guns for self-defense as opposed to hunting or recreational target shooting or just collecting, but it's not irrelevant if I believe that's reasonable or not. In fact, it's central to this issue: is your desire to own a gun and the ease with which we let you fulfill that desire a reasonable trade-off for the increased gun violence we experience as a result of the saturation of guns in this country?

 

edit: 10-15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The majority of the rest are from straw-purchases, which are possible because we make it easy to get guns in this country.

 

So if the rest come from legal purchases, what gun restrictions would curb that problem? Criminals and felons can't legally purchase guns, so you're still getting them from law-abiding people with no records.

[StrangeSox]

I think he meant if guns get banned or are made illegal.

 

But no one is proposing that this actually happens.

[StrangeSox]

So if the rest come from legal purchases, what gun restrictions would curb that problem? Criminals and felons can't legally purchase guns, so you're still getting them from law-abiding people with no records.

 

Looks like the solution is to restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens. Technically, they are not actually law-abiding, but since we have no way to screen that, we need to reconsider the ease with which any non-criminal can obtain a gun.

[Jenksismyhero]

But no one is proposing that this actually happens.

 

You want to ban certain types of weapons, weapons that gang members would love to use.