United States & Gun Control discussion.

[AWP]

Only in the most general sense, as a consumer of news and public policy, I certainly don't possess any particular expertise or have conducted any serious study on the topic.

I had a post which has...gone somewhere, but to briefly recap that long diatribe: registration leads to confiscation. This applies across history to both failed and successful states. We can't argue that owning a gun is a right and then accept registration because the two are ultimately incompatible.

 

[Il Duce]

Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US. Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.

I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state. I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime. I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite. Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.

I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument. If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them. Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US. I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.

Certainly the criminal justice system is reactive – innocent until proven guilty is a part of our constitutional rights alongside the 2nd amendment. That’s not the same thing as the government failing to protect citizens. The social contract Locke talks about is precisely oriented on that question. Individuals give up some of the freedoms they enjoy in the state of nature in order to enjoy the protections the state provides. I do not have to spend 80% of my time on kill-or-be-killed zombie apocalypse interactions with my neighbors, I can instead pursue a variety of hobbies and non-killing related work activities as the state’s monopoly on legitimate force relieves me of those responsibilities.

It is absolutely an imperfect system with a variety of weaknesses but I think the democracy our founding fathers put together has evolved and functioned pretty well on the stage of governments. I don’t think it’s holding ‘our lovely government on a pedestal’ to believe it’s principles, form, and function are sound. It’s one of the reasons I, like many on the forum, swore an oath to defend it. I don’t think you get to have a religious devotion to the efficacy of gun rights in securing liberty while dismissing the rest of the constitution as an afterthought. I’m reminded of an onion headline I saw a few years ago ‘man passionately defends what he imagines the constitution says.’

I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions. I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.

Freefalling, I haven’t seen the earlier post so can’t respond to the evidence presented but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading. One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action. You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked. Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.

 

[nobodythank you]

Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US. Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.

Tyranny by the majority, even in a democracy, is still tyranny. A common problem/issue even in the United States with regards to other social issues. Perhaps not tyranny in the classical sense, but a restriction of rights nonetheless.

I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state

That is exactly what he is saying. Which can be supported by case law within the United States.
Warren v. District of Columbia. 444 A.2d 1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 1981. LexisNexis Academic. Web. is a landmark case in which several women sued the DC Police for failing to provide protection when they were being raped and assaulted. The courts decided that “a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen” (10). In essence, this means you are on your own. The police (and by extension the government) are there to protect the general public, and NOT the individual citizen.

I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime. I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite. Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.

Incorrect, as having been a recent part of this circle, I can tell you that prevention comes through education, preparation, and involvement in the community. Which also includes citizens ability to protect themselves until we arrive on scene.

As to the statement on evidence to show crime rates are lower in more restrictive countries, is incorrect. Seeing as you made the statement, the burden of proof rests upon you for this statement. You have offered zero evidence to support this position. In fact, if you were to look at the United States, the opposite of your statement would be true. Proof:
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. According to crime statistics on the city of Chicago’s website, there were 510 homicides committed in 2012 (City of Chicago). While the city of Houston reported 205 homicides during the same period (Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics). Both of these cities share relatively similar population numbers, but have completely opposite gun laws. While guns are not the sole factor, the ability of citizens to defend themsleves is a contributing factor.
"City of Chicago." City of Chicago. City of Chicago, n.d. <https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Map-2012/bj7p-98q2>.
"Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics." Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics. City of Houston, n.d. Web. <http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/stats2.htm>.

I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument. If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them. Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US. I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.

Bogus how? Evidence? The restrictions by the NRA, while I think are not necessarily a good idea, are more than likely done in order to stifle efforts by the gun control lobby to introduce legislation meant to confiscate firearms. It is important to note, the figures within the gun control movement, have stated publicly that their effort is not for sensible controls, but for complete and total confiscation.

I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions. I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.

With respect, you're not sure about a great many things in this conversation. I don't believe many here are advocates for free and unrestricted access to weaponry. Most of us here are of the mind that those who are competent and capable should be allowed to without obstruction or undue difficulty. However, knowing the history and track record of our government when a certain political party comes into power, it is understandable that any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation. Which I will remind you is the stated goal of the gun control lobby. The government cannot be trusted with the power of registration of weapons. Period. Look at the fiasco that was universal health care as just a recent example of the government's ability to cock something up.

One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action. You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked. Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.

In theory you are correct. In practice you are proven wrong. Regulation of your ability to drive, vote, ect... is done so it can be revoked (eliminated) at any time. If the government decided to eliminate private ownership of firearms, it will be done so through severe regulation.

 

[Gunz]

...any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation...the stated goal of the gun control lobby...

And thus endeth the lesson.

The Constitution is the Constitution and our rights are written thereupon. Stop fucking with them. There are enough infringing gun restrictions on the books right now. None need be added. Americans love guns. Gun ownership and shooting are an American tradition handed down from father to son (or daughter) for generations. Guns are in our blood. This ain't some tiny country where everybody is asshole to elbow. We got room to shoot. Take a liberal to the gun range and watch what happens...they discover how much fucking fun it is!!!

 

[Ranger Psych]

Ranger Psych, don’t believe I agree with you that without guns citizens are sheep, in any of the countries mentioned or the US. Maybe we have different definitions of ‘tyranny’ as well but if European-style socialism is tyranny then we’re likely going to need new definitions for what happens in North Korea, Myanmar, etc.

Compared to the freedoms both fiscal and personal, the direction they have continually moved in is largely counter-culture of values, ideals, and morals held currently within this nation. Feel free to relocate if you think their ideals are more in line with your vision for society.

I also don’t see the argument, if I understand it correctly, that all unarmed individuals are inevitable victims, unprotected by the state. I think most police and judicial entities would define much of their role as crime prevention, that in fact catching and imprisoning criminals is preventative to further crime. I would offer as evidence crime rates in countries with restrictive gun laws, I don’t think you’ll find their incidence of burglary, battery, kidnapping, murder, rape, etc. as more than the US – in fact the opposite. Certainly that’s due to a number of factors but it undercuts the argument, through evidence, that gun ownership deregulation by itself prevents crime – at least on a societal level.

All unarmed individuals ARE at the whim of any aggressive individuals within society when their ability to protect themselves is redacted, restricted, or otherwise adulterated. What police and judicial entities define their own role as, doesn't matter as self definition is self serving. The definition I go by, is what really happens... and what really happens, is cops are still enroute when your door gets kicked down after you've been on the phone with 911 dispatchers for over 20 minutes as one prime example.

Even here, in the one city in this county, a 911 call for a Violent Crime (Reporting party, non-involved but was configured to get involved if it became necessary) as per the FBI still took a 10 minute response with my location being within the response area for both State Troopers, Sheriff's Department, and City Police. As stated by KE4GDE... LE has no legal basis and has case law defending their inaction. THEY ARE PURELY PUNITIVE AFTER THE FACT. What you have on your hip or in your safe is what will keep you safe, at least if you can get at it quick enough.

I don’t mean to offer other first world countries as the model of what is proscriptive for the US, merely offer that they provide evidence the ‘guns prevent tyranny and crime’ as being a bogus argument. If there are counter-examples of societies where extensive gun rights or ownership make societies safer or more law-abiding I’d certainly like to hear about them. Statistics on the topic are very controversial in the US as congress has instituted a number of restrictions (at the NRA’s urging) on how gun crime and gun regulations relate to crime in the US. I think it’s a good indicator when you’re afraid of data that the data is not going to back up your argument.

England (as a prime gun freeish nation you seem to espouse as a pinnacle of righteousness) reports crimes significantly differently than the US, but the best breakdown of English statistics to the FBI standard of a "Violent Crime" being murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault... puts the English numbers on the order of >700:100k people vs US of 403:100k. Murder rate is 1.2:100k vs US 4.8. I'll take being able to prevent all of the above by being able to defend myself, over the alternative of zero defensive capability.

Certainly the criminal justice system is reactive – innocent until proven guilty is a part of our constitutional rights alongside the 2nd amendment. That’s not the same thing as the government failing to protect citizens. The social contract Locke talks about is precisely oriented on that question. Individuals give up some of the freedoms they enjoy in the state of nature in order to enjoy the protections the state provides. I do not have to spend 80% of my time on kill-or-be-killed zombie apocalypse interactions with my neighbors, I can instead pursue a variety of hobbies and non-killing related work activities as the state’s monopoly on legitimate force relieves me of those responsibilities.

It is absolutely an imperfect system with a variety of weaknesses but I think the democracy our founding fathers put together has evolved and functioned pretty well on the stage of governments. I don’t think it’s holding ‘our lovely government on a pedestal’ to believe it’s principles, form, and function are sound. It’s one of the reasons I, like many on the forum, swore an oath to defend it. I don’t think you get to have a religious devotion to the efficacy of gun rights in securing liberty while dismissing the rest of the constitution as an afterthought. I’m reminded of an onion headline I saw a few years ago ‘man passionately defends what he imagines the constitution says.’

I hold the Constitution in higher regard than the electorate on all sides from the top down that currently is trying to skirt it through multiple means.

I’m not sure about the efficacy of current vs proposed gun laws or the benefits of education vs restrictions. I haven’t seen a great deal of compelling evidence for existing laws as effective in deterring gun crime – as I also am not familiar with the same showing unrestricted access to guns leads to less.

Shotgun and Rifle teams started dissapearing from schools in the mid 60's, and are all but gone at this point in no small part due to a byproduct of schools being marked as free fire I mean gun free zones. Oh, school shootings back then (non-accidental murders) also rarely occured, and when they did they rarely ever had more than one victim at that.

 

[pardus]

but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading. One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action. You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked. Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.

First of all thank you for your earlier clarification.

As to the bolded quotes above. It is not misleading in the slightest. I've lived through it personally and have seen it enacted in 3 countries that Ive either lived or visited. What you seem to fail to realize is, that after registration comes and the state decides that a firearm is no longer acceptable, then people face the punitive action you speak of. So you are in effect correct except you are not looking at the bigger picture.

Regulating a right does not eliminate that right, correct, it puts in place the means to eliminate it.

 

[Il Duce]

Ok, having trouble figuring out how to respond by sections, as ke4gde and Ranger Psych have done. I know, not a ringing endorsement for my other arguments to display a lack of technical skills. Below are my section by section responses to ke4gde using old-fashioned quotes:

"Tyranny by the majority, even in a democracy, is still tyranny. A common problem/issue even in the United States with regards to other social issues. Perhaps not tyranny in the classical sense, but a restriction of rights nonetheless."

Tyranny by the majority is a common problem in the US? I don’t think a different party than the one you favor winning an election and enacting policy equates to tyranny.

"That is exactly what he is saying. Which can be supported by case law within the United States.
Warren v. District of Columbia. 444 A.2d 1. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 1981. LexisNexis Academic. Web. is a landmark case in which several women sued the DC Police for failing to provide protection when they were being raped and assaulted. The courts decided that “a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen” (10). In essence, this means you are on your own. The police (and by extension the government) are there to protect the general public, and NOT the individual citizen."

So, because you can’t sue the police when a crime is committed against you the police and state offer no preventative protection? The only effective crime prevention is individual gun ownership? I’m no legal scholar but that does not seem to me to be the key lesson of Warren vs DC. It strikes me to be much more about financial liability.
"Incorrect, as having been a recent part of this circle, I can tell you that prevention comes through education, preparation, and involvement in the community. Which also includes citizens ability to protect themselves until we arrive on scene.

As to the statement on evidence to show crime rates are lower in more restrictive countries, is incorrect. Seeing as you made the statement, the burden of proof rests upon you for this statement. You have offered zero evidence to support this position. In fact, if you were to look at the United States, the opposite of your statement would be true. Proof:
Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. According to crime statistics on the city of Chicago’s website, there were 510 homicides committed in 2012 (City of Chicago). While the city of Houston reported 205 homicides during the same period (Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics). Both of these cities share relatively similar population numbers, but have completely opposite gun laws. While guns are not the sole factor, the ability of citizens to defend themsleves is a contributing factor.
"City of Chicago." City of Chicago. City of Chicago, n.d. <https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crime-Map-2012/bj7p-98q2>.
"Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics." Houston Police Department - Crime Statistics. City of Houston, n.d. Web. <http://www.houstontx.gov/police/cs/stats2.htm>."

So, education and individual preparation and involvement are the elements of crime prevention? Police, courts, and jails are unnecessary – just concerned and well-armed citizens. I’d be interested if you can provide an example of that sort of frontier justice being effective anywhere, much less in an urbanized developed country.
In terms of evidence on crime rates or gun related crime you don’t have to go very far. I’m surprised there is anyone who does not acknowledge US crime rates, especially with regards to gun violence, are much higher than the rest of the developed world. Here are a couple of links from a quick google search:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
"Bogus how? Evidence? The restrictions by the NRA, while I think are not necessarily a good idea, are more than likely done in order to stifle efforts by the gun control lobby to introduce legislation meant to confiscate firearms. It is important to note, the figures within the gun control movement, have stated publicly that their effort is not for sensible controls, but for complete and total confiscation."

Yes, precisely my point. Restrictions on information and data collection are put in place to prevent that data being used to justify gun restrictions. Don’t collect the data, as it might present facts that argue against the position. That’s tyranny if you need an example. The idea that all advocates of gun control favor total confiscation of all guns is an equally ridiculous straw-man. I’m sure there are those who favor confiscation, but it’s hardly the majority much less all.

"With respect, you're not sure about a great many things in this conversation. I don't believe many here are advocates for free and unrestricted access to weaponry. Most of us here are of the mind that those who are competent and capable should be allowed to without obstruction or undue difficulty. However, knowing the history and track record of our government when a certain political party comes into power, it is understandable that any restriction or regulation is a further stepping stone to confiscation. Which I will remind you is the stated goal of the gun control lobby. The government cannot be trusted with the power of registration of weapons. Period. Look at the fiasco that was universal health care as just a recent example of the government's ability to cock something up."

Being unsure is the natural position of someone without sufficient data to make conclusions. With respect, there’s an awful lot of surety from others on the thread who seem to lack a great deal of data as well.
"In theory you are correct. In practice you are proven wrong. Regulation of your ability to drive, vote, ect... is done so it can be revoked (eliminated) at any time. If the government decided to eliminate private ownership of firearms, it will be done so through severe regulation."

Again, this seems like a transparent straw-man argument. ‘Regulation will be used to take all guns away’ – as evidenced how? This seems like boilerplate conspiracy theory similar to much I hear about NSA surveillance, health care, and the black helicopters of the great UN invasion headed our way. Something one of my political science professor's in graduate school said I have always found appropriate to discussions like this (and I am paraphrasing): 'if you want to have a real argument define your opponent's views in a way they would accept, if you don't you're just arguing with an imaginary boogeyman you've created.' I don't think the majority of those who favor regulations intend disarmament, confiscation, or tyranny. I think they see the results of poorly regulated guns in the US as increased crime and gun-related deaths and look for solutions within public policy. They also don't see the 2nd amendment as integral to the fabric of a functioning democracy nor as an inalienable right of every citizen to have any weapon they want with no accountability or oversight. These views may not be correct but they are genuine, not tyrannical despotism in waiting.

 

[Ranger Psych]

We're throwing facts and personal experience as either relevant-experience-holding US citizens, prior citizens of now-disarmed states (and watching the shit happen) or as flat out law enforcement, you're throwing around MI-level best guess bs highlighted with the epitomy of officer-speak non-commital non-attributable strawmanning and redirection.

I'm done.

 

[AWP]

Freefalling, I haven’t seen the earlier post so can’t respond to the evidence presented but the registration inevitably leads to confiscation argument seems misleading. One of the central purposes behind any registration and accounting by the state is for possible punitive action. You register to vote, partially to prevent fraud, you declare your journalistic credentials partly so they could at some point be revoked. Regulating a right does not eliminate the right.

I've found several lists, but before I post them I'd like to run down the facts or evidence. Given the political bent of the websites I don't wish my points to be "autodiscarded" because of their source(s). So I'll run down the examples and see if sany of them are "leaps of faith."

I will address the inevitable here and then move on.

Nazi Germany

The Weimar Republic placed restrictions of firearms, but particularly legislated registration. When Hitler and the NSDAP came to power several years later it loosened those restrictions. Sort of. See, it loosened them for the good, pure Aryan people, but banned them outright for Gypsies, Jews, etc. The same people who were later executed en masse. I had some info on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, but couldn't find it.

Here's the thing, if we can quote Locke and others then we have to consider other philisophical views. I think one view which is overlooked is this: would you rather die in a gas chamber or on your feet? I'm not so blind as to think that zero gun registration would equal Hitler's early demise, but an armed uprising would make the world notice. Germany could "stealthily" execute the masses because there wasn't any opposition. So even if we accept (I think we should) the physical reality that guns in the hands of private citizens would not stop Hitler are we willing to accept a mindless death in the gas chamber? Or would we rather go out on our feet? You're in a bad spot and the end isn't in doubt, but if we're a nation of beliefs then why on earth would we accept a quiet subjugation? Why should ANY people on this earth go peacefully into that good night?

 

[nobodythank you]

Tyranny by the majority is a common problem in the US? I don’t think a different party than the one you favor winning an election and enacting policy equates to tyranny.

Really? How delightfully misguided. Do you happen to know what political party I favor? In point of fact I do not care for either party. The one I desire does not exist. Your assumptions are based on bad information all around. Tyranny comes in many forms. Examples of such within the United States (recent times) include Civil Rights discrimination, sexual and marriage equality discrimination, tyranny by the so called majority, and several other forms. Oppression that has occurred on BOTH sides of the political isle. The Democrats are notorious for stomping on religious freedoms, personal freedoms, gun ownership, fiscal responsibility, and much much more. By contrast the Republicans are notorious for stomping on social equality, religious protections (see misguided belief that the US is a Christian nation and the forcing of Christian values on the populace), fiscal responsibility, and much more. So your comment is not only incorrect, but an uninformed one.

So, because you can’t sue the police when a crime is committed against you the police and state offer no preventative protection? The only effective crime prevention is individual gun ownership? I’m no legal scholar but that does not seem to me to be the key lesson of Warren vs DC. It strikes me to be much more about financial liability.

I have highlighted the only accurate information in this posting. You are not a legal scholar, and by all accounts (based on the available information you have provided) have not worked in the criminal justice field in this country. Your assessment of this case is again, incorrect. If you had read the case in its entirety, you would have seen that the women called the police several times for help. Each time the police arrived and failed to detect criminal activity, and one of the calls was even mis-classified as to prioritization by the dispatcher. The point of the case was to assign blame onto the the police department for negligence in the performance of their duty. I highly doubt these women endured several hours of torture, rape, and trauma in order to collect a payday. Let me be clear here, the police are NOT here to protect YOU the individual. Their responsibility is to the general public as a whole. Similar to how in a disaster, the first priority is to the continuity of government, THEN the protection of life and property. For the record, I am speaking form a position as someone who has spent quite a few years interpreting and executing the law as a law enforcement officer (former) and seen how the system works from the side of the courts (bailiff) and from the streets.

So, education and individual preparation and involvement are the elements of crime prevention? Police, courts, and jails are unnecessary – just concerned and well-armed citizens. I’d be interested if you can provide an example of that sort of frontier justice being effective anywhere, much less in an urbanized developed country.
In terms of evidence on crime rates or gun related crime you don’t have to go very far. I’m surprised there is anyone who does not acknowledge US crime rates, especially with regards to gun violence, are much higher than the rest of the developed world. Here are a couple of links from a quick google search:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/16/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Yes. As your lack of u understanding in the elements of crime fighting are evident, I will attempt to educate you on these principals. As I said, those are some of the precepts of crime prevention. The concept of community policing is one that is in used by most law enforcement agencies in this country. The concept centers around educating the public on criminal activity, involving law enforcement in the community, and providing for a police presence to proactively deter criminal activity. So much for frontier justice form a civilized nation huh? The implementation of community policing has had a profound positive impact in nearly every community that is has been used in.
The police, courts, and jails are after the fact, punitive efforts made against those that break the established laws. Laws are NOT primarily meant to prevent criminal activity. In fact, they are meant to punish those that break the law. The law can sometimes server as a deterrent, but it is only a happy side effect. As an aside, you mean to tell me that in this discussion, where I have provided sound academic sources, you are going to bring in the Guardian as a source for information on how gun violence works in the States? Really? The media is notorious for putting spin on data. Data that many of their analysts are unfamiliar with interpreting.

Yes, precisely my point. Restrictions on information and data collection are put in place to prevent that data being used to justify gun restrictions. Don’t collect the data, as it might present facts that argue against the position. That’s tyranny if you need an example. The idea that all advocates of gun control favor total confiscation of all guns is an equally ridiculous straw-man. I’m sure there are those who favor confiscation, but it’s hardly the majority much less all.

Again, data being misrepresented to oppress those that wish to maintain their liberties. With the proper spin, the majority can be formed and manipulated. It is not a straw man argument, it is and has been the stated goal by many prominent gun control advocates. On more than one occasion, and in more than one venue. Their execution of this can be seen in the calls for "common sense" reform by the Bloomberg group, Brady group, and several liberal platforms.

Being unsure is the natural position of someone without sufficient data to make conclusions. With respect, there’s an awful lot of surety from others on the thread who seem to lack a great deal of data as well.

There is nothing wrong with being unsure and stating so. However, you are arguing a point you are unsure of, and have little understanding of. That doesn't make for a sound or concise argument on your end. You are correct, there is a lot of surety in this thread. Although I cannot speak to anyone else, I know that most of the people on this site do not speak on issues they are not familiar with. Familiarity being more than something they saw on TV or read online. Most of the individuals here speak with real world experience and I trust the sources in most cases. So the lack of data can be excused up to a certain point. In most cases if data is requested, it is provided to support a position.

Again, this seems like a transparent straw-man argument. ‘Regulation will be used to take all guns away’ – as evidenced how? This seems like boilerplate conspiracy theory similar to much I hear about NSA surveillance, health care, and the black helicopters of the great UN invasion headed our way. Something one of my political science professor's in graduate school said I have always found appropriate to discussions like this (and I am paraphrasing): 'if you want to have a real argument define your opponent's views in a way they would accept, if you don't you're just arguing with an imaginary boogeyman you've created.' I don't think the majority of those who favor regulations intend disarmament, confiscation, or tyranny. I think they see the results of poorly regulated guns in the US as increased crime and gun-related deaths and look for solutions within public policy. They also don't see the 2nd amendment as integral to the fabric of a functioning democracy nor as an inalienable right of every citizen to have any weapon they want with no accountability or oversight. These views may not be correct but they are genuine, not tyrannical despotism in waiting.

Again, not a straw-man argument. Confiscation is the next logical step after registration. Again bolded. You don't think, based on what evidence? This is why the District of Columbia gun ban and registration were defeated in the courts. As will the mandatory registration of weapons in Connecticut will be shot down as being unconstitutional. It is also why a national firearms registry has not been created. Again I don't see anyone here in favor of anyone having any weapons they want. In fact, speaking as a former law enforcement officer, there are several laws in place that sufficiently address the issues involved in gun ownership. I can also tell you that in many cases, prosecution is being waved against people that have committed gun and other crimes.
Based on my own real world interactions, the majority of the populace is scared and uniformed on the topic of carrying firearms. It is not until they are educated on the topic do they reverse their fears and misunderstanding on the topic. Many are conditioned to be sheep as was mentioned earlier in the thread. Of course in an academic or theoretical setting we can laugh at the absurdity of the government abusing their authority over the populace. However, in practice this can be seen through the use of NSA surveillance to spy on American citizens, tax scandals with the IRS, and many other scandals that have hit the current administration.

 

[Il Duce]

So, I believe I’ve heard three major arguments put forward for why gun restrictions are a bad idea and possibly/definitely unconstitutional.

1. Guns are the only means of protecting your person, property, and family as the state is not obligated to do so and anyone without a gun is a victim waiting to happen. If I have understood Ranger Psych and ke4gde positions correctly.

I still don’t find this argument convincing. There are copious examples in communities in the US and other developed countries where gun ownership and victimhood do not correlate with this maxim – else why wouldn’t countries with severe gun restrictions be over-run with criminality? If this were the case why wouldn’t mandatory gun ownership replace law-enforcement almost in it’s entirety? Further, it doesn’t seem to be a good argument against gun regulation, only against the prohibition of guns. If citizens can be armed for self-defense wouldn’t more restrictions on criminal’s ability to gain guns, or anyone’s ability to gain weaponry and ammunition enough to conduct a sustained attack be a good thing? After all, you need much less in the way of weaponry and ammunition to defend your home and person against intruders than you would to assault another’s home.

2. Guns prevent tyranny, their presence which provides the ability of the populace to rebel and/or resist the state acts as a check on the state’s power to prosecute tyranny against it’s citizens. Believe Ranger Psych, ke4gde, and Freefalling put forth this argument – again if I am understanding it correctly.

I haven’t seen any evidence in this forum or elsewhere to support this assertion. In our own history armed resistance to the state has never brought redress or alleviation of perceived tyranny – in fact the opposite. Those taking up arms to assert their rights against the state are almost always repressed with significant force. I think you can point to the same in most other developed countries. I can absolutely see how arms can protect you from fellow citizens but I can’t think of any situation where sufficient arms, ammunition, training, and organization have been sufficient to protect you from the state.

3. Restrictions on guns, including registration and the collection of information on owners, manufacturers, and the weapons themselves can (or will inevitably) lead to the confiscation of guns and the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution. Pardus and Freefalling put this argument forward but I would imagine most others agree.

I think I do buy this argument, not that it is inevitable, but certainly that it sets the stage for the loss of gun rights. If you believe any encroachment, or possible future encroachment, on gun rights is an affront to the constitution and must be resisted then I think you have a case.

I don’t view gun rights that way and believe many who favor restrictions and regulation do not as well. I think the same argument made for registration/regulation can be made for NSA surveillance, prayer in school, subpoenaing journalists to testify in leak cases – each could be a step towards a big-brother surveillance state, state-sanctioned religion and the loss of religious liberty, and the dissolution of freedom of the press respectively. I personally don’t think that’s what those decisions are leading to, though I have to acknowledge the possibility. Instead, I believe they are reasonable encroachments on valuable constitutional rights that a free society must make to protect the liberty and safety of it’s citizens.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the guns-rights movement – or perhaps it is just my perception of the gun-rights movement – is the passionate conviction in the sanctity of the 2nd amendment but the seeming ambivalence on the others. You don’t see many open-carry rallies getting together to support the ACLU, mosque openings, or the occupy movement. The rise of Hitler’s Germany saw the restriction of a number of liberties including religion, press, assembly, and others. Why aren’t these liberties as critical to the prevention of tyranny as the right to bear arms – especially considering those liberties, without the right to bear arms, are present in a variety of developed countries where the right to bear arms alone does not seem to have provided any examples of states with an abundance of liberty.

In terms of my lack of knowledge or use of best-guess MI BS I don’t think I’m as far away from the rest of the posts as ke4gde and Ranger Psych imagine. We’re discussing public policy with a wide range of views from a host of individuals and groups who have studied this problem more than anyone on the forum. I’m not offended if folks disagree, dispute my facts, or draw different conclusions. I hope others feel the same way with my comments.

 

[Ranger Psych]

1. Guns are the only means of protecting your person, property, and family as the state is not obligated to do so and anyone without a gun is a victim waiting to happen. If I have understood Ranger Psych and ke4gde positions correctly.

I still don’t find this argument convincing. There are copious examples in communities in the US and other developed countries where gun ownership and victimhood do not correlate with this maxim – else why wouldn’t countries with severe gun restrictions be over-run with criminality?

I call.

Show your hand, where's your citations for your supposed examples? We're bringing facts, you're bring us something we should take at face value and by your word.

Your word supports the registration and following confiscation of something protected by our constitution, and you have even tried to state that you support and defend that very document when your statements show otherwise.

Why should we trust that at all?

If this were the case why wouldn’t mandatory gun ownership replace law-enforcement almost in it’s entirety? Further, it doesn’t seem to be a good argument against gun regulation, only against the prohibition of guns.

See criminal statistics of England Vs US I cited above that you chose to waffle past and ignore.

There is also a lack of tracking of incidents within this nation as far as statistics for involvement of a firearm in the defense of person or property. Extrapolation from things that barely scratched the surface such as the National Crime Victimization Survey shows REPORTED incidents in the 300k range.

I can state as a fact that those numbers are obviously low because of the fact that out of the two incidents my household has been in, only one was reported to police. My wife, Medicchick on here, had to draw down on an individual who refused to leave, continued to advance, and who's actions put her in fear of her physical safety. He ran away, and as a matter of fact SHE didn't even call police. Her on-the-ball loss prevention co-workers at the store she worked at and was departing from shopping at saw what was occuring on CCTV and called the police as they were responding to the parking lot themselves, albeit unarmed. I can say with certainty that she was lenient in her trigger press compared to what I would have done.

He was apprehended later by local law enforcement AFTER THE ATTEMPTED ASSAULT TOOK PLACE (gee, where were the cops to stop it from happening, oh wait, they're nearly solely reactive)

If citizens can be armed for self-defense wouldn’t more restrictions on criminal’s ability to gain guns, or anyone’s ability to gain weaponry and ammunition enough to conduct a sustained attack be a good thing? After all, you need much less in the way of weaponry and ammunition to defend your home and person against intruders than you would to assault another’s home.

You obviously know little to nothing about how to conduct manual breaching nor how to actually perform a defense. Not surprising, given my experience with a respective population sample in military schools.

2. Guns prevent tyranny, their presence which provides the ability of the populace to rebel and/or resist the state acts as a check on the state’s power to prosecute tyranny against it’s citizens. Believe Ranger Psych, ke4gde, and Freefalling put forth this argument – again if I am understanding it correctly.

I haven’t seen any evidence in this forum or elsewhere to support this assertion. In our own history armed resistance to the state has never brought redress or alleviation of perceived tyranny – in fact the opposite. Those taking up arms to assert their rights against the state are almost always repressed with significant force. I think you can point to the same in most other developed countries. I can absolutely see how arms can protect you from fellow citizens but I can’t think of any situation where sufficient arms, ammunition, training, and organization have been sufficient to protect you from the state.

Erm, armed resistance to "the state" are what brought this country to fruition... You chose to put forth that the minutemen of long ago did not win the revolutionary war. I counter that very statement with the fact that given the choice of fighting alone or with a limited number of men, or with a supported military that is fed, funded, armed and coordinated.. against the same enemy... which would you choose?


But, we can bring some things into the discussion.
Or some more.
Or some more.
Want me to keep going?

3. Restrictions on guns, including registration and the collection of information on owners, manufacturers, and the weapons themselves can (or will inevitably) lead to the confiscation of guns and the loss of rights guaranteed by the constitution. Pardus and Freefalling put this argument forward but I would imagine most others agree.

I think I do buy this argument, not that it is inevitable, but certainly that it sets the stage for the loss of gun rights. If you believe any encroachment, or possible future encroachment, on gun rights is an affront to the constitution and must be resisted then I think you have a case.

It IS inevitable, and it provides the specific framework that every other nation on this planet that has confiscated or otherwise required the surrendering of arms, has used.

Not
That
It's
Fucking
Happening
NOW

or anything...

I don’t view gun rights that way and believe many who favor restrictions and regulation do not as well. I think the same argument made for registration/regulation can be made for NSA surveillance, prayer in school, subpoenaing journalists to testify in leak cases – each could be a step towards a big-brother surveillance state, state-sanctioned religion and the loss of religious liberty, and the dissolution of freedom of the press respectively. I personally don’t think that’s what those decisions are leading to, though I have to acknowledge the possibility. Instead, I believe they are reasonable encroachments on valuable constitutional rights that a free society must make to protect the liberty and safety of it’s citizens.

One thing that has always puzzled me about the guns-rights movement – or perhaps it is just my perception of the gun-rights movement – is the passionate conviction in the sanctity of the 2nd amendment but the seeming ambivalence on the others. You don’t see many open-carry rallies getting together to support the ACLU, mosque openings, or the occupy movement. The rise of Hitler’s Germany saw the restriction of a number of liberties including religion, press, assembly, and others. Why aren’t these liberties as critical to the prevention of tyranny as the right to bear arms – especially considering those liberties, without the right to bear arms, are present in a variety of developed countries where the right to bear arms alone does not seem to have provided any examples of states with an abundance of liberty.

The ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment:

The ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Wonder why we say Fuck Off to the ACLU? They say it to the entirety of an amendment that they choose to interpret in their own manner. Just like you do.

Islam's stated framework is to destroy or subjugate all people and other religions, and continues it, to this day......and the occupy movement wishes to gain from others hard work.

None of those mesh with the views of 2nd amendment supporters, and that is one quick reason why you won't see us getting our arms and joining their defense.

There's a fact you're also obviously either completely oblivious of, glossing over, or outright ignoring.

What do you do when those other rights are restricted? You can't talk. You can't publish it in the press. You can't vote. You can't express your religion as you see fit.

What backs up all these other rights?

I find it laughable that you're willing to give up or sustain restrictions upon any of your rights, let alone the most important one that ensures the others can exist.

You probably don't even realize it, but by doing so you specifically commit to become wholly reliant on a government apparatus which under the very rule of law they uphold, is not legally required to protect you nor is liable or punishable for that lack of protection.

 

[AWP]

So, I believe I’ve heard three major arguments put forward for why gun restrictions are a bad idea and possibly/definitely unconstitutional

Have you read the rest of this thread? You only address points and persons from the last two or three pages.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Have you read the rest of this thread? You only address points and persons from the last two or three pages.

Not like it's an 80 page thread or anything...

 

[8654Maine]

Il Duce, how would you go about fixing the problem?

I think some of the rancor stems from the way you write (I've never met you so I couldn't say "talk"). Your reference to your professor and the way you expound remind me of academics who believe that they are enlightening the unwashed and the uneducated. I wouldn't count RP, FF, Ke4dge, Pardus or Mara in that company.

I like the way you've boiled down some of the "Pro 2A" arguments to 3 bullets. **Get it**

BTW, I've lived in some of these "Tyranny-free zones" and was a citizen of one. I gave them up and became a citizen of this country and would never go back. Poor sample size (n=1).

I don't mind hearing alternatives. If I am ignorant, then educate me.

So instead of showing how ignorant some here are, how would YOU fix it?

 

[Il Duce]

8654Maine, I've definitely spent a great deal of time in academia - and I'm an MI bubba - so I can certainly see that's how I 'talk.' I certainly do not mean to come across as though others are ignorant or uneducated. The only member I know personally is Mara but I do not believe he, nor anyone else on the forum is unenlightened or uneducated. One of the main motivators for me to monitor this thread was to gain education for myself.

I will say there are a number of 'facts' I've cited or failed to failed to prove in some member's estimation I do not believe are controversial in the least. I've got it that rightwing.org says guns are the only thing that ensured the success of the revolution, civil rights movement, etc. - but that's kind of like providing a link saying there's no such thing as climate change. They're out there and sincere people believe it, but it's definitely not in the main stream of social science or scholarship. Not trying to refute Ranger Psych here, just saying I might have a different baseline of what I think is mainstream in terms of scholarship.

To answer your specific question, I have no idea. I have not read every post in this 80 page thread (to answer Freefalling's question) but I have been monitoring it for about the last 50 pages or so. My main purpose was to gain some insight and information on gun control policy - I did not intend to comment until Pardus caught me failing to keep my clicker off the disagree button. I consider myself, as you might have guessed, a liberal in terms of my political leanings. However, I've found liberal policy proscriptions in terms of gun control to be entirely unsatisfying. I do not have an issue with gun control legislation in principle but I've seen very few examples of gun regulations that seem to do much to get after their purported purpose - the decrease of crime, gun violence, and/or accidental deaths. Could be because we haven't found the right policies, could be NRA-backed obstructionism - but it could also be because gun restrictions are flawed in principle.

So, yeah, I have no alternative to offer although I too am looking for education on the topic. I have found some on the forum but there has been a great deal I have found not at all convincing as my trip down blogwar lane here has probably shown.

One thing I do think helps in the discussion is intellectual honesty and clarity of purpose. I think you have to look at information and sources with as close to a lack of bias as you can manage. You also have to acknowledge up front the things you take on faith. If in your view gun rights are an inalienable part of being a citizen it's not going to matter what stats are rolled out in front of you - gun restrictions are not going to be legitimate. If you're searching for the most effective means of deterring crime, defending life/liberty/property you have to be willing to acknowledge evidence that does not agree with what you'd like to be true. I think there is a host of information sources, largely on the right, in terms of gun policy and history that are deeply misleading. I think an intellectually honest conversation about guns ignores them.

But, totally get it if that comes across as dismissive or insulting. That's not how I mean it, if that makes any difference. It's for that reason I've 'ignored' some of the 'facts' presented in the discussion. Because I don't think they are facts. But I'm not going to be able to provide a link or a citation that will be meaningful to those who already believe such evidence could never exist.

So, there's 300 words to answer your question that could have been done in 3 - if that doesn't prove my academic credentials I don't know what will :)

 

[Ranger Psych]

So you're not going to cite sources, facts, and skirt the actual questions asked?

Sounds good. Sounds Liberal.

 

[Il Duce]

Ranger Psych, I'll get it. But if you think the civil rights movement in the US rested on the use of firearms and the articles proposing that hypothesis are scholarship nothing I'm going to cite or say will make any difference to you.

 

[8654Maine]

Il Duce, thank you for the clarification.

I appreciate the honesty.

" I consider myself, as you might have guessed, a liberal in terms of my political leanings. However, I've found liberal policy proscriptions in terms of gun control to be entirely unsatisfying. I do not have an issue with gun control legislation in principle but I've seen very few examples of gun regulations that seem to do much to get after their purported purpose - the decrease of crime, gun violence, and/or accidental deaths. Could be because we haven't found the right policies, could be NRA-backed obstructionism - but it could also be because gun restrictions are flawed in principle."

I think you hit it with that one. None of the gun restrictions, regulations or gun control legislation seem to do what they purport.

 

[Brill]

Why are members of Congress and others in the Executive branch afforded more rights to personal defense than I? Pelosi and other anti-gunners travel around DC and into MD with PSDs who are armed...why can I not be? Threat of criminal trespass is still the same.

Either we ALL have guns or NOBODY has guns.