Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[jt512]

I think it's pretty clear that what you think "most anybody" would do bears very little correlation with reality. For example:

"Most anybody" is not a carjacker or a mass murderer.

One of us seems to have lost the plot.

And the way it works in practice is this: You apply for a firearm license. You fill out a form, which includes personal details such as name and address, and there's a bit on the form where you state what you intend to use your firearm for. If the reason is one of the ones listed in the legislation, then the state shall issue you with a license.

You are side-stepping the issue that you red-herringed around. Most people in the US who own a gun do for personal or home defense. So the question is, do you think those reasons should be on the list you are advocating for?

Here is the problem with your argument. If you think self- and home defense should not be on the list, then you are opposed to people being able to effectively defend themselves and their families against lethal force or grave bodily harm. If you think those reasons should be on the list, then the list is pointless, because anybody who wanted to own a gun for nefarious reasons would simply just check that box.

 

[PitPat]

Then there's that thing in there, "A well regulated Militia" which I think some people take a little too literally, if you disagree with your opponents. Pretty sure that was not what it was meant for.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are side-stepping the issue that you red-herringed around. Most people in the US who own a gun do for personal or home defense. So the question is, do you think those reasons should be on the list you are advocating for?

No. I'm not red herringing at all. The right to lethal self-defense with a gun is functionally equivalent to the right to kill at will.

Here is the problem with your argument. If you think self- and home defense should not be on the list, then you are opposed to people being able to effectively defend themselves and their families against lethal force or grave bodily harm. If you think those reasons should be on the list, then the list is pointless, because anybody who wanted to own a gun for nefarious reasons would simply just check that box.

As should be clear, "self-defense" is not among the valid reasons for owning a firearm in Australia, or as far as I know anywhere else other than the United States. Americans only think they need a gun for self-defense because the people they are defending against also have guns. Any gangbanger can hand over a benjamin in a Detroit back alley and get a gun because America is absolutely awash with guns. You are forced to make the assumption that any potential lawbreaker will have a gun, and that they always have lethal intent. And you carry for self-defense, so you shoot them. Preemptively if you can. Oops, made a mistake? Too late. That guy reaching for his wallet is dead and you've made his children fatherless. Small price to pay for Freedom, though, right?

This is why another part of Arthwollipot's Great American Gun Plan involves massively reducing the number of guns in circulation - by confiscating and destroying guns that are used in crimes, by heavily restricting the manufacture and sale of new guns, and by reducing the reach of the black market. Yes, determined criminals will still be able to get guns, as still happens here. But they will be far less common and there will be no need to assume that any random jerk rolling the local 7-11 will be in possession of a handgun.

When you cite "self-defense" as the reason for owning a gun, you are making the assumption that you will be attacked with lethal force. I never have been. Is daily life so randomly violent where you are in America that you feel that you have to be capable of lethal self-defence at all times? I would expect that of Somalia and South Sudan, but the United States purports to be a developed nation.

No, "self-defense" is not a valid reason listed in the firearms legislation in Australia, and somehow we're not all being raped and murdered because of it. Because believe it or not, the rule of law for the most part actually works here, and we don't need to all become vigilantes and take crime prevention into our own hands. Australia's a pretty nice place, actually. You should come visit some time and see what this so-called "woke fascist nanny state" is really like.

 

[Norman Alexander]

One of us seems to have lost the plot.



You are side-stepping the issue that you red-herringed around. Most people in the US who own a gun do for personal or home defense. So the question is, do you think those reasons should be on the list you are advocating for?

Here is the problem with your argument. If you think self- and home defense should not be on the list, then you are opposed to people being able to effectively defend themselves and their families against lethal force or grave bodily harm. If you think those reasons should be on the list, then the list is pointless, because anybody who wanted to own a gun for nefarious reasons would simply just check that box.

Point is: We face the same fears here. Really, we do. We have far more similarities to US suburban living than differences. Life and various catastrophes are pretty much the same. Same sorts of people, same sorts of problems, same sorts of low-lifes and gangs and brawls and stuff. Really, some places are notorious for trouble. Have been for decades.

But we don't all own guns as "personal protection". In fact, very few of us even want to. Which is why the licensing is such that you better have a damn good reason to own one before purchase. And funnily enough, even with exceedingly few guns in our great unwashed suburbia, it's quite rare that there is a situation where Joe Average would need and use a gun "for personal protection". His biggest fear, BY FAR, is his mortgage payments. A gun will do nuthin' for ya there.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know people who own and use guns. It's easy enough to get one if you want. You just have to cite one of the valid reasons, pay the fees, and comply with the law regarding storage. There's a gun range near me that I could visit any time if I wanted to.

There was one time I was stuck in a caravan with an aggressive feral pig hanging around and banging on the door, and I was very glad that I could call someone to come and shoot it.

 

[PitPat]

I know people who own and use guns. It's easy enough to get one if you want. You just have to cite one of the valid reasons, pay the fees, and comply with the law regarding storage. There's a gun range near me that I could visit any time if I wanted to.

There was one time I was stuck in a caravan with an aggressive feral pig hanging around and banging on the door, and I was very glad that I could call someone to come and shoot it.

Isn't Canberra a real city? I get the the snake and spider jokes, but seriously, feral pigs too?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Isn't Canberra a real city? I get the the snake and spider jokes, but seriously, feral pigs too?

Here, that's the current Federal Opposition conservative alliance.

 

[acbytesla]

You have five guns and you vote to have your legal right to own them taken away? That's basically insane.

First of all, repealing the Amendment doesn't do that. It certainly would make it a possibility. It would allow for different laws in different States. As opposed to a one size fits all guaranteed right.

I own two shotguns, one bolt action rifle, A WW1 German Luger my neighbor gave me and a Walther PPK I inherited from my father. The long guns I had for hunting. But I haven't hunted in years. And unless you plan on carrying the sidearm most of the time, it is almost worthless for self defense. Anyone telling you different is full of crap.

So I have five guns in my closet that are more hunks of steel than anything else. Guns I worry about falling into the wrong hands.

 

[Thermal]

Who decides what is a legitimate place to park your car?

Lawmakers, obviously, when drawing up reasonable legislation.

Come on Thermal. That was so obvious a question I begin to wonder at your motives for asking it.

Then your comment about "legitimate owners" makes no sense at all. In the States, our legislators have determined that essentially everyone, virtually without restriction, can be a legitimate firearms owner. So who are the "uncool losers" that you would be mocking? Criminals? Telling an armed criminal that he's "not cool" is going to have some impact on his behavior?

Your current argument is that in Australia, self defense is not an acceptable reason to own a gun. Ok. Do you have five digit homicides annually, not even getting into woundings and robberies/rapes/etc that involve guns but don't get fired. The facts on the ground should impact your answer. The odds of an Australian having a gun in his face are slimmish. Not so for an American. So until our guns largely vanish off the streets, would you agree that in the here and now, an American faces a real threat that he would be "legitimate" in wanting to mitigate by owning a gun strictly for last ditch self protection?

Eta: looks like our intentional homicide rate is about 8x higher than yours from all causes annually, per Wiki.

 

[acbytesla]

Then your comment about "legitimate owners" makes no sense at all. In the States, our legislators have determined that essentially everyone, virtually without restriction, can be a legitimate firearms owner. So who are the "uncool losers" that you would be mocking? Criminals? Telling an armed criminal that he's "not cool" is going to have some impact on his behavior?

Your current argument is that in Australia, self defense is not an acceptable reason to own a gun. Ok. Do you have five digit homicides annually, not even getting into woundings and robberies/rapes/etc that involve guns but don't get fired. The facts on the ground should impact your answer. The odds of an Australian having a gun in his face are slimmish. Not so for an American. So until our guns largely vanish off the streets, would you agree that in the here and now, an American faces a real threat that he would be "legitimate" in wanting to mitigate by owning a gun strictly for last ditch self protection?

I'm not saying that self defense is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm. It very well may be for specific individuals. But for the vast majority of people, it really isn't.

My experience from owning firearms is I only a couple of times carried a sidearm for protection and frankly, I never carried one then. I put it in the glove compartment of my vehicle.

I don’t dismiss protection outright, because it very well might be for some.

But my experience is that they are definitely the exception and not the rule. I currently live in a population of people that are obsessed with guns. Mostly men who spend far too much of their income on pickup trucks and guns. Morons that have never read a book outside of high school. If they got that far.

Guns are fetishes around here. Definitely, not a self protection requirement. In the last 3 years in this little town, the only people killed with firearms has been 4 children.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not saying that self defense is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm. It very well may be for specific individuals. But for the vast majority of people, it really isn't.

My experience from owning firearms is I only a couple of times carried a sidearm for protection and frankly, I never carried one then. I put it in the glove compartment of my vehicle.

I don’t dismiss protection outright, because it very well might be for some.

But my experience is that they are definitely the exception and not the rule. I currently live in a population of people that are obsessed with guns. Mostly men who spend far too much of their income on pickup trucks and guns. Morons that have never read a book outside of high school. If they got that far.

Guns are fetishes around here. Definitely, not a self protection requirement. In the last 3 years in this little town, the only people killed with firearms has been 4 children.

Oh, I agree in the practical sense. But when the argument gets put up that there are Americans who genuinely feel that they need one (or more often, they hope never to need it but don't want to become statistics themselves, no matter how remote the odds), I feel sympathy for those who make the self defense claim. So you get a weird gray area about whose fears are legit, and who is exaggerating the need to have a power totem that they just think is tacticool. It's my eternal waffling on this point.

Like, we'll see a story once in a while about a single mom who does not want to ever use that gun or brag about it in front of her friends, who legit fights off a home invader. Does she have a right to have a gun for self defense, but I don't because I'm larger and more physical? What about a smaller/older guy who lives in a city and also doesn't want to become one of the victims that litter the headlines, smallish though the odds might be?

The tacticool guys who show off their new $1000 9mms can go pound sand, as far as I'm concerned. But as a final option (not first choice), I can stomach the idea of revolvers for those who don't want to die.

 

[jt512]

No. I'm not red herringing at all. The right to lethal self-defense with a gun is functionally equivalent to the right to kill at will.

That is literally untrue. In the US, you have the right to lethal self defense when it is necessary, but you have no right to kill at will. That is a felony.

And you wonder why I missed your supposedly clever use of rhetoric?

 

[jt512]

Americans only think they need a gun for self-defense because the people they are defending against also have guns.

No. That’s why law-abiding people in America do need a gun for self-defense.

You are forced to make the assumption that any potential lawbreaker will have a gun, and that they always have lethal intent. And you carry for self-defense, so you shoot them.

You are clueless about the rights and responsibilities of legal concealed carry.

When you cite "self-defense" as the reason for owning a gun, you are making the assumption that you will be attacked with lethal force.

No. You are preparing for the contingency that one day you might be.

I never have been [attacked with a gun].

*shrug* I have been.

You should come visit some time and see what this so-called "woke fascist nanny state" is really like.

Why would you assume I‘ve never been to your country?

 

[jt512]

First of all, repealing the Amendment doesn't do that. It certainly would make it a possibility.

Yes. It certainly would.

So I have five guns in my closet that are more hunks of steel than anything else. Guns I worry about falling into the wrong hands.

So the guy who should have his guns taken away because he doesn’t store them responsibly wants to allow mine, which I do store responsibly, to be taken away.

 

[acbytesla]

So the guy who should have his guns taken away because he doesn’t store them responsibly wants to allow mine, which I do store responsibly, to be taken away.

I store my guns responsibly. They are all in a locked closet. The Walther also has a locked trigger guard and the Luger can't be fired without being reassembled. And certain parts are kept elsewhere. But a motivated thief can break or pick locks.

And nowhere did I say your guns should be taken away. There is a difference between responsible gun ownership and the many nutjobs out there who have no business owning a firearm. But as long as gun ownership is a right as opposed to a responsibility, the crazies will have won.

 

[arthwollipot]

Your current argument is that in Australia, self defense is not an acceptable reason to own a gun. Ok. Do you have five digit homicides annually, not even getting into woundings and robberies/rapes/etc that involve guns but don't get fired. The facts on the ground should impact your answer.

Indeed. See my other post about making America less awash in guns.

 

[arthwollipot]

That is literally untrue. In the US, you have the right to lethal self defense when it is necessary, but you have no right to kill at will. That is a felony.

And you wonder why I missed your supposedly clever use of rhetoric?

Incorrect. All you have to do in order to kill someone legally is convincingly argue that you felt that your life was in danger. It doesn't matter if it really was or not. If you want someone dead, you can kill them.

Cf. Trayvon Martin.

 

[arthwollipot]

No. You are preparing for the contingency that one day you might be.

Yeah, so like I said, "I think I might need to kill someone some day".

*shrug* I have been.

Did you shoot and kill your attacker?

Why would you assume I‘ve never been to your country?

Because you've been consistently clueless about what it's like.

 

[jt512]

Incorrect. All you have to do in order to kill someone legally is convincingly argue that you felt that your life was in danger. It doesn't matter if it really was or not. If you want someone dead, you can kill them.

Your certitude is remarkable in light of your ignorance.

 

[jt512]

Yeah, so like I said, "I think I might need to kill someone some day".

No, that is not what you said. Oh, let me guess, "simple English rhetoric "again.

Did you shoot and kill your attacker?

Actually, I was held up at gunpoint. And I was unarmed.