Another Shooting, Close to Home

[volatile]

I don't see taking away guns as taking steps to stop innocent people being massacred. I see having guns as the opportunity to stop someone from massacring innocent people around me.

Except the people doing the massacring wouldn't have the guns were guns not available so easily. Your argument is circular.

 

[Drudgewire]

Except the people doing the massacring wouldn't have the guns were guns not available so easily. Your argument is circular.

It would be circular if the guns weren't already here and not going anywhere. Best we can do now is try to find the reasons besides simply having guns people are committing massacres and go from there, because your option is unattainable.

 

[volatile]

It would be circular if the guns weren't already here and not going anywhere. Best we can do now is try to find the reasons besides simply having guns people are committing massacres and go from there, because your option is unattainable.

What's so unattainable (if we're talking practically and not legally or ideologically, of course) about closing down gun shops, organising a buy-back and/or amnesty and imposing severe penalties should people be found in possession of proscribed weapons? All those things could be done, were there the political and social will, and they would go a long way to obstructing the acquisition of weapons and their subsequent (mis)use.

 

[Drudgewire]

The people who care about the law will follow it, those who don't won't.

In essense, the people who care about the law become sitting ducks in a violent society where those who don't place a very low value on human life.

That's why it's unattainable, coupled with the fact we'll have LOTS of police/national guardsmen/military dying if they try to take guns away from people who have lived with the "from my cold, dead hands" their whole lives... it would basically be the country declaring war on its own citizens.

 

[ServiceSoon]

What you are advocating would create a civil war. Is it worth it?

 

[volatile]

The people who care about the law will follow it, those who don't won't.

Obviously. The same is true of all laws. That the law will be broken is no reason not to implement it - if we followed that logic, the work of government would cease tomorrow.

In essense, the people who care about the law become sitting ducks in a violent society where those who don't place a very low value on human life.

Not true. That certainly hasn't happened elsewhere. What actually has happened, if you take the UK and Australian examples, is that whilst the criminals continue to shoot each other, the number of civilian gun fatalities has dropped to virtually zero (with every citizen gun death leading for calls to stem the tide of weapons coming into the country, to increase penalties for carrying guns and for the police to do all in their power to disarm those who would continue to wish the rest of us harm), and the number of gun-sprees has dropped to zero. Now, I understand that we're not quite comparing like with like in making analogies between pre-Dunblane Britain and the USA in 2008, but the logic is simple to follow - take guns out of the hands of the citizenry, and fewer people get shot. The VT massacre which prompted your gun acquisition would not have been possible were guns not readily available to those who impulsively feel they want them.

Is America really so sodden with murderous criminals intent on killing all who stand in their way? I have my doubts.

That's why it's unattainable, coupled with the fact we'll have LOTS of police/national guardsmen/military dying if they try to take guns away from people who have lived with the "from my cold, dead hands" their whole lives... it would basically be the country declaring war on its own citizens.

Seriously? You think that were the democratically elected government of your country willing to pass laws such as I've suggested, people would rather shoot policemen than give up their weapons? I'll ask again - is America really so sodden with murderous criminals people intent on killing law enforcement officers doing their duty? I have my doubts.

Where does this violence, this rage, come from? Why does it seem so unique to the United States? I mean, the UK has more than its fair share of lowlifes, scumbags, murderers, nutcases, criminals, oiks and thugs, but the consensus position here (even amongst the scumbags) is that reasy access to firearms would just make things so much more violent, dangerous and horrific.

 

[volatile]

What you are advocating would create a civil war. Is it worth it?

I think a reasonable case can be made, on the balance of evidence, that a gun-free society (or at least, a society as free from guns as it is possible to reach) is a better society for everyone.

Why ever would this spark a civil war? Only one side would be fighting, after all... In all seriousness, do you honestly think there would be a concerted effort by gun owners to override the will of the democratic government of the United States, were such a decision (able to be) taken?

 

[Drudgewire]

Seriously? You think that were the democratically elected government of your country willing to pass laws such as I've suggested, people would rather shoot policemen than give up their weapons? I'll ask again - is America really so sodden with murderous criminals people intent on killing law enforcement officers doing their duty? I have my doubts.

Yes. They very definitely would. Elected officials will never rise to the level of trust we have in the Constitution.

Where does this violence, this rage, come from? Why does it seem so unique to the United States? I mean, the UK has more than its fair share of lowlifes, scumbags, murderers, nutcases, criminals, oiks and thugs, but the consensus position here (even amongst the scumbags) is that reasy access to firearms would just make things so much more violent, dangerous and horrific.

There's no simple or singular answer, but it's a lot wider-ranging than "because of guns.". And again, you can't compare a country who's country wasn't founded with firearms as one of the most basic rights to one who did.

 

[Blackadder]

Perhaps if the victims had had guns they could have protected themselves. I own guns myself and this wouldn't have happened to the crowd I hang with.

Shootout at the OK corral, that was 19th century.. We have arrived in the 21st, at least some of us have.

 

[Drudgewire]

Shootout at the OK corral, that was 19th century.. We have arrived in the 21st, at least some of us have.

I have arrived in the 21st century and love and embrace it. The technology wasn't there to make Glocks in the 1800s.

 

[volatile]

Yes. They very definitely would. Elected officials will never rise to the level of trust we have in the Constitution.

That is probably the scariest thing I've ever read on this forum. Just to be clear - you think that if the American government was able to get a mandate to enforce the gun laws I suggested above such that it was politically expedient (meaning, I'd guess, that it was supported by the majority of the American people), you think a significant subsection of the population would interfere with the policing of that law by using deadly force against law enforcement agents?

If that's the case, your country is far more insane than I'd even ever imagined.

There's no simple or singular answer, but it's a lot wider-ranging than "because of guns.". And again, you can't compare a country who's country wasn't founded with firearms as one of the most basic rights to one who did.

I don't think the violent mindset is because of guns, though I think gun ownership might function to perpetuate this violence. You're going back to a constitutional argument, which is fine when talking whether this situation is ever likely to happen (it isn't, of course), but I'd rather concentrate on whether this dogged adhesion to the "right" to own guns is actually practically sensible. It strikes me that the Constitution is actually what causes (or at least facilitates) the type of situations the OP describes, and which you react with such horror towards. This dogged adherence to Consitutional scripture (and that's precisely how it so often functions - as a holy text) is worse than the problems it was supposed to alleviate in the first place.

 

[Drudgewire]

That is probably the scariest thing I've ever read on this forum. Just to be clear - you think that if the American government was able to get a mandate to enforce the gun laws I suggested above such that it was politically expedient (meaning, I'd guess, that it was supported by the majority of the American people), you think a significant subsection of the population would interfere with the policing of that law by using deadly force against law enforcement agents?

It will never be politically expedient is my point, and wiping out one of the Constitutional Top 10 is centuries away from being supported by the majority of the American people.

If that's the case, your country is far more insane than I'd even ever imagined.

EXACTLY! We're crazy here. Be damned if I'm going to be unarmed with all these nuts running around.

 

[Minadin]

It strikes me that the Constitution is actually what causes (or at least facilitates) the type of situations the OP describes, and which you react with such horror towards. This dogged adherence to Consitutional scripture (and that's precisely how it so often functions - as a holy text) is worse than the problems it was supposed to alleviate in the first place.

No, it's really not. It was designed to protect against opression and tyranny by a government abusing its power over a population that is unable to defend itself. See Myanmar. Having to worry about an occasional nut doing something like this is preferable by far to living under that sort of government.

I don't like guns. I don't use guns. I don't own guns. I never plan on using one in the future. And obviously I've been able to see the effects a lone wacko can get out of guns. But, I still support the right of others to own or use them if they choose to do that. I realize that my position may put me at risk at some point but I've also decided to accept that. I do think that there are other methods one may use to curb gun violence that don't involve violating anyone's right to defend their person or property, or making drastic changes to the constitution.

But, no matter what you do, you still can't plan for Crazy.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I think a reasonable case can be made, on the balance of evidence, that a gun-free society (or at least, a society as free from guns as it is possible to reach) is a better society for everyone.

I'm a little reluctant to take that as fact. That freedom of speech sure causes a lot of problems. Especially for certain groups like Nazis etc. Do you think everybody should give up their freedom to speech because a few select people can't handle themselves in an adult like manner? Everything is a compromise. What would society be giving up if it was a gun free society?

Why ever would this spark a civil war? Only one side would be fighting, after all... In all seriousness, do you honestly think there would be a concerted effort by gun owners to override the will of the democratic government of the United States, were such a decision (able to be) taken?

It is funny that you joke that only one side would be fighting because if this war did occur there is a lot of truth in that joke. At this point it would be a concerted effort by gun owners to override the will of the government because currently 60-75% (depending on the survey) of Americans want firearms as part of their society. But you keep pushing, you might just change the minds of USAers. There was a civil war about slavery, which is clearly malum in se so I am 100% certain there would be civil war about RKBA which is clearly malum prohibitum.

 

[ServiceSoon]

volatile:

How soon you forget. I have a treat for you at home.

 

[volatile]

No, it's really not. It was designed to protect against opression and tyranny by a government abusing its power over a population that is unable to defend itself. See Myanmar. Having to worry about an occasional nut doing something like this is preferable by far to living under that sort of government.

In exactly what ways are the political systems of the USA and Myanmar remotely similar? Or, for that matter, the USA and Nazi Germany? If you have gotten to the stage where armed uprising against your own government becomes necessary, handguns are beyond the point of being useful.

I point this out quite often, but it strikes me that those who praise the Constitution the most, and who are the most rabidly patriotic, would actually seem to me to be the last people who would take up arms against the democratically elected government of America.

But, no matter what you do, you still can't plan for Crazy.

Of course not. But we can and should do all in our power to make crazy as un-dangerous as possible.

 

[volatile]

I'm a little reluctant to take that as fact. That freedom of speech sure causes a lot of problems. Especially for certain groups like Nazis etc. Do you think everybody should give up their freedom to speech because a few select people can't handle themselves in an adult like manner?

Nope.

You've heard that saying about sticks and stones, right?

Everything is a compromise. What would society be giving up if it was a gun free society?

Guns. Oh, and murderous killing rampages against firemen (to get this back on topic). Sounds like a fair trade-off to me.

It is funny that you joke that only one side would be fighting because if this war did occur there is a lot of truth in that joke. At this point it would be a concerted effort by gun owners to override the will of the government because currently 60-75% (depending on the survey) of Americans want firearms as part of their society. But you keep pushing, you might just change the minds of USAers. There was a civil war about slavery, which is clearly malum in se so I am 100% certain there would be civil war about RKBA which is clearly malum prohibitum.

Well, yes. Truth in jest. So what you're advocating is rule by violence, essentially, and you're explicitly suggesting that moves not even be attempted to change the situation because of the threats of a violent, armed minority. If a case can be made that convinces the majority of citizens in the US that handguns should not be owned by private citizens, as the case was made elsewhere in the world, would a civil war, in your opinion, be justified, or would be just be inevitable?

 

[Drudgewire]

Of course not. But we can and should do all in our power to make crazy as un-dangerous as possible.

Let's put them all in rubber rooms with strait jackets on. I mean, if we want to do ALL in our power instead of simply limiting it to ways which don't crap all over the concept of individual rights as we know and have always known them.

 

[volatile]

Let's put them all in rubber rooms with strait jackets on. I mean, if we want to do ALL in our power instead of simply limiting it to ways which don't crap all over the concept of individual rights as we know and have always known them.

That's unnecessary, but it brings up an interesting further question: do you hold the right to own a firearm equal to the right to liberty / habeas corpus?

 

[Charles Livingston]

Can we get back on track and actually talk about this particular shooting? I live in the area so I am more interested in talking about this event. There are a million other threads where we can listen to Volatile crap on America, if not at least one other thread specific to gun ownership rights in the U.S.