Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[Sam.I.Am]

I think that enforcing such a law in the U.S. would be Sisyphean at best and downright dangerous at worst.

Great numbers of armed Americans believe that widespread gun ownership is the only thing that prevents our government from taking away other rights in the Constitution.

And so did the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Technology is technology and it's absurd to think that the founders didn't think that eventually more powerful weapons than muskets wouldn't be coming along at some point seeing as they did have a bit of knowledge about the history of warfare and how their current version of the assault rifle came to be. It could be easily argued that the advent of electrical and electromagnetic communications were much closer to what we now call science fiction to them than the idea that more powerful weapons would be available several years down the line.

That makes them even more wrong.

This is a grotesque tragedy, but it's hard to believe that gun laws alone could have prevented it.

Did I say gun laws alone could have prevented it? I think we agree.

Gun laws, mental health care, and a cultural shift would make the USA less barbaric.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

That makes them even more wrong.

How so? Or is that just an opinion formed from emotion?

 

[Orphia Nay]

How so? Or is that just an opinion formed from emotion?

Are you saying it's a right to own guns that shoot multiple rounds without reloading?

I would hope not.

Surely you'd agree that's a privilege we should only give to a carefully selected few.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Are you saying it's a right to own guns that shoot multiple rounds without reloading?

I would hope not.

Surely you'd agree that's a privilege we should only give to a carefully selected few.

Yes it is seeing as it's not expressly forbidden. By the way your definition includes most revolvers as well, not just what are termed semi-automatic weapons today.

Surely I don't agree because as I said earlier I don't think that it's a privilege and the law agrees with me. Besides that, who would decide who could own such a weapon and why them and not someone else?

 

[Orphia Nay]

If automatic/semiautomatic weapons are not illegal, then the law is wrong.

 

[lionking]

If automatic/semiautomatic weapons are not illegal, then the law is wrong.

Most of the civilised world agrees.

 

[Tomtomkent]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=808&pictureid=7098[/qimg]

Ah yes. It is very important to allow people to own guns because of Hitler. Let's think about this for a second. Ever hear of the SA Robert? Well, before Hitler was in power the SA had access to guns. So did communist groups and the Freikorps. They had very literal battles on the streets of Germany. They even attempted an armed coup by marching on their capital with those guns. They killed people with guns. How nice. You do realise that Hitler robbed a bank? Did he just ask nicely for other peoples money or was he armed at the time?

Oh and Stalin? Yeah. That would be the same Stalin who supported a provisional government of the Revolution and was up to his neck in all those people with guns murdering folks? How many armed uprisings do you think there were in Russia in the last decades of Empire? How many pogroms and anarchists?

Robert you have tried to show why owning guns should be a good thing: Tyrants hate it! But you advertise the fact with people who exemplify exactly why letting people own guns is an incredibly stupid idea. The worst case scenario is not "Own guns or these guys could end up in charge!" The worst case scenario is "Let people like this have free access to guns!"

 

[Sam.I.Am]

If automatic/semiautomatic weapons are not illegal, then the law is wrong.

The hoops that you have to jump through to own an automatic weapon in this country are not insignificant and as such very few people legally own any which is why we don't see people being gunned down with military grade assault rifles, action movies from Hollywood aside.

And again, using your definition of "guns that shoot multiple rounds without reloading" that also includes revolvers, most shotguns and just about every hunting rifle out there today in addition to what are actually considered semi-automatic weapons over here.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If automatic/semiautomatic weapons are not illegal, then the law is wrong.

When pushed to take a view on these things, and offering even the widest possible benefit of the doubt to those who hunt or have some other meaningful need for some form of firearm I can still see no reason what so ever for handguns or fully automatic weapons. To be honest I adore the taste of wild boar and some game birds I have eaten a few times in France, and understand that a gun is needed to stop them being wild and put them on my plate. But I ould live with out them (others no doubt will disagree).

Handguns though have no meaningful use other than killing. I dont care about the sport of shooting paper targets, and the arguments that people feel safer with a gun to me falls flat.

The most vocal argument in their favour was by a nice lady on another board who felt that if she was going down the wrong street, or cornered in an underground car park, or in any other situation she would feel safer and more able to protet her family by having a gun than, for example, an alarm, mace or pepper spray. But I don't see that as a solution because 1) that particular argument was all about drawing a gun and shooting an attacker before anybody was hurt (when, in the unlikely event I ever choose to rape, mug or murder somebody in a carpark I would be pretty sure to be already holding my gun before I announced my attention and shoot somebody who had a revolver in their bag) and 2) there are more effective ways of removing the risk with out the need to put other people at risk of being shot by me when I miss my attacker.

I have rarely heard of people being maimed, shot or killed during an accident with an attack alarm, better street lighting, having their friend meet them from work, having a security presence in a car park, securing your house from break ins with window locks and double glazing, or other simple common sense initiatives that should be way closer to the top of the list than guns.

There are fairly good reasons why even in countries where personal firearms are allowed they are rarely needed by most people. Because the situations when there is a percieved need for them can be minimised by far more effective methods of personal and social security, and the nightmare scenarios where a handgun is needed is almost always caused by somebody else having a gun.

 

[Orphia Nay]

The hoops that you have to jump through to own an automatic weapon in this country are not insignificant and as such very few people legally own any which is why we don't see people being gunned down with military grade assault rifles, action movies from Hollywood aside.

And again, using your definition of "guns that shoot multiple rounds without reloading" that also includes revolvers, most shotguns and just about every hunting rifle out there today in addition to what are actually considered semi-automatic weapons over here.

Which is why you should agree with me.

Who needs to hunt these days?

If wild animals need to be culled, let the forest service deal with it.

 

[atecom]

Although I can't prove causation, the fact that there haven't been any firearm massacres since semi-automatics were banned in Australia leads me to brlieve that this is a good place to start.

While I do agree that these sort of gun laws do seem useful in reducing mass shootings, keep in mind, that since gun murders in Australia was comparably low in the first place, any spree killings had a huge impact on the statistics, so stopping them would show a certain positive result.. However the gun crime in America is such a large problem, that reducing spree killings would only put a dent in the statistics.

Of course every life saved is certainly important and a step in the right direction, however I feel that the issue in the US goes further than gun control and does focus on attitudes towards guns as well.

 

[lionking]

When pushed to take a view on these things, and offering even the widest possible benefit of the doubt to those who hunt or have some other meaningful need for some form of firearm I can still see no reason what so ever for handguns.

Exactly. As I said in another thread, the fear that drives someone to own and carry a handgun for self defence must be debilitating. I researched fear of crime many years ago, and believe that fear of crime is worse than crime itself.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Good points, atecom and lionking.

If gun laws were stricter in the US, and there was better mental health care there, then not only would the death toll be drastically reduced, but I believe there would be a cultural shift away from the fear that drives people to want more guns and to kill people, and that would further reduce the number of killing sprees.

Violence breeds violence.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Which is why you should agree with me.

Who needs to hunt these days?

If wild animals need to be culled, let the forest service deal with it.

Why should I agree with you? I don't believe in unilaterally removing basic rights that are already there and have been for centuries.

Plenty of people hunt (a quick Google search showed ~15 million licenses were issued in the USA during 2011) so apparently at least 15 million people, and they pay for them, they aren't free. You would have to pay the forest service people to do what the hunters do so it's certainly not going to be revenue neutral and much of what the forest service already does do is funded by hunters buying hunting licenses.

For example, in California one deer tag will end up costing the average California resident about $75 ($280 for a non-resident) by the time you add in the generic hunting license fee. Most of the other states have similar rates. That's at least a billion dollars that goes into the coffers to manage our forests just from hunters.

I'm not trying to be obstinate and I'm not now (or ever have been or plan to be) a gun owner outside of a BB\pellet gun so I'm not defending what I might see as a personal slight against me. I just happen to think that attempting to do away with small arms in this country is not a feasible option for the foreseeable future and would cause more harm than good.

What works in one country does not mean that it will work here.

 

[lionking]

Why should I agree with you? I don't believe in unilaterally removing basic rights that are already there and have been for centuries.

Define "basic rights"? What makes them basic? And don't cite an ambiguous document centuries old.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Good points, atecom and lionking.

If gun laws were stricter in the US, and there was better mental health care there, then not only would the death toll be drastically reduced, but I believe there would be a cultural shift away from the fear that drives people to want more guns and to kill people, and that would further reduce the number of killing sprees.

Violence breeds violence.

The cultural desire to own guns is, I must admit, alien to me. I played with toy guns as a kid, watched the A Team and movies with Arnie in, played video games and read books about soldiers. But the few times I have held a gun, as a Scout and Sea Cadet, to shoot bits of paper, and perform parade drills, it was under very strict controls and something that felt very removed from the rest of my life.

The only people I have met who ever wanted to own a gun were farmers or farm workers with a specific need for hunting (pheasants or ducks), or those who unfortunately give firearm advocates a bad name and actively wanted somebody to break into their house put their "skill" to a test.

Those who had a use for guns, or for that matter bows and arrows, never once spoke about or showed any consideration for the idea of having to carry the gun anywhere or turn the gun upon people. Personal defense was not a consideration.

 

[lionking]

And for the record, I once used a shotgun a few years ago for trap shooting. Enjoyed it immensely and found I had some talent, coming second in a competition with experienced shooters. I have no problem with the use of guns for hunting or sport. Having them handy for self defence is another matter....

 

[Orphia Nay]

Why should I agree with you? I don't believe in unilaterally removing basic rights that are already there and have been for centuries.

Appeal to antiquity fallacy. Just because something is old doesn't make it right. Look at the bible.

Plenty of people hunt (a quick Google search showed ~15 million licenses were issued in the USA during 2011) so apparently at least 15 million people, and they pay for them, they aren't free. You would have to pay the forest service people to do what the hunters do so it's certainly not going to be revenue neutral and much of what the forest service already does do is funded by hunters buying hunting licenses.

For example, in California one deer tag will end up costing the average California resident about $75 ($280 for a non-resident) by the time you add in the generic hunting license fee. Most of the other states have similar rates. That's at least a billion dollars that goes into the coffers to manage our forests just from hunters.

I'm not trying to be obstinate and I'm not now (or ever have been or plan to be) a gun owner outside of a BB\pellet gun so I'm not defending what I might see as a personal slight against me. I just happen to think that attempting to do away with small arms in this country is not a feasible option for the foreseeable future and would cause more harm than good.

What works in one country does not mean that it will work here.

Are deer really such a problem? More of a problem than mass murder?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Define "basic rights"? What makes them basic? And don't cite an ambiguous document centuries old.

Do you think that people don't have the basic right to protect themselves or to feed themselves? Both are legitimate uses for guns that have been around for much longer than that "Ambiguous" document. That a few bad apples use them for other things does not, in my opinion, negate the rights of everyone else to be able to do so if they so choose.

That centuries old "Ambiguous" document was made that way on purpose because it was (rightfully) decided way back then that you have to explicitly remove rights by a 3/4ths majority of the individual states to make it hard to do so. It even included a mechanism to change itself should the need arise. Many nations constitutions used ours as a guideline on how to write their own making changes to fit their own needs. To change ours means that if 12 states say no then it's not going to happen and believe me when I say that there are more than 12 states that are not going to pass a change to the second amendment.