The 2nd Amendment solution to gun violence

[Aber]

Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.

Absolutely.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?

I'm not being evasive. Ironically, you are being evasive with this post, unless you want to make the argument that this isn't a thread about guns, and that the article quoted in the OP isn't an article about guns, and that the sentence in which the phrase "personal protection" appears isn't about guns.

Come on.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible. So we get this kind of blasé attitude that oops, accidents happen, or that any legislation is futile because it would not have stopped 100 percent of mass shootings.

Since I don't think the levels of gun ownership are going to go down, I'm pretty much resigned to hoping for a cultural shift - people will simply stop doing mass shootings.

Personally I feel safer in countries with low gun ownership rates.

I'm not even sure that it's a question of "responsible gun owners". There are any number of ways in which having a gun could escalate a situation. There are any number of ways in which having a gun could make a situation more dangerous for the person holding the gun.

I mean, let's even just take the past week. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a "responsible gun owner" in El Paso would have tried to stop the shooter and unwittingly injured or killed someone else by missing their target, or even ended up shot themselves because the police arriving on the scene wouldn't have taken the time to canvas everybody to find out who were the goodies and who were the baddies and instead just shot anybody with a gun. There was a case a month or two back where a guy who responded to a shooter in a club or bar by drawing his own gun got shot and killed by the police because they assumed he was the shooter.

 

[smartcooky]

It's been done many times, though. The US did twice, simultaneously, in WW2.

Yeah, they had an island (Britain) right there, 50 miles from the coast they had to land on. They also had the troops of a few other countries in support and two entire Air Forces (the RAF and the USAAF Eighth for air cover

Did it again in Korea.

Oh yeah, that went well, didn't it!

Did it again in Vietnam

And so did that!

Did it again, repeatedly, to maintain readiness for a Soviet invasion of western Europe (ETA: simultaneously with Vietnam).

Again they had the land and the military of several counties right there to operate from.

Did it again to liberate Kuwait.

They had Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai and UAE as allies and staging areas

Did it again to conquer Iraq.

And again, same countries as staging and logistics

If it's technically possible, the US has the resources to make it logistically feasible.

Global logistics is a solved problem for the US military. Politics is not, and is not mediated by distance.

For Afghanistan, they have none of the above.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't think irresponsible gun owners are getting enough attention. It is their right, too.

 

[Ranb]

I'm not being evasive. Ironically, you are being evasive with this post, unless you want to make the argument that this isn't a thread about guns, and that the article quoted in the OP isn't an article about guns, and that the sentence in which the phrase "personal protection" appears isn't about guns.

I asked you a direct question about something that is in a thread about guns. There is no reason why you can't provide an answer or just say you don't have an answer to give.

 

[Craig4]

Well said, except for this last part.

How do you reconcile what you wrote and the founders' explicit comments (i.e.; "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.")




There was a fair amount of history between the founding and the creation of tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons for it to have possibly turned the other way. Now, alas, not enough force can be brought to bear to override the current levels of force arrayed against the people.




I don't usually do this, but for a friend like you, I can get you a great deal!

I really doubt that Washington, Jefferson or Adams intended that the average person make this assessment. Especially Jefferson and Adams. They were both in France in the days before the popular revolution. I highly recommend "Jefferson's Crème Brule". It's about Jefferson's time in Europe after the revolution.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I asked you a direct question about something that is in a thread about guns. There is no reason why you can't provide an answer or just say you don't have an answer to give.

My answer is "it depends on what you mean by 'personal protection'". The answer to that in this context is "carrying a gun". You know my thoughts on that, but don't want to address them.

 

[smartcooky]

Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!


Politicians, listen to what your people are telling you!

 

[Belz...]

Part of the problem is that responsible gun owners never quite acknowledge the prevalence on irresponsible gun owners - in fact many of the irresponsible ones are probably deeply convinced that they are responsible.

80% of people think they are better than the average.

 

[Belz...]

Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!

Yeah but there's no money in that meal.

 

[Pterodactyl]

You have to take it as its own thing. It's definitely satirical, but it works in its own way.

I love both.
In fact, the movie does what Team America world police did, a decade sooner.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/r96ov9r3mqpoxxe/BackgroundChecksPoll.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Well there might be a few conservative politicians who say there is no political appetite for gun control, but it certainly looks like there is a public appetite for it!!


Politicians, listen to what your people are telling you!

Universal background checks is a popular proposal, politically. As far as the reporting has shown, I don't see any reason to believe that any of our recent mass shooters would have failed a background check.

Did any of the recent shooters acquire a gun by means of private sale not requiring a background check? Garlic Festival shooter bought his from a gun store, which almost certainly means he went through the normal background check when buying from a licensed dealer.

My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was going to do a serous reply on the grounds of "Sometimes Arms are necessary to defend human rights" but this whole post is so outrageous and silly and bear so little relation to reality it's best just to laugh on it.

Like the Alamo, the Mexicans were trying to take the Texans slaves away merely because slavery was illegal in mexico and they immigrated to mexico. Fortunately they wouldn't stand for that kind of stand against their rights and now we have Texas.

A shining example of the importance of guns in establishing human rights.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you're being evasive. Is personal protection in general, selfish or not?

Exactly why laws requiring seatbelt wearing are so unsafe and wrong, better to be thrown clear than trapped in a burning car.

Sure guns are more likely to take your life or the life of your loved ones than save them statistically but you defy mere statistics. After all the ones most likely to attack you are your friends and relatives and having guns in the house are good for them to use against you.

Oh but sure your friends and family are totally different and so statistics don't matter.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not even sure that it's a question of "responsible gun owners". There are any number of ways in which having a gun could escalate a situation. There are any number of ways in which having a gun could make a situation more dangerous for the person holding the gun.

I mean, let's even just take the past week. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which a "responsible gun owner" in El Paso would have tried to stop the shooter and unwittingly injured or killed someone else by missing their target, or even ended up shot themselves because the police arriving on the scene wouldn't have taken the time to canvas everybody to find out who were the goodies and who were the baddies and instead just shot anybody with a gun. There was a case a month or two back where a guy who responded to a shooter in a club or bar by drawing his own gun got shot and killed by the police because they assumed he was the shooter.

Fortunately all the concealed carry people in the walmart didn't confront the shooter. But next time it will be different!

 

[Pterodactyl]

My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.

Well, I think it's a good way to get gun shops behind such legislation.
When I've bought firearms online, I pay $40ish just to have the gun delivered then the BG check. That's easy money for a shop.

Then again, I've bought guns privately for like $50, so adding that cost on top would kind of suck.

 

[Ranb]

My only minor complaint about universal background checks is that I doubt that the law will be written in a way that allows private sales to occur. Seems likely to me that private individuals will not be able to use the background check system, so all sales will require an FFL to broker it, which smacks of rent-seeking. That's a pretty minor gripe, and I wouldn't consider it a deal-breaker.

In Washington State for example, the universal bkgd check law (enacted by I-594) was not just about sales, it covered any transfer "without limitation". This included me handing a gun to a friend at a rifle range to try out. But it was sold to the public as bkgd checks for sales. There is a short list of situations that do not require a bkgd check. The handling of another person's gun at a shooting ranges was amended a while back.

The FFL's are limited to charging market rate for facilitating the transfer, whatever that is. The law also appears to cover shipping (FedEx, UPS) employees, but as far as I know they are ignoring the law. Requests to the Attorney General for clarification of the law are ignored except for the statement on the AG's website that they are not going to give an opinion on the new law.

I'm better vetted as a gun owner/maker than most dealers in the state, but I still am not exempt from the new requirements.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, yeah, you definitely do want to avoid the subject of whether or not "personal protection" is selfish, if said "personal protection" involves owning or carrying a gun, which it does in the context of the article you linked to and the specific quote you posted. Seems an odd choice on your part to post something you wanted to evade discussion of, but each to their own.

 

[Ranb]

It is labeled "opinion." Not speaking to its merits, but you can see from the URL, it's an opinion piece.

I know it's an opinion piece. But the writer is trying to convince us that some states are exempt from gun registration requirements; something he should not be doing since it is false.