Charleston Shooting

[gaggedLouise]

The Economist on the Charleston shooting, after noting in passing that Jeb Bush cancelled a campaign meeting he had scheduled for the city:

"It is interesting to contemplate how many victims a killing must claim before politicians feel they need to cancel a rally in the area, and what types of victims merit cancellation. Would Mr Bush have cancelled his rally after a gang-related killing? What about a terrorist attack? (For that matter, why are political murders such as the Boston Marathon bombing immediately labelled "terrorism", while the apparently political mass murder in Charleston is not?) Will mass killings someday be unremarkable enough in America that politicians feel comfortable ignoring them entirely?

The regularity of mass killings breeds familiarity. The rhythms of grief and outrage that accompany them become - for those not directly affected by tragedy - ritualised and then blend into the background noise. That normalisation makes it ever less likely that America's political system will groan into action to take steps to reduce their frequency or deadliness. Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard them the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing. This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."

This reader's comment on another piece on the same site looks very pointed, too:

"At the time the American Constitution was written guns were not easily available - they were expensive and they were bought in general by people who actually needed them, mostly for serious self protection or hunting. And so was ammunition too. Furthermore, at that time no automatic guns, not even revolvers or hand-loaded rifles like the Winchester, did exist.

I bet that if they could predict that guns would become so (relatively) cheap, so powerfull and so sophisticated (able to fire many shots per minute or even per second) as they are nowadays the Founding Father's text on gun rights and possession would very likely have been quite different just to avoid lunatics like this boy being able to commit such massacres."

[Oniya]

I saw a posting elsewhere that pointed out something.

Dylann Roof's parents bought him a .45 cal handgun for his 21st birthday in April.  In February, he had been arrested on felony drug charges - the case was still pending at the time of his arrest this week.  Federal law prohibits people with pending felony charges from obtaining firearms.  Any federally licensed gun store would have turned up that felony charge and would have been obligated to deny the sale.

Now, here's where it gets messy.  In South Carolina, 'private gun sales' do not require a background check.  If prosecutors can show that the father knew about Roof’s indictment but gave him the gun anyway - and if that gun was the one used in the massacre, Roof’s father could also face up to 10 years in prison.  (If Dylann owned guns before the felony charge, they would not have been taken away, so if he used a gun that had been purchase before the drug charge, the father would be off the hook.)

[Dashenka]

Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.

[Lustful Bride]

Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.

Guns not required. Many of us just enjoy having the choice as to whether or not we can be armed. :)

[Ephiral]

I've seen a very strong case made that this sort of thing needs to be said, loudly, everywhere in the wake of the Charleston shooting:

I do not need protection from people of colour. Women, white or otherwise, do not belong to me.

This terrorist did not speak for me when he claimed that his victims were "raping our women". (I would disavow the "taking over our country" line, but it's already not my country in a very literal sense.)

[Lustful Bride]

I've seen a very strong case made that this sort of thing needs to be said, loudly, everywhere in the wake of the Charleston shooting:

I do not need protection from people of colour. Women, white or otherwise, do not belong to me.

This terrorist did not speak for me when he claimed that his victims were "raping our women". (I would disavow the "taking over our country" line, but it's already not my country in a very literal sense.)

Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.

[Ephiral]

Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.

Classic definition: When you take violent action to further a political agenda, and aren't a nation-state.
Apparent modern definition: When you do something the state wants to slap down hard, and are brown.

I prefer and use the classic definition.

[Haloriel]

Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist? Will that affect his trial versus it being a hate crime?

I just hope they at the least give him life with no chance of parole.

Well, by my personal understanding regarding the technical definition it really was an act of domestic terrorism as well as a hate crime. If such a personage is willing to shoot up a religious building, then they are perhaps likely to have no qualms in making a political stand for their own twisted desires.

[Blythe]

What is mind-boggling is that South Carolina does not have a hate crime law; most USA states do. :-X

[Haloriel]

What is mind-boggling is that South Carolina does not have a hate crime law; most USA states do. :-X

Woah, really?  That's ... yes.  I am not sure what to say to that other than ... catch up, SC?

[Dashenka]

Guns not required. Many of us just enjoy having the choice as to whether or not we can be armed. :)

I was being sarcastic. :)

[Blythe]

Woah, really?  That's ... yes.  I am not sure what to say to that other than ... catch up, SC?

Really. Federally, it can still be investigated as a hate crime, but South Carolina itself does not have a hate crime law, along with a small handful of other states.

[Ephiral]

South Carolina flies the Confederate flag by law. I am singularly unsurprised that they have no hate-crimes law.

[Dashenka]

and those people still criticise Russia..  ::)

[Ephiral]

and those people still criticise Russia..  ::)

Because one place having problems means no other place has any issues whatsoever?

[Blythe]

Split this into it's own topic, as it's definitely a large hefty topic in its own right. *nodnod*

[Dashenka]

I've learned not to judge others if I do the same.

But that's not the discussion.

There is a big shooting in the US almost every month with multiple innocent victims. I honestly can't understand why the (allegedly) most influencial nation in the world is doing something about that. Or actually I can, I just don't believe there are still people that support the gun ownership law.

[Oniya]

Ive seen people referring to him as a terrorist a lot lately....at what point do you go from a killer to a terrorist?

When an act is committed for the purpose of inflicting terror on a group or society at large. 

[Zakharra]

I've learned not to judge others if I do the same.

But that's not the discussion.

There is a big shooting in the US almost every month with multiple innocent victims. I honestly can't understand why the (allegedly) most influencial nation in the world is doing something about that. Or actually I can, I just don't believe there are still people that support the gun ownership law.

Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

* I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|

[Dashenka]

The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that.

So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

[Ephiral]

Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

* I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|

The thing is, no system is ever going to be perfect. The failure mode of unrestricted guns is dead people. Also... there are positions between the extremes; for instance, the Charleston shooting could have been prevented if private sales were tracked or monitored in basically any way at all. Saying "we can separate people who abuse their access to guns from their guns" in a thread about someone who shot nine people with a gun he shouldn't have had by Federal law is a bit disingenuous.

While we're at it... "It's a Constitutional right and can never be curtailed (except in this circumstance or this one or this one)" is a bit of a flimsy argument to begin with.

[Oniya]

So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

There are other uses for a gun than shooting people.  Both my grandfather and uncle used to go deer hunting (as was also the case with most gun owners during the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.)  As gaggedLouise posted up-thread, the Founding Fathers had no idea that guns would become as cheap and as capable of mass killing as they are now, compared to the technology of the time.

[Dashenka]

Well that's very simple to fix. Don't classify a rifle as a handgun and ban rifles unless you can show you NEED it. Like my grandparents did. They live in rural northern Russia and they have been granted a license to own a rifle to protect the lifestock from bears and wolves and whatnot.

And it's all good and well that the founding fathers didn't know it back then, they know it now. Why not change it? Because a lot of people still believe it's a right to own a gun and thereby USE the gun when they feel like it.

That's the thing I can't understand.

[LisztesFerenc]

Because the right to won a gun is a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution and we can separate the people who abuse their access to guns from the right to own one. The vast majority of gun powers are NOT going out and shooting people. That is only a few wastes of genetic material that do that. We are trying very hard not to curtail anymore right based on the actions of a few idiots and morons*.

* I would prefer to call them something else because using idiot and moron is an insult to idiots and morons. :|

  But the "benefit" of the majority of gun owners not shooting people is a net of 0, so even one death is a net loss. Not to mention even when someone isn't committing murder with their guns there is suicide and accident to consider (plus the chance of someone else disarming you and using your gun against you), as well as the numerous reports on the correlation between domestic violence and murder and gun ownership, as well as the whole attitude that goes with it. When you look at how other western/developed nations handle themselves without guns, it really doesn't seem like a cornerstone of american culture 2nd amendment enthusiasts would have you belief. Or rather it is a corner stone, but not for any good reason.

  Plus the Supreme Courts stance on exactly how to interpret the second amendment has hardly been consistent throughout history.

[Inkidu]

Land of the free...

Obviously requires a gun to be free...

No point changing laws if you can't change the people.

Yes, exactly.

Without the ability to bear arms, the first amendment becomes indefensible if someone really wants to put the screws to it.
Many things can some at the barrel of a gun and the point of spear. Pain, suffering, fear, death, but so to freedom, liberation, and even the defeat of true monsters.

The gun, the missile, and the atomic bomb introduce no new problems, only the necessity to find a solution for a very old one. To paraphrase Albert Einstein. So I agree completely, maybe not in the way you intended, but I agree.

[LisztesFerenc]

Yes, exactly.

Without the ability to bear arms, the first amendment becomes indefensible if someone really wants to put the screws to it.

  Yeah, because freedom of speech doesn't exist in Europe, Australia or Japan. No, no guns, no freedom.

  And if you are referring to the government becoming tyrannical and needing to be overthrown, that likely won't happen. You have no surface to air capabilities, so not only can you not hope to establish aerial superiority, you cannot even challenge it. You will struggle to take out heavy vehicle and tanks without rocket launchers, and I do not believe you have access to ammunition that will perform well against bunkers, or grenades. You lack the discipline and training of the US army, as well as their technological support (satellite images, spy planes, ability to redeploy via air and sea).

  You need more than the second amendment there. Besides, if you ever do lose your freedom, it will be because corporations own the air you breath, the soil you stand on, and your very soul, and you will not have a single target to shoot at.

[Inkidu]

  Yeah, because freedom of speech doesn't exist in Europe, Australia or Japan. No, no guns, no freedom.

  And if you are referring to the government becoming tyrannical and needing to be overthrown, that likely won't happen. You have no surface to air capabilities, so not only can you not hope to establish aerial superiority, you cannot even challenge it. You will struggle to take out heavy vehicle and tanks without rocket launchers, and I do not believe you have access to ammunition that will perform well against bunkers, or grenades. You lack the discipline and training of the US army, as well as their technological support (satellite images, spy planes, ability to redeploy via air and sea).

  You need more than the second amendment there. Besides, if you ever do lose your freedom, it will be because corporations own the air you breath, the soil you stand on, and your very soul, and you will not have a single target to shoot at.

Okay, so what if they do become tyrannical the free people of the world should just sit back and take it because hey, what can you do? Okay, such is the state of the world.

The point being, either you give people the right to bear arms, or they're just going to take it for themselves anyway.

[LisztesFerenc]

Okay, so what if they do become tyrannical the free people of the world should just sit back and take it because hey, what can you do? Okay, such is the state of the world.

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

The point being, either you give people the right to bear arms, or they're just going to take it for themselves anyway.

  Can you give an example of this happening in Western Europe, Japan or Australia?

[Inkidu]

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

  Can you give an example of this happening in Western Europe, Japan or Australia?

Umm... Paris... 1939 to 1945, thereabouts, or do you think all those Frenchmen didn't have their ability to bear arms infringed upon by the Nazis?

When the Romans took over a town the first thing they did was crucify, kill, or de-hand the blacksmiths of the village. Did the Roman's just hate blacksmiths that much?

Though perhaps you think humanity is more civilized now. However, I'll point out something about air-superiority. You can't win a modern war without it, but you sure as heck can't win a war with it. All war comes down to one thing in the end, and that's boots on the ground. That involves helicopters which can be brought down with a pistol or even a wire. A government that knows that every one of its citizens can own a firearm is a government that hesitates if its smart, which is perhaps something that can't be said of many modern governments, America included. It's very hard to patrol a city street when every civilian you see can put a knife in your back.

Right to bear arms doesn't mean just firearms, it means knives, swords, and baseball bats. Back to Paris. I don't know if you know, but the Americans dropped a one-shot pistol called a liberator. The point being that a French resistance member would shoot a Nazi, take his gun, and they'd get together and take a fuel depot.

A world free of guns won't get rid of violence.

[LisztesFerenc]

Umm... Paris... 1939 to 1945, thereabouts, or do you think all those Frenchmen didn't have their ability to bear arms infringed upon by the Nazis?

  So your most recent example is 70 years ago during war. Fine, based on that, people have a right to bear arms during war, but not during peace.

Though perhaps you think humanity is more civilized now. However, I'll point out something about air-superiority. You can't win a modern war without it, but you sure as heck can't win a war with it. All war comes down to one thing in the end, and that's boots on the ground. That involves helicopters which can be brought down with a pistol or even a wire. A government that knows that every one of its citizens can own a firearm is a government that hesitates if its smart, which is perhaps something that can't be said of many modern governments, America included. It's very hard to patrol a city street when every civilian you see can put a knife in your back.

  You might want to check the success record of European countries rising up against the Soviet Union (who had a far less sophisticated military than the USA currently does). It didn't end well for them.

A world free of guns won't get rid of violence.

  I don't want a world free of guns. I want a world where the people of civilized nations make it harder to own a gun than a car, and put the lives of their countrymen above the need to maybe one day be slighter better equipped to lose a war against their own government.

[la dame en noir]

I just wanted to point out that people are actually trying to find an excuse for this guy. While the boy said that what he did was racially motivated because he hated black people....people are trying(especially the media) to find excuses for him. Saying that it wasn't racially motivated and that it was a crime against faith. NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

[Oniya]

NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

Dafuq?!  I think I'm with you.  That boy is as pale as I am, and I haven't had so much as a tan in years!  (Polish/Russian/German descent here.)

[Inkidu]

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

[LisztesFerenc]

  A facebook post was noting it was only a matter of time before people started saying "Why isn't anyone talking about black on black violence?". Sure enough I found such a comment later in the day, whose author then went on to say that a close second priority to black-on-black violence was black-on-white violence.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

  What other weapon allows you to kill 9 people without giving them a chance to overpower you or run away?

[la dame en noir]

Oh no, don't get me wrong. There's no excuse for what that guy did and I want him punished to the fullest possible extent. I don't think the evil racist would have not done what he did without a gun though. So let's put the blame on irrational, vile and evil hatred. He's an abhorrent individual, and he's not crazy from all I've seen.

I think the gun just made it easier!

[Ephiral]

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

This. All of this. In the modern environment, it is not an armed populace that keeps a military junta at bay - it's the desire of governments to maintain an air of legitimacy in the eyes of their people and their peers. In this context, a strong constitution and a strong, adversarial judiciary are far more useful than a gun in the hands of every citizen - and certainly more useful than an active decision to avoid even the slightest pretense of tracking weapons. (Pop quiz: How many legal guns are there in the US?)

[Inkidu]

  A facebook post was noting it was only a matter of time before people started saying "Why isn't anyone talking about black on black violence?". Sure enough I found such a comment later in the day, whose author then went on to say that a close second priority to black-on-black violence was black-on-white violence.

  What other weapon allows you to kill 9 people without giving them a chance to overpower you or run away?

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

Ultimately and honestly, an irrelevant and in my opinion misguided question to ask.

[LisztesFerenc]

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

  None of those could have been acquired with such ease (even the car ironically. See my previous commnet). Also no. Killing 9 black people with a car? That's tricky, and unlikely. A bulldozer would be difficult to steal, and is so slow and unmaneuverable you cannot guarantee much beyond property damage. Buying a grenade or making a pipe bomb is no stroll in the park, and the latter has you risking being raided by police and/or blowing your fingers off. Arson is also significantly harder than pulling a trigger, and the firebrigade could have responded in time to save lives. As for how many people he could stab? Less than 9.

  These are not irrelevant questions. All other developed countries have lower murder rates than America. Maybe its magic. Or just maybe, its that fire arms are less accessible.

[Inkidu]

You know what, I'm tired of having my responses infinitely qualified to minuteness. Not even your qualifications are accurate. I'm out.

[LisztesFerenc]

You know what, I'm tired of having my responses infinitely qualified to minuteness. Not even your qualifications are accurate. I'm out.

  Fair enough, I cannot compel you to debate, and if you do not want to, then you shouldn't. However if you feel like it, I would appreciate you explaining how I unaccurately qualified your responses. You stated that even without a gun, he would have proceeded with his act. I asked how he could have killed 9 people without a gun, you listed several alternate weapons and I explained how, IMO it was very likely such a weapons would have resulted in a lower body count, rather than the equal one you were proposing.

  If I missed something, and you don't mind returning to the debate, I would like to hear what.

[Zakharra]

So why own a gun, if you're not gonna use it?

To be able to hunt, in the country, this is very popular. Also home/personal defense, as collectors items (collecting pistols and rifles, from both hunting and obsolete military weaponry), or just target/practice/recreational shooting. There are many other reasons (and far more prevalent reasons) than just besides shooting people because you're upset/homicidal or depressed/suicidal. Guns make that easier, but they wouldn't stop it, you can kill bunches of other people just as easily with:

A hand-grenade, a pipe bomb, a bulldozer, car, car bombs, a match, heck how many people could he stab before they stopped him if he was hellbent enough?

If someone actually thought about it, killing or harming others is frikking EASY. But most concentrate on the all powerful gun as the weapon of choice and don't consider other options for mayhem.

As it is though, it is a right of US citizens (we see it as a human right that can't be taken away from the population by the government)and the government would be damned hard pressed to remove it for the majority of the population. It would be a revolt if they did that and I guarantee that most politicians that vote for such a thing would -not- be re-elected and many would likely face impeachment proceedings. The Second Amendment is a big thing here and just because some abuse it, is no reason to restrict it for the vast majority of people who do own and use guns responsibly.

[LisztesFerenc]

To be able to hunt, in the country, this is very popular. Also home/personal defense, as collectors items (collecting pistols and rifles, from both hunting and obsolete military weaponry), or just target/practice/recreational shooting. There are many other reasons (and far more prevalent reasons) than just besides shooting people because you're upset/homicidal or depressed/suicidal. Guns make that easier, but they wouldn't stop it, you can kill bunches of other people just as easily with: If someone actually thought about it, killing or harming others is frikking EASY.

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

[la dame en noir]

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

I shouldn't have laughed at that...

[LisztesFerenc]

I shouldn't have laughed at that...

  I know. Same here I'm afraid.

[Zakharra]

  Fair enough, I cannot compel you to debate, and if you do not want to, then you shouldn't. However if you feel like it, I would appreciate you explaining how I unaccurately qualified your responses. You stated that even without a gun, he would have proceeded with his act. I asked how he could have killed 9 people without a gun, you listed several alternate weapons and I explained how, IMO it was very likely such a weapons would have resulted in a lower body count, rather than the equal one you were proposing.

  If I missed something, and you don't mind returning to the debate, I would like to hear what.

Drive a speeding car into a crowd of people, drive a truck and see how many more you can main and kill. A coffee can filled with gunpowder or home made explosives (you can make some fairly easily and Goggle how to do it online) and nails. Heck, you can make chlorine gas out of common household cleaning materials. Jam a door/lock (superglue or a needle broken off in it), trapping the people inside and gas them or start stabbing.

That's off the top of me head too. It's not hard to think of ways to harm/kill someone. It might be harder to do it, but there's a good chance you'd get someone if you tried. However actually killing someone intentionally is harder than most people think, psyching yourself to do it in cold blood is damned difficult. The psychos and people trained in combat tend to be able to do that easier. I will add though soldiers, and hopefully police (should) get training to deal with the stresses that come from killing other people so they just don't go off the deep end and start shooting at random or for reasons. Some police forces it seems need a refresher course in firearms training.

It is annoying when people immediately start on how we should restrict or remove a right guaranteed under the Constitution  and do that to law abiding citizens just because some people abuse it.

I just wanted to point out that people are actually trying to find an excuse for this guy. While the boy said that what he did was racially motivated because he hated black people....people are trying(especially the media) to find excuses for him. Saying that it wasn't racially motivated and that it was a crime against faith. NOW people are actually saying "He doesn't look white, he looks like his mixed or light skinned black person"

I am so done with American society.

and stuff like this
and this scary trend of white male murderers who are deemed crazy...and thats about it.

Wtf? That guy should have been cuffed AND in shackles! He's a nutcase and precautions should have been taken by restricting his physical movement and hands.

[Inkidu]

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

You drive the car through the front of the church, but you already had a preconceived notion of what I was speaking about. Church's especially modern churches aren't known for being particularly fortress-like. They're sheet metal and drywall or cinder blocks, which are not that great against fracturing forces.

You run down the congregation as it's milling out of the service.

So, go on, laugh.

[LisztesFerenc]

Drive a speeding car into a crowd of people, drive a truck and see how many more you can main and kill. A coffee can filled with gunpowder or home made explosives (you can make some fairly easily and Goggle how to do it online) and nails. Heck, you can make chlorine gas out of common household cleaning materials. Jam a door/lock (superglue or a needle broken off in it), trapping the people inside and gas them or start stabbing.

  So why aren't these methods implemented in Europe? People still kill each other there, though typically not with such elaborate methods. Mass killings are likewise, much rarer without guns.

You drive the car through the front of the church, but you already had a preconceived notion of what I was speaking about. Church's especially modern churches aren't known for being particularly fortress-like. They're sheet metal and drywall or cinder blocks, which are not that great against fracturing forces.

  Same as above. Why isn't this apparently guaranteed method employed in countries without guns?

  Both of you seem to have concocted this fantasy world, where humans are these MacGyver-like perfect killing machines, and being deprived of military grade weapons is but a minor set back. It isn't. We as a culture are obsessed with killing, and so find it easy...on paper. When it comes to actually doing it, it is much more difficult, as it is with most things. Fortunatly for killing, most of us never have to find this out.

It is annoying when people immediately start on how we should restrict or remove a right guaranteed under the Constitution  and do that to law abiding citizens just because some people abuse it.

  The right's already been changed, unless every gun owner is part of a well regulated militia. Plus, the Supreme Court has changed its stance on the interpretation before.

  Also, of course people are questioning how legitimate a right is, when used properly is allows an activity of leisure to be enjoyed, and when abused innocent people end up dead.

[Zakharra]

  So why aren't these methods implemented in Europe? People still kill each other there, though typically not with such elaborate methods. Mass killings are likewise, much rarer without guns.


  Same as above. Why isn't this apparently guaranteed method employed in countries without guns?

  The right's already been changed, unless every gun owner is part of a well regulated militia. Plus, the Supreme Court has changed its stance on the interpretation before.

  Also, of course people are questioning how legitimate a right is, when used properly is allows an activity of leisure to be enjoyed, and when abused innocent people end up dead.

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century. They consider the population having that right as individuals as being what the Second Amendment means, not a militia governed by the state or federal government. A well armed populace is a freer one by our standards (maybe not by yours, but our mindset isn't yours. Different experiences and national outlook).

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?

  None of those alternate weapons Inkidu listed are easy. A car is convenient maybe for killing one person (though still a substantial hassle compared to just shooting them). But killing 9 people with a car? And 9 people who go to the same church?

Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building. Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.

[Inkidu]

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century. They consider the population having that right as individuals as being what the Second Amendment means, not a militia governed by the state or federal government. A well armed populace is a freer one by our standards (maybe not by yours, but our mindset isn't yours. Different experiences and national outlook).

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?


Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building. Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.

You've got far more patience than me. Well said.

[LisztesFerenc]

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

  Exactly. Ergo, no guns makes it harder to kill people, so less people are murdered, and "A mass murder happened hear recently" typically means in the last 50 years, not the last 6 months.

Uummm.. the USSC hasn't gone by that definition of the well regulated militia in over a century.

  So the constitution can be changed, otherwise the USSC would still be going by the that definition. So why can't it change again?

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

  That weakens your argument. If the military deserts, you don't need an armed population to defeat the tyrannical government, the army does that better.

Uummm.. so do automobiles. Most people use them safely, but tens of thousands of people are killed by them too, and there is no outcry demanding that all automobiles be removed from the roadways.  You're using the actions of a very very very small group of people who DO use weapons to kill others, as an excuse to try and restrict the same weapon use/ownership for the vast majority of everyone else who owns/uses guns. Tail wagging the dog here? Because way less than 1% of the population massacre others, all guns should be restricted/removed?

  Simple, risk vs. reward. Cars are vital to any modern society. Guns are only common in one, so are logically vital to none. Also automobile accidents typically aren't as traumatic as mass shootings.

[Ephiral]

Recently this came up in my news feeds. I think it's a very worthwhile read on this shooting and the context it took place in.

As it is though, it is a right of US citizens (we see it as a human right that can't be taken away from the population by the government)and the government would be damned hard pressed to remove it for the majority of the population. It would be a revolt if they did that and I guarantee that most politicians that vote for such a thing would -not- be re-elected and many would likely face impeachment proceedings. The Second Amendment is a big thing here and just because some abuse it, is no reason to restrict it for the vast majority of people who do own and use guns responsibly.

As an outsider, the bolded part genuinely confuses me. Wasn't it only granted by your government in the first place? Isn't it routinely taken away from certain people by the order of your government? (Was that not, in fact, an argument for why guns don't need to be better-regulated, earlier in this very thread?) So... given that context, what does this statement even mean?

As to the actual gun debate itself... LiztesFerenc seems to be handling my side pretty well for the most part, but I feel the need to address a couple points:

  I don't know. Maybe because the people there don't think that way? When most people think of killing, it seems to be the gun most think about because it is flashy, noisy and the premiere weapon used in militaries. Guns are the easy 'solution', so most people don't think past that.

That bolded line? That's an argument for gun control. Most murders are crimes of passion. Make it more difficult to murder someone in the heat of the moment, and the murder rate drops.

I k now someone might bring up on how handguns and rifles can't compare to the military, but they always seem to forget one thing; the military would not necessarily go along with orders to attack their own citizens. Soldiers are not mind numbed robots that always obey unthinkingly. They are people too and will not necessarily obey orders to fire upon their own citizens. I can see large portions of the military openly refusing to do obey such orders if the President and government tried to remove firearms from the population.

Lisztes addressed this, but I think it bears repeating: No version of your scenario is improved by disorganized bands of citizens with civilian weapons. Either they get themselves killed against the military, or the military is better at the job.

Yes they are easy to get. STEAL a car or truck just before a concert or something and drive onto the sidewalk/into a building.

Quick question: Do you know how most guns enter the black market?

Also thousands of innocents are killed by vehicles other people are driving -every year- in the US. More people are killed by cars and trucks than by guns, intentionally or accidentally. You can Goggle and made explosives and poison gasses out of some very common household cleaning products. A knife is easy to get. The hand grenade might be harder, but you would be astounded what military hardware is legal for US citizens to own. Everything from military rifles, to machine-guns, prop and jet planes, helicopters to tanks and probably artillery, RPGs and more. The American citizen can get an amazing amount of stuff for private/recreational use.

So... your argument here is "We can get ordnance, therefore it's no harm to be able to get ordnance"? Little circular, isn't it?

[gaggedLouise]

  The point is, if you are serious about taking on the US government, you would be lobbying for the right to research and own affordable civilian anti-air weaponry, anti tank weaponry, the right to own bombs, grenades and bunker buster ammunition. You should lobby for well regulated militia (oh yeah, you also need to stop pretending that isn't a clause in the 2nd amendment) to receive decommissioned military hardware, including heavy vehicle and even fighter jets and battle ships. You would lobby for money to train and maintain disciplined militias, and compensate them for their time spent training, developing and maintaining their skills.

  Or, you can acknowledge that this is a fantasy that will never happen, and real people are dying to keep it alive.

Yes, I'd have to agree. If the country's been taken over by a military junta or some kind of autocratic government determined to torture, kill and strike fear into many of the common people, as in Chile 1973, South Africa under the apartheid regime or Burma from around 1990 - and irrespective of what kind of constitutional or Newspeak excuses they managed to find for taking over -  and they have really secured firm control of the state, then a Robin Hood or Mel Gibson-style rebellion with guys setting up ambushes for a few government units, robbing banks and putting up small resistance posters at midnight armed with a handgun or an assault rifle (?) for their personal protection isn't in itself what it takes to get rid of such a government, such a rule by violence. Not by a mile, really. The days when Robin Hood or a small "armed militia" working from the mountains or at some farms and cities could topple the well-armed tyrant, who has fully modern equipment plus control of the courts, the media, most schools...and who may be able to cut off access to food, electricity, jobs and money for some of its enemies/resistance folks (even people's own hard-earned money) if it decide those people are being unruly and starting to resist for real - those days are long since over. Neither in Chile, in South Africa, in Poland or Hungary (foreign-supported autocracy), nor in Francoist Spain did that kind of small-arms resistance have any meaningful impact, and we all know it won't mean anything in Syria and had no relevance in Afghanistan, even though both of those last two are countries where lots of people had some kinds of guns even before the current wars broke out.

If you're going to topple Big Brother in the modern world by means of violent resistance and armed rebellion, you do need serious military equipment and a trained army, not sparetime civilian fighters training on a network of farms. Small-scale armed resistance and sabotage actions like in France during WW2 or in Libya when Qaddafi was in power are more about breaking through the sheen of legitimacy that the thug government will always try to put up for its own violence and suppression, about keeping people aware that this is not a real, democratic or "good" government, than about overhrowing it just by the means of the small "underground militia" itself. That and sonnecting to the bigger picture, offering a legitimate partner for some foreign power that might want to help in some effective way, and making your case to the outside world, telling them "We are the People, not them! even though they are able to send ambassadors, nice gifts and fighter jets! and even though they control school and courtrooms". Partners such as the US in Afghanistan in the 80s and in 2001, or a growing number of nearby black regimes in southern Africa, Cuba and the Soviet Union (and in a smaller way, Sweden, who also helped make the ANC get seen as legitimate over time by diplomatic means), all of whom helped keep up military pressure on apartheid South Africa in the 1980s with their own troops and instructors and arm the ANC. By themelves and with the kind of weapons you use for hunting in the wild, or even a small stockpile of grenades and machine guns, the militias of Libya, South Africa or Chile wouldn't have got close to toppling their executioners.

Besides, if you want to fracture the legitimacy of a bad regime, then non-violent resistance such as spreading unwanted information, dissenting points of view, questioning what the autocrats and their henchmen will say in their own defence, bringing to light their acts of violence, killing and suppression and removing their own fake reasons - in all, breaking through their wall of silence and lies - are just as essential as questioning their right to use the army, and often more effective than ambushing some infantry platoon or firing on military police in an alley.

This. All of this. In the modern environment, it is not an armed populace that keeps a military junta at bay - it's the desire of governments to maintain an air of legitimacy in the eyes of their people and their peers. In this context, a strong constitution and a strong, adversarial judiciary are far more useful than a gun in the hands of every citizen - and certainly more useful than an active decision to avoid even the slightest pretense of tracking weapons. (Pop quiz: How many legal guns are there in the US?)

*nods* To keep down the people in a modern country, to make them obey you and accept wht you're doing even when it means hanging a few people without an open and fair trial, squandering state money on a regular basis on more guards for the regime and luxury items for the dear leader and his family and cronies, or muzzling the newspapers and the radio and tv, you need more than just troops and ships, or even high-powered missiles. The tyrant (or occupying power, or "Save the Nation Council" or whatever it might be called) has to cement its version of events in schools, in the courts, in the mass media and to the outside world. Pinochet knew that was what he needed, despite torturing and murdering thousands of people anyway in his own native Chile, Assad knows it, Stalin knew it, even ISIS know it.

[Blythe]

What did I just read?

I am horrified that anyone would place any amount of blame for the tragedy on one of those who died in the shooting.

[Cassandra LeMay]

What did I just read?

I am horrified that anyone would place any amount of blame for the tragedy on one of those who died in the shooting.

Sadly I am not surprised. The CBC's Neil Macdonald predicted pretty much that two days ago:

But if the NRA's post-Newtown declaration was any guide, let me predict what it will say about South Carolina.

It will call it a "terrible tragedy," and it will say the whole thing could have been averted had the worshippers only been armed with sufficiently powerful weapons themselves.

It will probably also urge church leaderships across America to, at the very least, to arm and train pastors and deacons, and it will offer any advice or facilities needed for that.

Granted, it may not be the official NRA stance (yet), but I am fairly sure they will eventually fall in behind this attitude, even if perhaps worded somewhat differently.

[kylie]

"Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead," Cotton wrote.

I'm not a fan of the NRA at all.  But reading this, I think what Cotton would say is something like he's simply arguing that more people with guns means more chance at self-defense. 

      Is it always bad taste to ask if the dead in an incident could have done something differently before the incident, politically or personally?  I dunno.  This happened so recently that it's raw and I suspect a lot of people would say yes.  Would we always say that?  Maybe not, if we happened to disagree enough with the dead person's politics? 

      I suppose to Cotton, if he's true to just this line above (and I don't know anything else about him myself)...  Then, I think he might say something like, 'It's the same as: we say, if those people on the highway had worn seatbelts, then more of them might still be alive.'  If that is the end of the logic, I don't know if he'd be so comfortable with the term "blame" -- or not as it's seen as a sort of unnecessary personal attack in the 'this must be eroneous' response anyway.  To him, I bet, it's more equivalent to saying Chamberlain bears some of the "blame" for Germany getting off to a strong start in WW2.  Now speaking for myself, I don't feel comfortable with the idea of guns in every sort of establishment.  But what he is saying there is not really much of a change from the line the NRA uses the rest of the time -- with or without an actual incident.     

     Separately, I did wonder a little whether the shooter knew that the senator might be there, and if the shooter might also have such a taste for taking jabs -- or in his case, even shots -- at someone in office with a record of speaking in favor of gun control.  I haven't seen anything really mentioning whether he did or didn't indicate anything about it somewhere yet.  Maybe it's too early, or maybe if yes he just wasn't so obvious/fired up at the time, as he was about racial comments.

[gaggedLouise]

I do think it's very bad taste to try to throw it back at the Reverend who was killed, saying basically "he was for tighter gun control, against concealed-carry rights for everyone, against the free right to bring your handgun into most public places where you'd want it" (a movie theatre, a church, an airport or a school, for instance) "but if he had understood what gun rights are really for and sided with us, then he would have wisely protected his congregation". The point is, unqualified "gun rights" also offers a fast route for any kind of gun you want, even assault rifles, heavy and fast-loading revolvers or machine-guns. Concealed carry does save civilian lives, yes, but it also feeds into a wider gun culture, and gives more possibilities for criminals and killers in some circumstances. And the private persons most likely to bring a heavy-duty weapon into a church or a school (without any orders or duty to do so) are, frankly, the firearm nutters, the persons with a fixation about arms or some seriously paranoid or racist ideas.

The reverend and senator did not base his stance in this question simply on what might possibly happen at his church, or to people he knew personally. He was stating what he wanted on principle.  Suppose some of the guests in a church or customers and salesmen at an open-air market had pistols in their handbags or under the table, a few of them even under their coats, and out of nowhere a man with a machine gun starts firing with deadly expertise and speed - how big are the chances that any of them would be able to take the madcap killer down before he has gunned down twenty people or more in less than two minutes? Exactly the same thing could have happened in the church at Charleston, or in Newtown. Some of these paranoid shooters even have more than one big gun with them when they enter, and get away with it! The killer is vastly likely to have a much better gun, more bullets and better training.

Oh wait, then you have to tell ordinary people to train their shooting skills before they can safely go to school, pray, go to an electioneering rally in their town or drive their kids to school... ::)

[Ephiral]

The NRA's answer to any shooting will always be more guns, because the NRA gets a very significant and rapidly-rising chunk of its income from gun-company contributions.

And I suppose I should have expected this, but I didn't. In the latest round of "It totally wasn't racism!", Fox found the real cause: It's because y'all accept trans people.

[kylie]

     Erickson...  Wtf.  Because anyone who does anything or comes up with any perspective you don't approve of, "obviously" and must be simply stone crazy?  Ahem. 

     (I dunno if he has noticed what a convenient defense story that might make in court, too -- is it partly a hint toward insanity pleas and what not.  Although then again maybe not, cause religion seems to be such a big force in the region.  IF the courts are somehow less umm, publicly forgiving than the families at least.  But I don't quite get the logic where it's necessary for people to turn it into a showcase of potentially condescending religious rhetoric, either.) 

[gaggedLouise]

"as a nation, when these things happen, we never have the conversation about real evil"

*buries her face on her crossed arms, clenching her fists* Man, that was almost funny!

Okay, just saying:

A clubbed down or shot black woman, unarmed or unwilling to bring a firearm ín advance, remains an attacked/clubbed down/ gunned down black woman no matter what reasons somebody gave for doing it to her. No amount of excuses, verbal tricks or cheap fear-mongering can make her less clubbed down, less attacked, at the worst: less dead. And the same goes for if she's a black transwoman.

[la dame en noir]

Are people seriously trying to make excuses for a murderer?

[kylie]

     I'd imagine that it's also pretty hard to shake the conclusion that Roof made a racially motivated attack.  He may or may not have had some other motivations too, I really don't know and it may be too early to tell.  (Not going to assume that it's only worthwhile ever talking about some "biggest" one.) 

     But when he says on the scene it's racial, I'd be pretty shocked if he shakes that concern away in court.  It wouldn't be the first shocking thing in the world, but it would be awfully disturbing.  Again though, I worry a little bit that it might somehow get lost or distorted a bit much with the local influence of religion (e.g. how many of these regional churches are leaning/strongly White-funded and/or "ears locked to the Fox commentary" sort of conservative?) and circling of wagons under that banner in various, sometimes insular/parochial ways too.

[Ephiral]

Are people seriously trying to make excuses for a murderer?

Of course they are, because the motivation was blatantly racism. If they can't find some excuse, anything at all, then they have to admit that racism still exists.

     I'd imagine that it's also pretty hard to shake the conclusion that Roof made a racially motivated attack.  He may or may not have had some other motivations too, I really don't know and it may be too early to tell.  (Not going to assume that it's only worthwhile ever talking about some "biggest" one.) 

     But when he says on the scene it's racial, I'd be pretty shocked if he shakes that concern away in court.  It wouldn't be the first shocking thing in the world, but it would be awfully disturbing.  Again though, I worry a little bit that it might somehow get lost or distorted a bit much with the local influence of religion (e.g. how many of these regional churches are leaning/strongly White-funded and/or "ears locked to the Fox commentary" sort of conservative?) and circling of wagons under that banner in various, sometimes insular/parochial ways too.

Of note: Fox's first and favourite distraction attempt is "It's an attack on Christians!"

[kylie]

     Oh, but there are always excuses.  If awful ones.

     Rick Perry is calling it a drug-induced "accident," focusing on Roof's possessing (without a prescription) -- if I can transmit this right --  Rehab drugs of a narcotic variety.  Well, there's the far right for you.  If you are gay and you have some drug problems (and worse, catch AIDS with a social/party life anywhere in sight), then it's a "lifestyle choice" and God has dropped "consequences" on you, tough luck and don't expect any support from your government.  But if you murder others, even multiple others, and you happen to have righter-than "right" politics, it must be all an "accident."   ::) ::)

     And then there's Santorum for that, Ephiral.  Picking up on the 'Zomg' [pun intended, sorry!], "Another example of assaults on religious freedom" thingama--messy.

“It’s obviously a crime of hate,” he noted. “We don’t know the rationale, but what other rationale could there be. You’re sort of lost that someone would walk into a Bible study at a church and indiscriminately kill people.”

“This is one of those situation where you have to take a step a back and say — you talk about the importance of prayer at this time, and we’re now seeing assaults on religious liberty we’ve never seen before,” the candidate noted. “So, it’s a time for deeper reflection even beyond this horrible situation.”

In fact, witnesses to the shooting and other reports have indicated that the shooter was a white supremacist who chose the historically black church because he wanted to kill black people.

     

[Cassandra LeMay]

Are people seriously trying to make excuses for a murderer?

No. They are trying to alert the country to the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with an America that elects a Kenyan communist as president.

Welcome to the land of limited impossibilities (only that I am no longer sure about the 'limited' part).

[Oniya]

Just in from my FB feed - a reverse DNS lookup has found that Dylann Roof registered a domain name and put up a manifesto before the shooting.  As this article asks:  'Any questions now?

[Cycle]

Fox found the real cause: It's because y'all accept trans people.

*laughs way too hard at Fox*

Are they going to blame Jenner for ISIS too?  How about Ebola?  I know, I know!  Jenner's behind the climate change "conspiracy!"

[Dashenka]

To be able to hunt, in the country, this is very popular. Also home/personal defense, as collectors items (collecting pistols and rifles, from both hunting and obsolete military weaponry), or just target/practice/recreational shooting. There are many other reasons (and far more prevalent reasons) than just besides shooting people because you're upset/homicidal or depressed/suicidal.

To hunt animals is cruel.

If you want personal defense, buy a battleship or a nuke, not a gun, there is always somebody with a bigger gun.

A collectors item could be make so that it doesn't work and recreational shooting? That's almost as insane as recreational speeding on the motorways.


There really is no excuse to keep that idiotic law (or freedom) in place. None.

[Oniya]

To hunt animals is cruel.

Back in Ohio, many of my neighbors hunted in order to supplement their diet, as the amount of meat that one could get for the cost of a few bullets and a hunting license was vastly more than what they could get for the same amount of income/food stamps.  In addition, since many of the natural predators have been eliminated (to protect livestock), culling the deer herds actually helps the species by eliminating weaker animals and preventing over-crowding and starvation.

I'm assuming your second point is pure sarcasm.

[Ephiral]

Irony of ironies: Three weeks ago, a pastor was gunned down in front of his church in Hartford, CT. The only known motive (police mentioned "some language used in the incident") was his Christian beliefs. Fox and the other usual suspects still haven't said a word about this blatant attack on religious liberty. Which I'm certain has nothing to do with the fact that the beliefs in question boiled down to "LGBT people are our equals and we should welcome them", or the fact that he was black.

Meanwhile, someone shoots nine black people for being black, as he has personally said in repeated statements? Must be an attack on Christianity, right?



UPDATE: Just in case there was any lingering doubt whatsoever, here's the suspect himself on how he became a racist and decided to go shoot people, and how he selected his target.

[Lustful Bride]

Im just tossing my two cents out here but while im pro gun I would be alright with a tax on bullets.  :P

Ive only ever used a gun at the range and its not like I go every other day. I will only ever plan to use it if someone breaks into my home and tries to break into my room or if the world suddenly goes Mad Max on us.

Id totally be willing for compromises (hell id even give up semi-auto pistols) if both sides of the political theatre would pull their thumbs out of their asses and actually try to negotiate. But since when have politicians ever cared about making sense?  ::) Its all about how much money they can stuff into their pockets and how many voters they can get.

All I ever see from either party are the absolute extremes and the classic "Youre bad and should feel bad for X, Y, Z" instead of "Lets talk it out and parley, lets work out a compromise."  :P

Plus you never hear about a person who stops a rape or saves themselves by using a gun. Cause that doesn't sell newspapers.

[Oniya]

For truth.  I like to think I'm one of those who advocate 'sane gun control'.  Not 'All guns are bad, WTFBBQ!' but rather seeing licensing akin to car licensing (certain behaviors/conditions could exclude ownership, safety classes required before ownership, and regular re-certification required to maintain ownership).

Unfortunately, the lobbyists on both sides are either 'everyone must be able to get a gun!' or 'nobody should have guns!'.

[Lustful Bride]

For truth.  I like to think I'm one of those who advocate 'sane gun control'.  Not 'All guns are bad, WTFBBQ!' but rather seeing licensing akin to car licensing (certain behaviors/conditions could exclude ownership, safety classes required before ownership, and regular re-certification required to maintain ownership).

Unfortunately, the lobbyists on both sides are either 'everyone must be able to get a gun!' or 'nobody should have guns!'.

Makes me wish that Teddy Roosevelt had succeeded in creating his Bull Moose party, maybe they would have been the middle ground that we need instead of the two that throw their tantrums and hide in their room.

Oh btw. High Five for Sanity.  ;D

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Ephiral]

I'm all for sane gun control - but I think we'd disagree on the definition of "sane". Up here, we have two classes of license, each requiring mandatory safety certification. (All handguns, short-barreled longarms, and the AR-15 and a few other specific cases fall under the more restrictive of the two.) Authorization to carry gets tighter scrutiny and requires justification (the common examples are living in wilderness or working as an armed guard; "police protection is insufficient" is a reason but extremely rarely granted under special circumstances only). All restricted weapons (basically anything that isn't a full-length longarm) have to be registered (and sales have to be reported, private or commercial), and stored and transported securely. These all seem like rather reasonable restrictions to me, though I might be willing to flex somewhat on the finer points of prohibited vs restricted vs non-restricted, the definition of "firearm" (our muzzle-velocity rule is bullshit, and possibly the inclusion of replicas (though I do think commission of a crime with a replica should fall under firearm sanctions).

[Lustful Bride]

If by replica do you mean how toy guns sometimes get painted and used in robberies or like a plastic/ wooden copy of a real gun? Or those ones that are designed to fire only blanks?

[Zakharra]

To hunt animals is cruel.

If you want personal defense, buy a battleship or a nuke, not a gun, there is always somebody with a bigger gun.

A collectors item could be make so that it doesn't work and recreational shooting? That's almost as insane as recreational speeding on the motorways.


There really is no excuse to keep that idiotic law (or freedom) in place. None.

Many in the country hunt to eat. Almost all hunters eat what they shoot. We can't do a shoot and release like a catch and release with fish. It doesn't make sense to shoot an animal and leave the carcass (aside from vermin, they can rot. Bloody gophers..*glare*). Deer, elf, caribou, moose, mountain goats/sheep and such are more often than not, eaten. I don't know about big carnivores like mountain lions, but I know people will eat bears. Birds such as ducks, geese and other fowl are eaten when shot. That's one reason why there is a limit on how many a hunter can shoot. Hunters also pay a lot of money to help maintain the wilderness areas and help promote consciousness of wilderness and wildlife areas.

As an outsider, the bolded part genuinely confuses me. Wasn't it only granted by your government in the first place? Isn't it routinely taken away from certain people by the order of your government? (Was that not, in fact, an argument for why guns don't need to be better-regulated, earlier in this very thread?) So... given that context, what does this statement even mean?

No. The US Constitution lists the rights that the government canNOT take away from the population. These are rights that are supposed to be untouchable by government.

As to the actual gun debate itself... LiztesFerenc seems to be handling my side pretty well for the most part, but I feel the need to address a couple points:
That bolded line? That's an argument for gun control. Most murders are crimes of passion. Make it more difficult to murder someone in the heat of the moment, and the murder rate drops.

So? If there are no guns, other ways would be used. Just because a very TINY number of people use guns to murder others (or themselves) is no reason to restrict or remove gun ownership from -everyone-.

Lisztes addressed this, but I think it bears repeating: No version of your scenario is improved by disorganized bands of citizens with civilian weapons. Either they get themselves killed against the military, or the military is better at the job.
Quick question: Do you know how most guns enter the black market?
So... your argument here is "We can get ordnance, therefore it's no harm to be able to get ordnance"? Little circular, isn't it?

Many hunters, especially the older ones are good, aka sniper materiel here, so they would be good/decent at ambushes. It would not take much for a few patrols to be taken out and better military hardware acquired. You seem to be thinking that the entire, or most of the US military would be going along with oppressing the US citizens. Why? What makes you think that the majority of US military personnel would go along with such orders? In all likelihood, there would be a hell of a lot of soldiers who would refuse to do that. The military would likely split and the government trying to oppress the people would find itself under fire from its own military.
 
Mostly through illegal ways. I highly doubt they are bought legally. Modern military ordinance on the black market is definitely illegal.

Hardly. It's less circular than your argument of; 'a small number of people use guns to murder others, so we should restrict/remove guns from everyone'. Why blame everyone for the actions of a tiny minority of people?

  Exactly. Ergo, no guns makes it harder to kill people, so less people are murdered, and "A mass murder happened hear recently" typically means in the last 50 years, not the last 6 months.

  So the constitution can be changed, otherwise the USSC would still be going by the that definition. So why can't it change again?

  That weakens your argument. If the military deserts, you don't need an armed population to defeat the tyrannical government, the army does that better.

  Simple, risk vs. reward. Cars are vital to any modern society. Guns are only common in one, so are logically vital to none. Also automobile accidents typically aren't as traumatic as mass shootings.

  That is no reason to restrict/remove guns from everyone else,l the vast majority of gun owners who ARE responsible users of them. As I told Epherial, you're wanting to restrict/remove all guns based on the actions of a -tiny- minority of people. Just because some people abuse the right is no reason to remove/restrict it for everyone.

Umm.. the Constitution can only be changed by a 2/3 majority vote by both Houses of Congress or 2/3 (or 3/4 vote by the states. That is the -only- way it can be changed legally.  How it is interpreted is another matter, but US jurisprudence takes precedence into account on cases, and for many many decades, the USSC has ruled that the Second Amendment is the individual's right to own a weapon. To go back on this when there are dozen of cases the Court has ruled in favor for individual ownership would have a serious backlash among the population and legal establishment.

Automobile accidents can be extremely traumatic for the survivors. To say they aren't as traumatic is doing them a disservice, I think. What they aren't though is headline grabbing. The US media establishment seems to love blood and gore and the moment something flashy happens, such as a shooting, they jump all over it and splash it on the screen in loving and vivid detail, spewing out, within moments of it happening, all possible theories of who, what, and why. It's seen as a crisis that cannot go to waste and is used to push an agenda (gun control in this case, since a gun was used, ALL guns must be/are bad. :| )

Also many people see guns, usually rifles, as a necessary part of their lives. Usually country folk that use rifles for hunting or pest/varmint control. The local butcher here uses a rifle to put down animals he slaughters (he comes to your place to kill and butcher the animal there, then takes the carcass back to his shop for hanging and processing into taste chops, cuts and sausage/ground meat. Yummy).

Im just tossing my two cents out here but while im pro gun I would be alright with a tax on bullets.  :P

Ive only ever used a gun at the range and its not like I go every other day. I will only ever plan to use it if someone breaks into my home and tries to break into my room or if the world suddenly goes Mad Max on us.

Id totally be willing for compromises (hell id even give up semi-auto pistols) if both sides of the political theatre would pull their thumbs out of their asses and actually try to negotiate. But since when have politicians ever cared about making sense?  ::) Its all about how much money they can stuff into their pockets and how many voters they can get.

All I ever see from either party are the absolute extremes and the classic "Youre bad and should feel bad for X, Y, Z" instead of "Lets talk it out and parley, lets work out a compromise."  :P

Plus you never hear about a person who stops a rape or saves themselves by using a gun. Cause that doesn't sell newspapers.

I am ambivalent on taxing bullets. I believe the anti-gun people have tried that before and its always been defeated since their aim was to make the ammunition too expensive to buy, let alone own. I'm not convinced a tax on ammunition would not be another way for the gun control people to try and price ammunition out of the hands of average people, or to put limits on how many rounds someone can own.

I agree with you on the political parties though. It's gotten bad and it seems to be more extreme positions now and less statesmanship. A return to the willingness to listen and work with the other party like in the 1980s and early 90s would help a lot.

[Ephiral]

If by replica do you mean how toy guns sometimes get painted and used in robberies or like a plastic/ wooden copy of a real gun? Or those ones that are designed to fire only blanks?

Technically speaking, the language in our laws... has actually been updated since I last checked. The "replica" language appears to have been removed entirely, and "firearm" was redefined to eliminate the muzzle-velocity bullshit (it is now, basically, anything with a barrel that can fire a projectile capable of killing or causing serious bodily harm). So... yeah. The remaining restrictions... would negotiate the finer points, but the broad strokes look good to me. (On an amusing note, while looking for the "replica" language, I noticed that we're actually easier on people with a criminal record than the US is - up here, it's only a five-year ban for violent criminals, unless there's an established history of violent behaviour.)

No. The US Constitution lists the rights that the government canNOT take away from the population. These are rights that are supposed to be untouchable by government.

So felons can't be denied voting rights or guns, then? And there's no procedure for amending the Constitution? Or are you making bold, sweeping, unsupportable claims?

So? If there are no guns, other ways would be used. Just because a very TINY number of people use guns to murder others (or themselves) is no reason to restrict or remove gun ownership from -everyone-.

The statement I bolded kinda contradicts the experience of, say, Australia. When facts and statements collide, guess which loses?

Many hunters, especially the older ones are good, aka sniper materiel here, so they would be good/decent at ambushes. It would not take much for a few patrols to be taken out and better military hardware acquired. You seem to be thinking that the entire, or most of the US military would be going along with oppressing the US citizens. Why? What makes you think that the majority of US military personnel would go along with such orders? In all likelihood, there would be a hell of a lot of soldiers who would refuse to do that. The military would likely split and the government trying to oppress the people would find itself under fire from its own military.

You're asserting that a civilian hunter with a civilian hunting rifle is going to be superior to a military sniper with a military weapon?

Again, you're missing the point: If the military defects, untrained bands of armed civilians are not necessary. If the military does not defect, civilians have literally zero ways of dealing with large swathes of military capability. In neither scenario do armed civilians change the outcome appreciably.
 

Mostly through illegal ways. I highly doubt they are bought legally. Modern military ordinance on the black market is definitely illegal.

Actually, they are bought legally. And then stolen from legal owners.

Hardly. It's less circular than your argument of; 'a small number of people use guns to murder others, so we should restrict/remove guns from everyone'. Why blame everyone for the actions of a tiny minority of people?

Actually, my argument is "Going from relatively open to rather strict policy on guns has, in the past, reduced the number of dead people as a direct result. Dead people are more important than any benefit anybody has so far proposed of current US gun policy. Ergo, guns should be more tightly regulated." I'm not concerned with who or how many the problem actors are. I'm concerned with how many victims there are, and how that pile of dead bodies weighs up against the benefits of ridiculously open gun policies.

[Lux12]

I've skimmed the thread so I may have missed something so pardon me if I repeat anything that was already said. I don't know if this man was mentally ill. Leaving psych issues unchecked can have tragic results, but mental illness by itself rarely ever makes someone violent, let alone shoot nine innocent people. I don't there is one mental illness that makes someone go on killing sprees. That is a conscious choice. Nor does any kind of mental disorder make someone racist. There is no mental disorder that makes people inclined to engage in racially motivated murders. So it doesn't matter if this individual was mentally ill. This grown man, not a boy chose to do these things. Also equating mental instability with violence and bigotry can can be problematic. A person with a mental illness can be a bigot, but having a mental illness does not make one a bigot. So bottom line, this was a grown man who made the decision to kill nine innocent people in the name of a white supremacist ideology so lets not pretend that is about something else.

[Cassandra LeMay]

Plus you never hear about a person who stops a rape or saves themselves by using a gun. Cause that doesn't sell newspapers.

Or maybe that's because it happens so rarely: In 2012 there were 34 gun homicides for each "justifiable" gun homicide, i.e. killings of a fellon by a private citizen while comitting a crime. The use of guns for self-defence is pretty rare, compared to the amount of gun crimes. Source: Washington Post

[consortium11]

Or maybe that's because it happens so rarely: In 2012 there were 34 gun homicides for each "justifiable" gun homicide, i.e. killings of a fellon by a private citizen while comitting a crime. The use of guns for self-defence is pretty rare, compared to the amount of gun crimes. Source: Washington Post

Those statistics strike me as being too limited to add a huge amount to the overall statistical discussion.

Unless I've completely missed it then there's no "justifiable aggravated assault" statistics there; cases equivalent to the justifiable homicides but without a death. So there's no information about the number of times a gun was used against someone committing a crime but no-one died. Likewise there's no statistics on when the presence of a gun prevented a crime from occurring (in a more specific "I pulled out a gun and the robbers ran off" as opposed to a more nebulous "because they thought guns might be there they didn't commit the crime to begin with" sense). Without those looking at the justifiable homicide stats alone strikes me as covering only a small part of the overall picture.

That's not to say that your overall point isn't correct; that the use of guns to prevent crime is a relatively rare event. But I'd want better evidence before getting behind that fully.

[Drake Valentine]

I wouldn't consider his actions terrorism. Terrorism serves as a means to achieve a political goal. I would see his actions as more of a general hate crime. In fact, not sure if anyone brought it up, but I did some web prodding around and found this: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/

I didn't read it all, there are some hateful and racist things going on that was written.

[kylie]

      I think it comes down to a question of whether a significant 'enough' component of the crime is believed to be intimidation or pressuring people. 

      It's arguable that Roof intended to motivate others to target the Black community with violence.  He ends the website document on something to the tone of 'Someone has to be brave and do this,' after criticizing others of somewhat like politics for not going beyond online chatter.  Some have said he hoped to spark some sort of civil war, though I'm not at all sure if this has been supported exactly.  I wonder if they might also dig up more about what he expected to happen in the aftermath; did he expect riots and heightened tensions as have occurred in several cities over the past few months?

      He definitely presented a message that Black people were unwelcome in his point of view.  And saying that while raising this sort of danger to that specific community is considered an effective way of delivering it (beyond simply, an effective way of maiming and killing), and a way that is likely to actually displace or disrupt the community somehow that the courts decide is "enough," then it could be terrorism on those grounds too.       

[Ironwolf85]

the best thing we can do is tell him to fuck off and instead of getting racial come together in the wake of such a senseless act.
Acting in love for one another...

Also lock the little fucker in a roomconcrete room with a window so he can see the big ol inter-racial inter-community gathering of care and heartwarmingness... just to rub salt in the wounds
  ;D


On the terms of gun control, I don't think they should be taken away. But seriously a federal register and federal licence standards for weapons wouldn't be that hard nor would it infringe on any right.
The NRA and their gun manufacturing backers would shit bricks though  ::) I'd love to see it.

[Deamonbane]

Gun control has nothing to do with this. Brazil has one of the strictest holds on their no-gun policy, and yet just about every criminal is armed with military hardware (Helped by the fact that the largest gun black market is literally a hop and a skip away in Paraguay). I'm talking Sub-Machine Guns, Assault rifles, RPGs, and even .50 cal Anti-air guns.

I'm all for heavy regulation, though. Although that would be relevant for just about anything, including, to use a previous example, cars. More people die in automobile accidents than by guns, and that's by a significant margin. I've always been of the opinion that it's not about the weapon (or tool), it's about the human using it.

[kylie]

Gun control has nothing to do with this. Brazil has one of the strictest holds on their no-gun policy, and yet just about every criminal is armed with military hardware (Helped by the fact that the largest gun black market is literally a hop and a skip away in Paraguay). I'm talking Sub-Machine Guns, Assault rifles, RPGs, and even .50 cal Anti-air guns.

Well then, in that case isn't it a striking difference that not every criminal gang in the US gets to have all of those things in regular operation?  Perhaps what few regulations we do have are actually good for something.  And if so, perhaps having a few more would make a difference.

       Though I'm not sure if it would make a difference to exports from the US...  Such as, well, American arms exports that easily get to those Brazilian criminals you mentioned as an example of why domestic regulations in the US market supposedly shouldn't matter in the US. Bitter irony anywhere?   ::)

...  The fact that most of the high powered arms confiscated in São Paulo originate in the United States fits a pattern seen around the region, with the country a common source of assault weapons for criminals around the region, especially in Mexico and in Colombia

Though such a trend should be cause for greater debate on gun control in the United States, with reforms blocked even after US agents were gunned down by Mexican criminals using US-made and trafficked weapons, it is unlikely this report will have much effect. 

----------

I'm all for heavy regulation, though.

Didn't you just say regulations wouldn't matter?  I'm really confused.  (Speculating: Could you mean they wouldn't easily prevent certain things such as were used in this particular case -- I dunno guessing pistols maybe -- getting through somewhere? Maybe??)

Although that would be relevant for just about anything, including, to use a previous example, cars. More people die in automobile accidents than by guns, and that's by a significant margin. I've always been of the opinion that it's not about the weapon (or tool), it's about the human using it.

While I think this is interesting and I do agree cars can get very dangerous too, it would raise a lot of questions in the US where so many jobs are concentrated in suburbs and sometimes city centers, quite a few of which have very lacking public transit.  Also, if they somehow "regulated" highway spending to upgrade a few of the roads to handle the present load, first or simultaneously...

[Iniquitous]

I am pro-gun. I do not think taking away guns will stop anything. The problem is not the gun. It is the person holding the gun. You can kill someone with just about anything... it is not the weapon that does the killing, it is the person wielding the weapon.

[Deamonbane]

     Didn't you just say regulations wouldn't matter?  I'm really confused.  (Speculating: Could you mean they wouldn't easily prevent certain things such as were used in this particular case -- I dunno guessing pistols maybe -- getting through somewhere? Maybe??)

What I meant was that an outright ban is not the answer, as it will not keep idiots from getting their hands on guns. Regulation wouldn't either, but it would make it more difficult for them to acquire and use the weapons without consequences, which is usually the best deterrent. A person owning an illegal gun would know that they can't leave their house with the weapon or they would get caught carrying an illegal firearm, or a person that owns a legal firearm would pause before they use it because they know that the chances of them getting away with it are practically nil.

I speak from my own point of view, of course, and am far from an expert on the subject.

Samuel L. Jackson, awesome as always.

[Zakharra]

So felons can't be denied voting rights or guns, then? And there's no procedure for amending the Constitution? Or are you making bold, sweeping, unsupportable claims?
The statement I bolded kinda contradicts the experience of, say, Australia. When facts and statements collide, guess which loses?
You're asserting that a civilian hunter with a civilian hunting rifle is going to be superior to a military sniper with a military weapon?

Again, you're missing the point: If the military defects, untrained bands of armed civilians are not necessary. If the military does not defect, civilians have literally zero ways of dealing with large swathes of military capability. In neither scenario do armed civilians change the outcome appreciably.
  Actually, they are bought legally. And then stolen from legal owners.
Actually, my argument is "Going from relatively open to rather strict policy on guns has, in the past, reduced the number of dead people as a direct result. Dead people are more important than any benefit anybody has so far proposed of current US gun policy. Ergo, guns should be more tightly regulated." I'm not concerned with who or how many the problem actors are. I'm concerned with how many victims there are, and how that pile of dead bodies weighs up against the benefits of ridiculously open gun policies.

1;  I wish felons weren't denied the  right to vote after their sentence was up. The removing of their gun rights is a lot sticker, some people ARE more of a danger with access to them, but for most non-violent ex-criminals, I would not restrict access to weapons.

2; I counter with Brazil. A disarmed populace is one that is more easily controlled. And if the citizens don't have guns, the criminals do.

3; You underestimate (badly I think) how much a population armed with hunting weapons can tie up a military. Especially in the US which has a very large percentage of the non urban population that knows how to use firearms.  Yes a well trained military could overrun them. In time, but an active insurgency would tie up tens of thousands, or more troops just to keep an area under some form of control.  You're basically saying that civilian owned arms (an astounding amount which is ex-military) would be worthless against a modern military. Not it wouldn't. They can help tie up tens to hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of millions of $ of equipment.  Over time, if the government managed to keep it up, it could win, but the cost would be immense. And you keep forgetting that in the US, access and ownership0 (whether you use it or not) is a RIGHT! As far as I know, know where else in the world is that a right.

4; Which means they are illegally attained. Also ever heard of arms smugglers?If firearms were removed from the US population, you'd see a massive increase in arms smuggling because criminals would pay to get guns.

5; Brazil.  Sometimes your view works, other times it doesn't, and you keep ignoring that the culture here in the US is much different in regards to firearms. We are NOT Europe. We are NOT Asian. We are NOT South American. We are citizens of the United States of America. A unique culture with a tradition of rights and a Constitution that guarantees them to all US citizens. Rights the government is not supposed to restrict.


The Samuel Jackson image I fully agree with.

[Drake Valentine]

I am pro-gun. I do not think taking away guns will stop anything. The problem is not the gun. It is the person holding the gun. You can kill someone with just about anything... it is not the weapon that does the killing, it is the person wielding the weapon.

^This.

People will always find things to use to kill others with. Take away guns, that is fine. There are other deadly weapons that individuals will carry or make or use. Blades, molotovs, vehicles. A crazed arsonist or driver can still do some damage that a gun wielding lunatic can. Just with firearms, they have the fatal precision of handling targets if one is properly trained in such.  Even so, it is impossible to control and confiscate every weapon in the United States and even if in somehow miraculously managing so, do you know how many unmarked or illegal guns are floating about that criminals are in possession of? Feel free, give them an edge over citizens who will not be able to protect themselves with a firearm of their own and whose to say the craftier criminals won't catch up on such and just hide away their weapons. If they obtained things unlicensed, than it is harder to track.

If someone is out on some sort of vendetta or spree, they will use whatever. Removing guns from equation isn't really solving problems; it just starts others.

[kylie]

      The Brazil example is still weird.  It's taking a situation where it appears that the US arms industry has legally flooded the market, surrounding countries have little to no regulation or effective central control (or is it care?) about the industry, and then, as a result criminals can get big weapons.  And people are leaping from that to suggest that if a huge legal industry weren't around and even IF there was more regulation, smugglers would still get guns to criminals and there would be the same problems.  I'm skeptical. 

      ...  I also don't see Mexico selling the US population a lot of antiaircraft weapons and weapons of the sort that take out a dozen people in a minute with their fast bursts (I don't see a need to have wrangles about how people go berserk trying to deny the idea of "assault"  -- some stuff just does kill more people, faster).  Maybe the nearer to automatic ("assault" yes) arms part is because we're so poorly regulated already that who needs Mexico, anyone can go to some gun show and buy them domestically.  But when it comes to anti-aircraft and anti-vehicle weapons, the US is not in any situation comparable to Brazil.  Until maybe Canada has a little civil war.

[Oniya]

Knowing the Canadians that I do, that will be the only time in history that 'civil war' is not a contradiction in terms.

[Ephiral]

1;  I wish felons weren't denied the  right to vote after their sentence was up. The removing of their gun rights is a lot sticker, some people ARE more of a danger with access to them, but for most non-violent ex-criminals, I would not restrict access to weapons.

So when you said "Government CANNOT restrict these rights", you meant "I don't want government to restrict these rights, but it would be absolutely within established precedent to do so.

2; I counter with Brazil. A disarmed populace is one that is more easily controlled. And if the citizens don't have guns, the criminals do.

Two objections. One: Australia is a much closer fit to the US situation than Brazil, in both history with guns (and original view of them as a right) and the factors that actually prevent government tyranny - concept of "rule of law" and desire to be legitimate in the eyes of its people and its potential allies and trading partners.

Two: I have consistently said "tightly regulated", not "disarmed". I live in a nation where there are 30 weapons per 100 people, closer to the US end of the scale than Brazil. I have zero issues with this.

3; You underestimate (badly I think) how much a population armed with hunting weapons can tie up a military. Especially in the US which has a very large percentage of the non urban population that knows how to use firearms.  Yes a well trained military could overrun them. In time, but an active insurgency would tie up tens of thousands, or more troops just to keep an area under some form of control.  You're basically saying that civilian owned arms (an astounding amount which is ex-military) would be worthless against a modern military. Not it wouldn't. They can help tie up tens to hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of millions of $ of equipment.  Over time, if the government managed to keep it up, it could win, but the cost would be immense. And you keep forgetting that in the US, access and ownership0 (whether you use it or not) is a RIGHT! As far as I know, know where else in the world is that a right.

I am saying that hunting rifles, no matter how good, will never be able to significantly threaten two entire branches of the military. There's no realistic scenario in which you take down a jet or a destroyer with a hunting rifle. Either the military defects, in which case civilian ordnance is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case civilian ordnance is nowhere near what's needed to establish control. And you seem to forget that rights are human cosntructions, as valid for renegotiation and reconstruction as any other. This particular right has been altered in US society already.  You've witnessed a sea change on the question of whether marriage is a human right.

4; Which means they are illegally attained. Also ever heard of arms smugglers?If firearms were removed from the US population, you'd see a massive increase in arms smuggling because criminals would pay to get guns.

So follow the chain of logic: Illegal guns being primarily and heavily sourced from thefts of legal weapons in private citizens' hands means that the less weapons tehre are in private citizens' hands, the smaller the pool of illegal guns. The tighter the regulations on how your guns must be secured and where you can bring them, the smaller the percentage of legally owned guns enters the black market, the smaller the pool of illegal weapons.

5; Brazil.  Sometimes your view works, other times it doesn't, and you keep ignoring that the culture here in the US is much different in regards to firearms. We are NOT Europe. We are NOT Asian. We are NOT South American. We are citizens of the United States of America. A unique culture with a tradition of rights and a Constitution that guarantees them to all US citizens. Rights the government is not supposed to restrict.

My view is not "deny citizens weapons under any and all circumstances, then arm the police heavily and give them minimal oversight and a culture of violence and bribery", so you're a bit off there. And... are you saying there's a significant difference in how guns are viewed in modern America and how they were viewed in early-90s Australia, before they decided that dead kids were more important than some Red Dawn fantasy? America isn't the only nation with rights and a Constitution that enshrines them; I'm familiar with the concept because I live it. However, you're absolutely and completely wrong on saying the government can not change what rights you have. There is actually a step-by-step procedure for exactly how it should do so. In fact, the only reason this right exists is that the government followed the procedure for changing your rights and added it.

If someone is out on some sort of vendetta or spree, they will use whatever. Removing guns from equation isn't really solving problems; it just starts others.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the real-world examples we have of essentially open democratic regimes like the US tightly restricting guns show that it does in fact help to solve the problem of people getting murdered.

[Cassandra LeMay]

(I'm not going to quote individual posts here, as a few people made similar points and I don't want to create the impression that I have some beef with a certain individual by picking arbitrarily which posts to quote.)

That said, I believe the whole gun-control debate is often painted too much in black and white terms and scenarios, when we are not even discussing concrete legislation. From what I read even a majority of NRA members is in favor of mandatory background checks when one buys a gun so there should certainly be room for a calm, rational debate how guns can be made safer and how mass shootings by deranged individuals can be prevented. That strikes me as a debate certainly worth having, even if no law can guarantee absolute safety. Some improvement is still better than none.

Now, one argument I've seen here is "People will find a way to kill each other anyway". How is that an argument against stricter gun controls? If person A wants to kill person B, person A might well find a way to do it, but why should the law make it any easier than it has to be? Traffic accidents will also happen, but no one would argue that as a good reason to no longer require people to get a driver's license.

And while I am neither a criminologist nor a psychologist I would venture that guns don't make killing more easy in a technical, mechanical way, but also in a psychological way and assume that there is still a difference between killing someone from a distance by pulling a trigger and walking up to them and bashing their head in with a club. It may not deter some determined individuals, but it might at least stop some individuals if they don't have a gun at hand.

I find the point that "criminals will get guns anyway" just as problematic, as the whole topic started with a mass shooting perpetrated by a single deranged individual, not a hardened criminal. The gun control debate flares up always in the aftermath of mass shootings, but the felons in those cases are not hardened criminals with black market connections who might find it easy to obtain a gun in a market with tighter controls.


All in all, I would say that some tightening of gun laws would be a good idea, but laws about background checks and limits on obtaining a gun don't exist in a vacuum. There are other laws that pertain to the use of guns and those laws should also be examined, because what the law does or does not allow can shape attitudes. If a state allows people to buy guns without mandatory background checks, allows them to carry them around concealed, and has 'stand your ground' laws that make it okay to shoot someone not when you are objectively threatened, but when you subjectively feel you might perhaps be threatened, that will lead to certain attitudes about guns and gun use. If the law says something is okay, why shouldn't people adopt the same attitude, after all? If that leads to people pulling a gun and shooting someone just because he looks at them sideways there is a problem. Changing the law will not eliminate all those problems over night, but it might help drive the point home that some use of guns is not okay.

[Drake Valentine]

Just gonna leave this here

http://www.infowars.com/charleston-shooter-was-on-drug-linked-to-violent-outbursts/

and this http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

[Cassandra LeMay]

Just gonna leave this here

http://www.infowars.com/charleston-shooter-was-on-drug-linked-to-violent-outbursts/

and this http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

Here's an article that adresses the "Roof was on drugs" narrative: http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/this_drug_wasnt_responsible_for_the_charleston_massacre/

The main points:
1. We don't know if he was on drugs at the time of the shooting. He was found with Suboxone back in February.
2. Even if he was taking Suboxone at the time, there is no medical evidence that it would lead to agressive behaviour. The best the infowars.com article can offer is a handful of anecdotal "evidene", half of it not even from those who have taken the drug.
3. Even if Roof was on Suboxone, and even if it would lead to agressive behaviour, drugs don't turn someone into a racist. No one becomes a racist from popping some pills.

[Oniya]

Natural News is a laughable source.  These are people that still believe in chemtrails.

[Ephiral]

Natural News is a laughable source.  These are people that still believe in chemtrails.

And Infowars is Alex Jones's conspiracy-theory clearinghouse. Hardly remotely credible at all.

[Lustful Bride]

And Infowars is Alex Jones's conspiracy-theory clearinghouse. Hardly remotely credible at all.

Understatement of the century.  ::)

[consortium11]

Understatement of the century.  ::)

Are you telling me you don't think that Robert Rodriguez' cheesy, "Mexploitation", action movie Machete was part of the long running campaign to start a race war and had a 90% chance of causing race riots and civil unrest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsbIL352Nh0

On a serious note one should never dismiss something just because of who says it... old adages about broken clocks and blind squirrels come to mind... however unreliable that person is. But you can dismiss something when the sources and evidence are a series of anonymous anecdotes as is the case with the linked infowars piece.

[DiscoveringEzra]

I am pro-gun. I do not think taking away guns will stop anything. The problem is not the gun. It is the person holding the gun. You can kill someone with just about anything... it is not the weapon that does the killing, it is the person wielding the weapon.

That's  not always the case ,however. There have been a good bit of cases where children ,toddlers even, have accidentally shot and killed someone or themselves playing with a gun. Plus Some accidental discharges where the gun has been dropped.

Not that im anti gun, I just think there should be regulations and restrictions to certain things. A minimum of 35,000 people are shot and each year, with shooting injuries tripling that number.


On another gun note a new study came out onthe statistics of gun defense.  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/

And Fox news have been doing a wonderful job of reporting. Its just awful that there is a war on Christianity. I dont understand why this wacked out kid had to target Christians I just dont get it. Nevermind that 70% of the nation is Christian and he stated exactly who he was targeting. 

And kudos to the FBI for stating that this was not a terrorist attack.  Completely ignoring the fact that a tone of our homeland terrorist attacks are from far right wing Christian Extremists .(Neo nazis, white supremacists, sovereign nationalist, est est)  heck earlier this year they arrested a man who planted pipe bombs in Vickery Creek Park trying to frame Muslims last year. Luckly they found it before he could detonate it. Idk why it took so long to arrest him but I digress as usual.

[Drake Valentine]

That's  not always the case ,however. There have been a good bit of cases where children ,toddlers even, have accidentally shot and killed someone or themselves playing with a gun. Plus Some accidental discharges where the gun has been dropped.

But if parentals were smart and kept guns locked away or out of reach, than that would of never happened. I would blame bad parenting over guns in those cases. Also, accidental discharges are bound to happen if a gun is loaded(in the sense a bullet is already cocked in the chamber.) I don't see how a gun is just going to randomly go off with just a magazine in it. I don't even keep a live round in the barrels for that reason.

Not that im anti gun, I just think there should be regulations and restrictions to certain things. A minimum of 35,000 people are shot and each year, with shooting injuries tripling that number.

Regulations and restrictions perhaps, but I am against outright banning of gun ownership to law-abiding citizens. Civilizans without guns may sound appealing, although I am more worried about the government incorporating Martial Law or even the states being invaded by a foreign country. Oh, thanks a lot government, take away our weapons so we can't now protect ourselves from tyranny.

On another gun note a new study came out onthe statistics of gun defense.  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/

I read it, not much I can comment there. However the means of an end I will say is that owning a gun within a household still adds that sense of security. Maybe not everyone will use it, but it is there in case one does. Also, a good faction of Americans use firearms for hunting as well. I was given a gun for hunting at a young age(14-16, I forgot, but may of been sixteen birthday) and I never went around shooting up any schools or churches. I have friends who hunt as well that had firearms at similar ages. All of which were taught the values and importance of a weapon that it isn't a 'toy,' that it can harm or kill someone; and the only living creatures I ever pointed it at were deer with the intention for food. I have never hunted for sport and do not believe in such either.

And Fox news have been doing a wonderful job of reporting. Its just awful that there is a war on Christianity. I dont understand why this wacked out kid had to target Christians I just dont get it. Nevermind that 70% of the nation is Christian and he stated exactly who he was targeting. 

Actually, it is a racist war. If you read his manifesto that I posted somewhere here(if it didn't get deleted from the website it was posted again on since the original website to his manifesto was taken down.) Basically he thought blacks were horrible individuals of a majority of crime induced actions. Which after reading a good portion of said manifesto, I will retract a former statement on him and indeed relate his actions as 'terrorism.' Terrorism as it was an attempt to spark a racial war after the motives within the manifesto made his agenda clear.

And kudos to the FBI for stating that this was not a terrorist attack.  Completely ignoring the fact that a tone of our homeland terrorist attacks are from far right wing Christian Extremists .(Neo nazis, white supremacists, sovereign nationalist, est est)  heck earlier this year they arrested a man who planted pipe bombs in Vickery Creek Park trying to frame Muslims last year. Luckly they found it before he could detonate it. Idk why it took so long to arrest him but I digress as usual.

Sorry, I found the latter part of that a bit humorous. But hey, that is government for you, it is good to see how our tax dollars are spent and used.

[consortium11]

On another gun note a new study came out onthe statistics of gun defense.  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/18/3671392/study-people-use-guns-self-defense/

This was mentioned earlier in the thread and I still think the evidence isn't as definitive as some are trying to claim it is.

The study tracks justifiable homicides but it doesn't include statistics on what I guess we could call "justifiable assaults" with firearms; situations where someone was justified in shooting someone else but didn't kill them. Likewise it didn't include situations where someone prevented a crime by drawing a gun. Without those it paints at best a lopsided picture of the use of guns in self defense.

To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.

[Oniya]

I will retract a former statement on him and indeed relate his actions as 'terrorism.' Terrorism as it was an attempt to spark a racial war after the motives within the manifesto made his agenda clear.

This indeed.  +1.

He was as much a terrorist as Timothy McVeigh - and to be honest, if the term had been around when Charles Manson was taken down, I'd've called 'Helter Skelter' an act of terrorism for trying to incite a race war.

[Ephiral]

But if parentals were smart and kept guns locked away or out of reach, than that would of never happened. I would blame bad parenting over guns in those cases. Also, accidental discharges are bound to happen if a gun is loaded(in the sense a bullet is already cocked in the chamber.) I don't see how a gun is just going to randomly go off with just a magazine in it. I don't even keep a live round in the barrels for that reason.

I'd blame lax gun laws at least partially. Even by our standards, something like that is extremely rare here - because people know better than to store weapons loaded and unlocked, as a rule.

Regulations and restrictions perhaps, but I am against outright banning of gun ownership to law-abiding citizens. Civilizans without guns may sound appealing, although I am more worried about the government incorporating Martial Law or even the states being invaded by a foreign country. Oh, thanks a lot government, take away our weapons so we can't now protect ourselves from tyranny.

Again: Civilians with no combat training or organization are not going to be effective against their own nation's military without support, and for foreign invasions, you have a ridiculously huge military with an even more ridiculously huge arsenal ating as both deterrent and active defense. Why do people cling so hard to the Red Dawn fantasy?

I read it, not much I can comment there. However the means of an end I will say is that owning a gun within a household still adds that sense of security. Maybe not everyone will use it, but it is there in case one does. Also, a good faction of Americans use firearms for hunting as well. I was given a gun for hunting at a young age(14-16, I forgot, but may of been sixteen birthday) and I never went around shooting up any schools or churches. I have friends who hunt as well that had firearms at similar ages. All of which were taught the values and importance of a weapon that it isn't a 'toy,' that it can harm or kill someone; and the only living creatures I ever pointed it at were deer with the intention for food. I have never hunted for sport and do not believe in such either.

A false sense of security is actively harmful compared to no precaution at all.

Actually, it is a racist war. If you read his manifesto that I posted somewhere here(if it didn't get deleted from the website it was posted again on since the original website to his manifesto was taken down.) Basically he thought blacks were horrible individuals of a majority of crime induced actions. Which after reading a good portion of said manifesto, I will retract a former statement on him and indeed relate his actions as 'terrorism.' Terrorism as it was an attempt to spark a racial war after the motives within the manifesto made his agenda clear.

I'm p. sure that was intended as sarcasm - Fox and the other usual suspects have been trying to paint it as anything-but-racism, which includes a lot of "We'll never know why! It's not like he prepared a written statement or gave statements directly to police!" and a lot of "Shot up a church? Let us climb over this pile of dead black people to declare that it was obviously targeting Christianity!"

[DiscoveringEzra]

This was mentioned earlier in the thread and I still think the evidence isn't as definitive as some are trying to claim it is.

The study tracks justifiable homicides but it doesn't include statistics on what I guess we could call "justifiable assaults" with firearms; situations where someone was justified in shooting someone else but didn't kill them. Likewise it didn't include situations where someone prevented a crime by drawing a gun. Without those it paints at best a lopsided picture of the use of guns in self defense.

To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.

Yes i understand that, but even if we added those variables it wont stop it from being a very low number. Its at 0.8% how many recalculations should it be given  to disprove that the gun defense augment isnt as correct as people claim it is.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" NRA chief LaPierre. People are treating these situations as if their Steven Sagall action movies. They wanted to arm teachers after Sandy Hook, now they want to arm Church officials.The statistics wouldn't be close to high enough for that to be a good idea.

Sorry for my horrible grammar and punctuation I no longer have a computer and my tab is a pain i  the ass to correct things on. i just cant with till i have the money to build myself a good PC.*Sigh*

[Zakharra]

So when you said "Government CANNOT restrict these rights", you meant "I don't want government to restrict these rights, but it would be absolutely within established precedent to do so.
Two objections. One: Australia is a much closer fit to the US situation than Brazil, in both history with guns (and original view of them as a right) and the factors that actually prevent government tyranny - concept of "rule of law" and desire to be legitimate in the eyes of its people and its potential allies and trading partners.

Two: I have consistently said "tightly regulated", not "disarmed". I live in a nation where there are 30 weapons per 100 people, closer to the US end of the scale than Brazil. I have zero issues with this.
I am saying that hunting rifles, no matter how good, will never be able to significantly threaten two entire branches of the military. There's no realistic scenario in which you take down a jet or a destroyer with a hunting rifle. Either the military defects, in which case civilian ordnance is superfluous, or it doesn't, in which case civilian ordnance is nowhere near what's needed to establish control. And you seem to forget that rights are human cosntructions, as valid for renegotiation and reconstruction as any other. This particular right has been altered in US society already.  You've witnessed a sea change on the question of whether marriage is a human right.
So follow the chain of logic: Illegal guns being primarily and heavily sourced from thefts of legal weapons in private citizens' hands means that the less weapons tehre are in private citizens' hands, the smaller the pool of illegal guns. The tighter the regulations on how your guns must be secured and where you can bring them, the smaller the percentage of legally owned guns enters the black market, the smaller the pool of illegal weapons.
My view is not "deny citizens weapons under any and all circumstances, then arm the police heavily and give them minimal oversight and a culture of violence and bribery", so you're a bit off there. And... are you saying there's a significant difference in how guns are viewed in modern America and how they were viewed in early-90s Australia, before they decided that dead kids were more important than some Red Dawn fantasy? America isn't the only nation with rights and a Constitution that enshrines them; I'm familiar with the concept because I live it. However, you're absolutely and completely wrong on saying the government can not change what rights you have. There is actually a step-by-step procedure for exactly how it should do so. In fact, the only reason this right exists is that the government followed the procedure for changing your rights and added it.


I hate to sound like a broken record, but the real-world examples we have of essentially open democratic regimes like the US tightly restricting guns show that it does in fact help to solve the problem of people getting murdered.

I'd rather they didn't after the sentence was served. Obviously someone with a life sentence isn't going to be out of prison anytime soon so they aren't going to be able to exercise many of their rights. After the sentence was served though, the rights should be restored.

Australia is also an island continent onto itself. It has no land borders with anyone else. that alone will make a difference.

So because 'hunting rifles' are useless against a modern military, all firearms should be regulated/removed from civilian hands/ownership since it won't help them anyways? Sorry. I am not buying that for an instant. I do not consider human rights renegotiable. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights especially. Those are rights specifically listed in the Constitution that the government isn't supposed to tough or infringe upon.  That you think they should be is disturbing. If one Right can be removed, ANY of them can be by the legal framework you just set up. That's not a good scenario to be following.

  Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft? I am doubting the validity of that. If it was true, the left/Democrat party would be literally pounding that 'fact' on the news and all over in their drive to disarm the American population. You say your aim isn't to disarm the American population, but everything you say points right at that since you do want to regulate, heavily, who can and cannot own any firearm.

Rights, especially the ones in the US Constitution aren't something the US government SHOULD be able to change. Only the people of the US can change the Constitution, and that by a 2/3s vote of both houses and ratification by 2/3 or more of the states, or a 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of the states can vote on it and change the Constitution that way too. Without that, the government should be completely powerless to do ANYthing to infringe upon the Constitution.
And unlike any other nation, the right to own and bear arms (a term that is left vague since it means weapon) is a right for US citizens. As I understand it, in every other nation, it's a privilege, not a right. That is a notable and distinct difference. Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot (or should not be)

Again: Civilians with no combat training or organization are not going to be effective against their own nation's military without support, and for foreign invasions, you have a ridiculously huge military with an even more ridiculously huge arsenal ating as both deterrent and active defense. Why do people cling so hard to the Red Dawn fantasy?

It's not clinging to the Red Dawn fantasy. It will be statistically harder to invade or disarm a population that is armed, then to invade a nation where the population that isn't armed. Do you think that the hunting rifles you disparagingly dismiss won't have -any- effect? Or the handguns, shotguns and other firearms we are legally allowed to have won't have an effect? According to you, non-modern military weapons = useless against military. Hence that seems to be one of your justifications to heavily regulate all firearms and remove the Second Amendment.

[Ephiral]

I'd rather they didn't after the sentence was served. Obviously someone with a life sentence isn't going to be out of prison anytime soon so they aren't going to be able to exercise many of their rights. After the sentence was served though, the rights should be restored.

So yes, government can and has limited or stripped these rights before. Glad we cleared that up.

Australia is also an island continent onto itself. It has no land borders with anyone else. that alone will make a difference.

What difference, exactly? Be specific, please. (Zero points for guessing which direction the overwhelming amount of firearms trafficking across US borders flows.)

So because 'hunting rifles' are useless against a modern military, all firearms should be regulated/removed from civilian hands/ownership since it won't help them anyways? Sorry. I am not buying that for an instant. I do not consider human rights renegotiable. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights especially. Those are rights specifically listed in the Constitution that the government isn't supposed to tough or infringe upon.  That you think they should be is disturbing. If one Right can be removed, ANY of them can be by the legal framework you just set up. That's not a good scenario to be following.

Objections in order of importance:

0. What happens when someone's right to own a gun conflicts to somebody else's right to, y'know, live?
1. Like it or not, rights are negotiable. The US Bill of Rights didn't magically appear one day.
2. I didn't set up the legal framework, and it's not new. The very right to own guns was established in this fashion. There is precedent for this dating back two hundred and twenty-four years.
3. My argument is not that thefact that they won't make a difference means they should be removed. It is that "They can be used in this situation!" is not a justification, because they don't matter in that context.

Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft? I am doubting the validity of that. If it was true, the left/Democrat party would be literally pounding that 'fact' on the news and all over in their drive to disarm the American population. You say your aim isn't to disarm the American population, but everything you say points right at that since you do want to regulate, heavily, who can and cannot own any firearm.

...hm. I'm sorry; this was something I remembered reading in a news article some time ago but cannot find solid stats to back up. (Apparently, if you can believe this, the ATF is not permitted to release much data on weapon source traces.) Withdrawn.

Rights, especially the ones in the US Constitution aren't something the US government SHOULD be able to change. Only the people of the US can change the Constitution, and that by a 2/3s vote of both houses and ratification by 2/3 or more of the states, or a 2/3 (or is it 3/4) of the states can vote on it and change the Constitution that way too. Without that, the government should be completely powerless to do ANYthing to infringe upon the Constitution.

You argued against yourself here. Either government action can change the constitution or it cannot. Choose one. (And again, I'll note that wishing doesn't make it so; the government routinely restricts or removes private citizens' access to weapons without a consitutional amendment.)

And unlike any other nation, the right to own and bear arms (a term that is left vague since it means weapon) is a right for US citizens. As I understand it, in every other nation, it's a privilege, not a right. That is a notable and distinct difference. Privileges can be taken away. Rights cannot (or should not be)

...except when they are, or they are renegotiated or redefined, a thing that happens all the time. Today, for instance. This is something government does all the time, and the magic word "right" does not change that fact.

It's not clinging to the Red Dawn fantasy. It will be statistically harder to invade or disarm a population that is armed, then to invade a nation where the population that isn't armed. Do you think that the hunting rifles you disparagingly dismiss won't have -any- effect? Or the handguns, shotguns and other firearms we are legally allowed to have won't have an effect? According to you, non-modern military weapons = useless against military. Hence that seems to be one of your justifications to heavily regulate all firearms and remove the Second Amendment.

I think it'll add to the body count, but not appreciably affect the final outcome. Iraq ranks #7 in the world for guns per capita and had a number of organized resistance movements. How much difference did that make to the outcome?

[Caehlim]

Where was your link again suggesting that most illegal guns are gotten from legal citizens by theft?

I know you're not asking me, but these statistics seem to be what you're looking for.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (Link)

[kylie]

     I was curious too, and found this PBS report quick. 

     This particular report is feeling rather old by now (supporting stats page says 1994-1996), but the straw purchases mentioned as a central concern have remained significant: In the 2014 Supreme Court case where the Court refused to allow third party buying of guns on others' behalf, Justice Kagan mentioned that around half of the ATF's weapons trafficking cases involve straw purchases.

    The quoted portion below is about half of the summary on the PBS website.  (Bolding is mine.)

Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you're likely to hear this hard boiled response: "They steal them." But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception. An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.

According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

[Ephiral]

All right. I was incorrect on that point. Thanks for the info, folks.

[Oniya]

It does look like about 1/3 of the guns were obtained through some sort of criminal activity - 9% theft/burglary, 9% fence/black market, and 15% drug dealer.  I suppose there could be some regression done as to how the drug dealer and black market dealer obtained them (A fence, by definition sells stolen goods, but I suppose that some of the others might have been obtained 'legitimately'), but that's still a good chunk of the pie.

[Zakharra]

So yes, government can and has limited or stripped these rights before. Glad we cleared that up.

I'd rather it didn't.  However you're advocating removing/restricting it for everyone. That is one hell of an escalation. From a tiny minority of people to everyone. Big difference there.

What difference, exactly? Be specific, please. (Zero points for guessing which direction the overwhelming amount of firearms trafficking across US borders flows.)
Objections in order of importance:

0. What happens when someone's right to own a gun conflicts to somebody else's right to, y'know, live?
1. Like it or not, rights are negotiable. The US Bill of Rights didn't magically appear one day.
2. I didn't set up the legal framework, and it's not new. The very right to own guns was established in this fashion. There is precedent for this dating back two hundred and twenty-four years.
3. My argument is not that thefact that they won't make a difference means they should be removed. It is that "They can be used in this situation!" is not a justification, because they don't matter in that context.

0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.
1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.
2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.
3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.

You argued against yourself here. Either government action can change the constitution or it cannot. Choose one. (And again, I'll note that wishing doesn't make it so; the government routinely restricts or removes private citizens' access to weapons without a consitutional amendment.)

The Bill of Rights is something the government isn't supposed to touch. and the method of  amending the Constitution is supposed to be hard so it cannot be changed easily by a small group of people.

...except when they are, or they are renegotiated or redefined, a thing that happens all the time. Today, for instance. This is something government does all the time, and the magic word "right" does not change that fact.

No. The rights aren't renegotiated and I am sure that the left/Democrats in the US would love to redefine the 2nd amendment to remove/restrict the average person's ability to own firearms. They'd also like to restrict a number of other rights too. Although to be fair, the other side will do much the same, but the system is set up that it's damned hard to pull the wool over peoples eyes and you will have people who will passionately defend ALL of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, without exception.

I think it'll add to the body count, but not appreciably affect the final outcome. Iraq ranks #7 in the world for guns per capita and had a number of organized resistance movements. How much difference did that make to the outcome?

It makes it a lot more expensive for anyone trying to take over an area, and makes it a lot easier to 'acquire' better military equipment from any invaders. Which will make it even more expensive militarily for the invaders. Without firearms, just getting to the first step is a lot harder and I fail to see why people should always have to depend upon the police or military to defend themselves when they need help -now-. In the cities and countryside the response by police is likely not going to be fast, and when you need help now, by the time the police do arrive, it's more than likely too late.

[Aethereal]

To give a simple example if there were 501 homicides involving firearms of which only one was justified then that would be a 500-1 ratio against justified homicides and paint a picture that firearms are very rarely used in self defence. But if there were a 1,000 cases of a gun being used in self defence but wounding rather than killing the attacker and 5,000 cases where drawing a firearm caused the attacker to stop their assault and flee then the picture would be completely different. Those latter two statistics aren't covered by the survey.

This. Most of the times guns are successfully used for self-defence, there might not even be a singe shot fired.
       For complete picture, all non-gun-related crimes should also be taken into account.

[kylie]

0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.

So, would you prefer to fight lunatics who bring high-powered rifles and automatic weapons, as opposed to lunatics who say, could only get their hands on smaller-magazine pistols? 

      Ironically, the South Carolina experience has apparently been that the gun lobby (or at least its following) has chosen well, specifically the arming of the mentally ill (who they also love to blame!) along with everyone else:

Gun fans have also said, as they always do, that the root cause of gun massacres is mental illness, not guns. As it happens in 2013 Mr Pinckney introduced a bill in the state Senate that would have obliged firearms dealers to conduct background checks and interviews to establish the mental state of someone trying to buy an assault rifle. It went nowhere.

1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.

The implementation does change throughout history.  There certainly IS negotiation!  (And conflict, and revision, and expansion.)  The right to vote was moot for Blacks, and then for women (and not everywhere in that same order actually) because those groups were rarely actually considered and treated as equal by American society until much later.  The founders didn't have to build in italics saying "[all people except...]," but others did come along through history and negotiate and add and dicker.  The 2nd Amendment was a product of negotiation, and the repeal of Prohibition was a product of experience and negotiation too.  The notion that a right to pursuit of happiness and liberty includes a right to marry a partner of one's choice, and that choice is including potentially someone of the same sex, has just now been formally written into the history of Constitutional interpretation by Kennedy.  On and on. 

      And to the point, as it's conveniently left out constantly:  That Second Ammendment says on the condition that one is part of a well-regulated militia.  Now how many people have been trying to change that. 

     Even this very pro-guns website finally admits, the foundation of the National Guard basically rendered earlier citizen militias obsolete in the eyes of federal law. 

(All the bolding in various sites quoted below is mine.) 

The authority to call forth the militia was first invoked by George Washington to put down the Whiskey rebellion in Western Pennsylvania in 1794, just before the law granting that authority expired. Congress quickly passed the Militia Act of 1795, which made the provisions of the 1792 act permanent.
These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States. 

      Perhaps you might argue the entire establishment of the National Guard and all the 20th century foreign wars maybe, were often or all moves that abused the nation and undid Washington's great intent not to be involved anywhere else in the process.  (Indeed, I passed one very pro-gun website that argued this sort of "We are already one long history of federal government bulge and takeover.") 

      However, if you want to continue to argue on the basis of existing law and the apparent intent of laws attempting to have any sort of organized militia (which the 2nd Amendment explicitly includes) and specifically for explicit purposes of national defense (which you have already insisted at some length, should be a good explanation for all these guns we have now sprinkled throughout the population)?  Then, here's what I can gather so far: 

       I took a quick look at that 1903 law, variously called the Militia Act or the Dick Act.  It does include just one early mention of some secondary "reserve militia."  But as far as I can tell from Section 23 (I actually see no other mention of the same specific term Reserve Militia outside the introduction), any further reserves for use against invasion were also only to be drawn from people with prior formal military training and then certified by the central government as actually being raised and organized for immediate use. 

      This does not sound to me like the sorts of arguments being made today against gun control generally.  The arguments being made today are more that basically anyone is allowed to buy semi-automatic (and sometimes even easily modified to automatic) weapons, in many cases in situations where it's patently obvious that the existing "regulations" do not even always lead to enforcement of background checks.  You can see the text that at least at a quick read, seems most pertinent to me below.

The Militia Act includes this language:

Sec. 3.  That the regularly enlisted, organized, and uniformed active militia in the several States and Territories and the District of Columbia who have heretofore participated or shall hereafter participate in the apportionment of the annual appropriation provided by section sixteen hundred and sixty-one of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended, whether known and designated as National Guard, militia, or otherwise, shall constitute the organized militia. The organization, armament, and discipline of the organized militia in the several States and Territories and in the District of Columbia shall be the same as that which is now or may hereafter be prescribed for the Regular and Volunteer-Armies of the United States...

Sec. 23. That for the purpose of securing a list of persons specially qualified to hold commissions in any volunteer force which may hereafter be called for and organized under the authority of Congress, other than a force composed of organized militia, the Secretary of War is authorized from time to time to convene boards of officers at suitable and convenient army posts in different parts of the United States, who shall examine as to their qualifications for the command of troops or for the performance, of staff duties all applicants who shall have served in the Regular Army of the United States, in any of the volunteer forces of the United States, or in the organized militia of any State or Territory or District of Columbia, or who, being a citizen of the United States, shall have attended or pursued a regular course of instruction in any military school or college of the United States Army, or shall have graduated from any educational institution to which an officer of the Army or Navy has been detailed as superintendent or professor pursuant to law after having creditably pursued the course of military instruction therein provided.

      Edit here:  To be fair, there is some mention that the Secretary could pick from "any of the volunteer forces," but with that being situated alongside "the Regular Army" I have to wonder if it doesn't mean simply, the professional, i.e. basically by now service branches (non-drafted standing force "plus any emergency trainees" and therefore volunteer, I'm guessing) like the Navy or Coast Guard, etc.  Though I'm not yet 100% clear, to be completely fair.  In any case, no one gets deployed for national defense simply by claiming to be citizen militia and the professional military and the Guard are now much, much more central to national defense strategy as this shows.

------------------------------------------

2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.

Intentionallly vague, yes yes.  If they didn't say it, then no one can ever touch it?  Surely they intended everyone to have nuclear weapons too.  You haven't given any better reasons for or against any particular weapons here than the founders did.  And you happen to have the benefit of living in an age when we're very capable of imagining the effects of automatic rifles, plastic explosive, and everything on up to nukes.  The founders were not.

    Well, trying very hard to be fair again:  I do agree a few hunting rifles might irritate an occupying force, but I see very little imminent threat of occupation and I really don't see that as a good reason to leave gun laws just the way they are now.  There's a whole lot of stuff not so useful for hunting anything but people, turning up on school campuses.  Unless you're trying for mandatory military training, I don't see how encouraging every too-often drunken college frat boy to pack his own weapon in response is going to stop them either. 

3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.

A meat cleaver can kill but we don't ban them.  A rock can kill but we don't see many mass murders involving them.  Are you seriously going to argue that there is as much danger from all other weapons as there is from guns, if the semi-auto rifles and upward were better controlled?  If so, then I don't see that you've made that argument very thoroughly at all yet.  But I have to admit, on this particular number I'm also not completely clear on just what kind of proposal you and Ephiral are arguing about...  If in fact it's even the same thing.

[Ephiral]

I'd rather it didn't.  However you're advocating removing/restricting it for everyone. That is one hell of an escalation. From a tiny minority of people to everyone. Big difference there.

0. So? If someone is going around shooting people, that is clearly a problem. Someone having a gun or guns who has and uses them responsible isn't anywhere near the danger a lunatic or clinically depressed or drunk/drugged person is.

Why is murder the only crime it's unacceptable to take even the most basic preventative measures for?

1. No, rights aren't negotiable, otherwise the UN list of rights,which people uphold to a high degree, would be just a list of suggestions or guidelines.

Um... I hate to be the one to tell you this, but... it kinda is, which is exactly why UN members routinely violate it.

2. The right to bear arms (which guns is one type, arms is intentionally vague) is a right that was finally recognized by the Founders and put in the Bill of Rights so that the government would know what it's not supposed to infringe upon.

You are ignoring my point to simply reassert yours. The very right you're talking about? Was an amendment. If government should not alter Constitutional rights despite there being a process for it to do so, then the right to bear arms should not exist. You cannot simultaneously say that government cannot alter rights and support a right it created through that alteration process.

3. At the base of it, your argument is that because they can be used to kill, they should be restricted/removed for everyone. You clearly do not want anyone to have easy access, if at all, to any firearm.

Easy? No, not really. My preference is for justified access - ie, before we give you push-button lethal force, you need some sort of reason for it. I'd gladly settle for even a modicum of oversight as a good first step, though. You keep talking about "responsible" gun owners; to me, having someone at some level who actually knows whose hands a given weapon is in is the minimum responsibility we should be talking about for lethal force. But... that would mean changing your beloved status quo.

The Bill of Rights is something the government isn't supposed to touch. and the method of  amending the Constitution is supposed to be hard so it cannot be changed easily by a small group of people.

If government isn't supposed to touch it, why is there an amendment process? Why are the rights themselves amendments? And no, I never said it was easy - but at some point you have to look at the mounting pile of dead bodies and maybe conclude that had things are worth doing too.

No. The rights aren't renegotiated and I am sure that the left/Democrats in the US would love to redefine the 2nd amendment to remove/restrict the average person's ability to own firearms. They'd also like to restrict a number of other rights too. Although to be fair, the other side will do much the same, but the system is set up that it's damned hard to pull the wool over peoples eyes and you will have people who will passionately defend ALL of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, without exception.

Flatly denying reality doesn't make it any less true. A new right was created in the US on the day I posted what you were responding to. For that matter, the second amendment itself is no longer interpreted by the courts as written! Rights are redefined and renegotiated literally all the time. They are, like the entire social contract, a consensus. They might be an important consensus, and I'll gladly accept that certain things do need to be basic rights to have a functional society. I don't see any evidence that "being able to own as much lethal force as I want without anybody having any clue until the shooting starts" is on that list, and I certainly don't see why even a large number of people claiming that right should outweigh a relatively small number of other people's right to live.

See... here's the thing: There will always be bad actors. That's just a fundamental fact. Giving those bad actors easy access to lethal force just ups the scale of their actions. By asserting a right to own guns, you are inherently saying that this right is more important than some people's lives. The less restricted you make it, the larger the pile of "acceptable casualties" grows.

It makes it a lot more expensive for anyone trying to take over an area, and makes it a lot easier to 'acquire' better military equipment from any invaders. Which will make it even more expensive militarily for the invaders. Without firearms, just getting to the first step is a lot harder and I fail to see why people should always have to depend upon the police or military to defend themselves when they need help -now-. In the cities and countryside the response by police is likely not going to be fast, and when you need help now, by the time the police do arrive, it's more than likely too late.

Your theory doesn't match the facts: Iraq had significant numbers of civilian weapons and organized resistance groups. How well did that go for them? How much hardware did they capture?

As for "police won['t get there soon enough": Exactly what are the chances that you are going to need police right now, not one minute from now, for a situation that doesn't involve a gun? Exactly what situation do you think would be improved by random civilians opening fire on whatever they think is the threat, with no training, no coordination, and no way to distinguish each other from hostiles? How likely do you think such situations are, as compared to the rather huge amount of gun-related violence and death happening now?

Thye right to own lethal force is inherently in conflict with the right to live. The case must be made that the former is more important or more relevant to daily life. I don't see that it's either.

[Caehlim]

My preference is for justified access - ie, before we give you push-button lethal force, you need some sort of reason for it.

Just to offer an Australian perspective here.

I helped my friend study for his firearms license. In order to qualify he had to take a test on how to safely handle, operate and transport a firearm. He applied for one on the basis of doing competitive shooting at the local firing range. As long as he attends a competition at least once every six months, he's able to renew his license. There are several other recognized reasons for owning a firearm but that's the easiest one. Because of that license, so long as he has a gun safe in which to keep it, he would be allowed to purchase and keep a gun in his house. (He hasn't yet, but he would be permitted to if he wanted).

This really doesn't seem all that strange to me, but perhaps it's just a cultural values thing.

[Aethereal]

Are you seriously going to argue that there is as much danger from all other weapons as there is from guns?

How do you define "danger"? Only bombings tend to outrank shootings in people killed at once, but if we include serial killers in general and solitary killings, guns don't seem half as favored. Shootings (in this instance to be distinguished from people being shot in general) and bombings as such tend to be far and few between, isolated cases.

        For the record, I advocate guns being available for everyone as long as they are mentally stable, have no history of unjustified violence, and can prove that they know how to handle and store guns properly. (Things like "I dropped a gun and it went off" shouldn't happen - guns are pretty much made to be perfectly safe to drop. And obviously you keep them with safety on and away from small children.) I also support having repercussions for not reporting a gun stolen should you ever find yours missing and someone goes and does something with it...
        So yeah. Gun licenses that are easy enough to obtain as long as you meet the requirements are the way to go.

        Additional clauses like

As long as he attends a competition at least once every six months, he's able to renew his license.

shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

        (Note: I am not in the US, so I can't always speak for the country off the top of my head and don't take it as general basis. I do own a handgun and an airgun - not to be confused with airsoft guns. Airguns are objectively lethal.)

[Oniya]

        So yeah. Gun licenses that are easy enough to obtain as long as you meet the requirements are the way to go.

        Additional clauses like [that] shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

        (Note: I am not in the US, so I can't always speak for the country off the top of my head and don't take it as general basis. I do own a handgun and an airgun - not to be confused with airsoft guns. Airguns are objectively lethal.)

I believe that since the basis of Caehlim's friend's license was 'for competitive shooting', the requirement for competition was to ensure that he was being honest about his intent with the gun.  Dashenka mentioned relatives who needed theirs for protecting livestock from wolves - evidence that predators had territory in the area would be something comparable (If I were to make a similar claim and have a residence in Manhattan, I would hope that someone would see through it.)

Honestly, I'd settle for regular 'bill of health' style qualifications (written and practical 'exam' like with a car).

[Caehlim]

Additional clauses like shouldn't be necessary. I primarily do target practice, but I've never attended a single competition, for instance...

Oh, that also includes competing against your own personal best, so it's easy to have just a target practice counted as 'competition' so long as you don't mind going into a firing range to have it registered. That's only because his listed reason for wanting a firearms license is 'to participate in competitions' so he has to establish that. If he had the gun for hunting, work, etc. that requirement wouldn't apply (although there'd probably be a different one).

I believe that since the basis of Caehlim's friend's license was 'for competitive shooting', the requirement for competition was to ensure that he was being honest about his intent with the gun.

Exactly.

[Sethala]

I'm also agreed to restrictions on the ownership of guns (personally I wouldn't mind if guns were banned entirely, but I know that's not a popular opinion at all), but I think it might help the discussion a bit if we can propose a "gun control system" that those against gun control (primarily Zakharra, as she seems to be the most vocal) could possibly agree with.  So, some ideas, off the top of my head:

-All firearms must have a serial number and be registered.  Ownership of a firearm without a serial number, a firearm whose serial number is damaged or illegible, or a firearm whose serial number isn't registered, is illegal
-Firearms that are lost or stolen must be immediately reported.
-Firearms not in use must be kept unloaded and in a secure location.
-People who wish to own a gun must have a license.  Such licenses require completing a firearm safety course and a brief mental and physical (e.g. proper eyesight) test.  Possession of a firearm without a license is illegal.
-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).
-Firearm licenses must be kept current, and licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)
-Certain illegal activities may suspend or revoke a person's license.
-All firearm sales must be registered, and must include a background check on the buyer's firearm license, to ensure it has not been suspended or revoked.

Would a set of guidelines similar to these be an acceptable level of gun control?

[Aethereal]

I agree with all points besides these ones (as might be evident from above):

-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).

licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)

I believe that it shouldn't be necessary to add additional clauses like this. If the gun use is lawful, it is lawful, and I shouldn't get a new license just because I decided to try out something new / cannot go to a gun range for some period of time, only hunt once every two years, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[Sethala]

I believe that it shouldn't be necessary to add additional clauses like this. If the gun use is lawful, it is lawful, and I shouldn't get a new license just because I decided to try out something new / cannot go to a gun range for some period of time, only hunt once every two years, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Would it be more acceptable if there were, in addition to specific use permits, a general "gun ownership" permit that may be more difficult or require more checks to get?  I admit, I'm not sure if I'm entirely for requiring the guns to have a specific purpose, to be honest, it's more something I decided to toss in to gauge reaction.  I don't think I know enough about guns to figure out what would be allowable under different permits.

[Aethereal]

Would it be more acceptable if there were, in addition to specific use permits, a general "gun ownership" permit that may be more difficult or require more checks to get?

Why should there be any specific use permits rather than only the general permit, and why should be a general permit be harder to get)? What is the objective reasoning behind it (given background checks, mental evaluations and everything else)?
       At most, I can see the benefit some parts of a permit acquiring process being specific to the gun *type* you wish to acquire. (Since, say, a small-caliber six-shot revolver and a high-powered hunting rifle do operate somewhat differently.) So there'd be a small list of the gun types you can own and buy on your permit and what you legally do with it is left out of the equation (though it might be a question in the interview-part).

[Sethala]

       Why should there be any specific use permits rather than only the general permit, and why should be a general permit be harder to get)? What is the objective reasoning behind it (given background checks, mental evaluations and everything else)?
       At most, I can see the benefit some parts of a permit acquiring process being specific to the gun *type* you wish to acquire. (Since, say, a small-caliber six-shot revolver and a high-powered hunting rifle do operate somewhat differently.) So there'd be a small list of the gun types you can own and buy on your permit and what you legally do with it is left out of the equation (though it might be a question in the interview-part).

That might be better, yeah, a different permit for different types of firearms, instead of different uses.  Again though, I don't know much about using guns, so someone with more knowledge on the topic could probably add more insight.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there's a separate permit for "conceal and carry", which I assume means having a small firearm you're allowed to conceal on your person?  I would definitely say a license for something like that would be more difficult to get than a license for just owning and using a firearm.

[Oniya]

Concealed Carry (CCW licenses) are intended for smaller weapons, yes.  I suppose that technically you could slap a Tommy gun in a guitar case and call it 'concealed carry' - just mind that you have a good accountant.  (Al Capone joke - couldn't resist.)

For those in the states, I found information about CCW laws here.

[Zakharra]

 Ephrial, we're going to have to agree to disagree (vehemently). I am not going to see your viewpoint as reasonable and you clearly do not see mine as reasonable, so the best thing might be to just drop the matter.

For the rest, I would rather ADD to the Rights, not restrict or remove them. For some of you who favor heavily restricting the 2nd, the levels I am seeing here pretty much amount to a removal of the right with some of the requirements some people want just so someone can own a firearm. I might bend a little on the more reasonable ones, such as a background check for mental stability. If that is passed, there shouldn't be any further restrictions on someone buying and owning a gun. Maybe just a check up (at a low cost to do, nothing expensive) in a few years (5-10 years) to make sure the owner is still mentally competent.

-All firearms must have a serial number and be registered.  Ownership of a firearm without a serial number, a firearm whose serial number is damaged or illegible, or a firearm whose serial number isn't registered, is illegal
-Firearms that are lost or stolen must be immediately reported.

I have a problem with the first one. Not all firearms have serial numbers. Old ones have a good chance of not having a serial number. Adding one could very well destroy the value of the firearm (muskets, flintlocks or ones like those, before we started putting serial numbers on firearms for cataloging purposes), or are very worn because of the age of the gun. This ruling automatically makes those guns illegal, which will anger a LOT of collectors.
The second one I have no problem with as long as it is when the person discovers it is missing. Sometimes it might be some time before you discover the firearm is missing.

-Firearms not in use must be kept unloaded and in a secure location.
-People who wish to own a gun must have a license.  Such licenses require completing a firearm safety course and a brief mental and physical (e.g. proper eyesight) test.  Possession of a firearm without a license is illegal.
-Firearm licenses state the reason for owning a firearm and may include restrictions on the type or quantity of firearms owned (e.g. a firearm license for hunting may be limited to only rifles).  Some licenses may have additional restrictions (e.g. a firearm license for self protection that would allow smaller and/or more deadly firearms would be more difficult to get than a standard hunting license).
-Firearm licenses must be kept current, and licenses for a particular use may require using them on a regular basis (e.g. a license for hunting might mean you need to hunt every so often)

Some firearms possibly, but all firearms have to be kept unloaded and in a secured location (assuming a gun safe that is always kept locked with the ammunition in a different place)? No. One reason people purchase a gun is for home protection. This means it should be relatively and easily accessible. People used to keep guns out in the open all the time, gun racks were a common thing yet the number of people who were shot accidentally wasn't large because people knew enough to leave the thing alone if it wasn't theirs. Children were taught to leave firearms alone and taught proper gun safety. My kids are taught proper gun safety.

The second, third and fourth parts, I am not in favor for. Licenses can be revoked or denied too easily. The 2nd is a Right that shouldn't be easily denied or restricted, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

-Certain illegal activities may suspend or revoke a person's license.
-All firearm sales must be registered, and must include a background check on the buyer's firearm license, to ensure it has not been suspended or revoked.

Accepted with some reservations.

[Sethala]

For the rest, I would rather ADD to the Rights, not restrict or remove them. For some of you who favor heavily restricting the 2nd, the levels I am seeing here pretty much amount to a removal of the right with some of the requirements some people want just so someone can own a firearm. I might bend a little on the more reasonable ones, such as a background check for mental stability. If that is passed, there shouldn't be any further restrictions on someone buying and owning a gun. Maybe just a check up (at a low cost to do, nothing expensive) in a few years (5-10 years) to make sure the owner is still mentally competent.

I think the fundamental problem is that the main way to make the country safer, at least in my (and a few others in this thread) perspective, is to restrict ownership of firearms to make it more challenging for people like mass shooters to get their hands on them.  Ephiral has already shown multiple times that the constitutional rights can be modified, amended, or reinterpreted to allow for greater restriction on firearms.  I think the main disconnect is that you seem to think the 2nd amendment is infaliable and untouchable, while others are saying that while we shouldn't take any proposed changes lightly, it's important to keep the possibility of changing the rules in mind.

I have a problem with the first one. Not all firearms have serial numbers. Old ones have a good chance of not having a serial number. Adding one could very well destroy the value of the firearm (muskets, flintlocks or ones like those, before we started putting serial numbers on firearms for cataloging purposes), or are very worn because of the age of the gun. This ruling automatically makes those guns illegal, which will anger a LOT of collectors.
The second one I have no problem with as long as it is when the person discovers it is missing. Sometimes it might be some time before you discover the firearm is missing.

Older firearms like that are also less likely to be used in a mass shooting, or at least would be less deadly, so would you be agreeable to this if there were a grandfather clause for firearms manufactured before serial numbers were put on firearms, but otherwise remained the same?  (i.e. nothing would be required to add a serial number to an existing gun that never had one or to take away guns that were made without one before the law was in place.)  As for the second, I'm thinking it of more of a gun owner protection if, say, their gun was stolen then found at a crime scene, if they never reported it, it would look very suspicious.

Some firearms possibly, but all firearms have to be kept unloaded and in a secured location (assuming a gun safe that is always kept locked with the ammunition in a different place)? No. One reason people purchase a gun is for home protection. This means it should be relatively and easily accessible. People used to keep guns out in the open all the time, gun racks were a common thing yet the number of people who were shot accidentally wasn't large because people knew enough to leave the thing alone if it wasn't theirs. Children were taught to leave firearms alone and taught proper gun safety. My kids are taught proper gun safety.

I'm not sure if I would necessarily require the firearms and ammo to be locked up separately, but I don't really know much about firearm safety and security.  As for how it "used to be", that's not an argument I'm willing to just accept without some evidence.  It would take a lot for me to believe that not securing guns is acceptable after seeing how many shootings involve the shooter getting guns owned by people he knows that are kept unsecured.

The second, third and fourth parts, I am not in favor for. Licenses can be revoked or denied too easily. The 2nd is a Right that shouldn't be easily denied or restricted, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

Just because it makes some people uncomfortable, yeah, that I can agree with.  This doesn't make people uncomfortable however, this makes them dead.  I don't think we should be so lenient about something that allows such a high body count.
 

Accepted with some reservations.

Would those reservations be the same ones you voiced earlier, or something different?

[Drake Valentine]

You do realize a lot of serial killers do not use firearms to kill, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims#Serial_killers_with_the_highest_known_victim_count

Removing firearms may deterrent some, but for those with other methods, than how would-would be victims defend themselves? I'm sure not everyone carries a firearm, but for those that do and have them also taken away, how would they defend themselves or others?

[LisztesFerenc]

You do realize a lot of serial killers do not use firearms to kill, right?

  There is a difference between a serial killers and a spree/mass killers.

[Drake Valentine]

  There is a difference between a serial killers and a spree/mass killers.

True, but essentially it is the same in the end. A serial killer goes about a daily routine of murder. A mass killer tries to take as many out at one point. How is any far different than the next? If the latter cannot get a message across from a get-go, what may stop them from going the other route of preying on others one by one?

I just do not approve fully of removal of guns as I have female friends who do carry for self-defense.

[LisztesFerenc]

True, but essentially it is the same in the end. A serial killer goes about a daily routine of murder. A mass killer tries to take as many out at one point. How is any far different than the next? If the latter cannot get a message across from a get-go, what may stop them from going the other route of preying on others one by one?

  You just described how they are different. Serial killers are far more organized and meticulous, spree killers are not. Do you really this shooting would have had the discipline to kill 9 people one at a time? He would have been caught with a far lower body count.

I just do not approve fully of removal of guns as I have female friends who do carry for self-defense.

  And what about the women killed by their gun owning partners? Or the fact that in Europe there is not a significantly higher assault rate, despite no guns for self defense.

Removing firearms may deterrent some, but for those with other methods, than how would-would be victims defend themselves? I'm sure not everyone carries a firearm, but for those that do and have them also taken away, how would they defend themselves or others?

  Yeah, if only we had some nations that were similar economically, politically and socially to the USA, but had much more heavily regulated fire arms, then we'd actually be able to know the answer to such questions. Alas, it seems we will never know the answer to such questions, just like we will never know the motivations of the shooter in this terrible crime.

[Drake Valentine]

  You just described how they are different. Serial killers are far more organized and meticulous, spree killers are not. Do you really this shooting would have had the discipline to kill 9 people one at a time? He would have been caught with a far lower body count.

Essentially that is a trick question. One can't tell fully of how the mind of another operates. The verdict can be taken similar to flipping a coin. The individual was clearly very organized and detailed on his manifesto that he had wrote. Which means that he did put some deep thought in everything prior to his actions. At that time he had access to a gun, so the simplest approach was a direct approach. A removal of the gun completely in a world deprive of such? Who is to say, he may of or may not done similar. Of course, if he would of attempted such, having a manifesto up on the web would of got him caught. Which in hindsight, I do not see how he didn't get caught before committing the crime. People knew of it and the manifesto he had, so why did they not notify anyone prior?

 

And what about the women killed by their gun owning partners? Or the fact that in Europe there is not a significantly higher assault rate, despite no guns for self defense.

So, one form of 'evil' is better than another? You can't win by keeping firearms. You can't win by removing them either. Regulating them would likely be best approach, but at the same time that system is flawed as it is still potentially possible to get hands on a firearm. I am not too familiar with Europe or other Worldly on goings, I do know some areas are stricter on crime such as Singapore and I don't even believe citizens are allowed firearms there, that is a strictly police ruled area. (Unless I am mistaken.) Places controlled more by martial law is plausible, but that too is another problem. As some gave examples that sometimes the police are never quick on the scene to respond and sometimes the crime is already good and done with. Plus, I am not too keen on the concept of being ruled over by martial law; but that is just me personally.

 

Yeah, if only we had some nations that were similar economically, politically and socially to the USA, but had much more heavily regulated fire arms, then we'd actually be able to know the answer to such questions. Alas, it seems we will never know the answer to such questions, just like we will never know the motivations of the shooter in this terrible crime.

Yep, but I doubt firearms are going anywhere soon. There are many Americans that would rather die than give up that right.

Well, the motivations were clear. I posted a link to a page in regards to his manifesto. Not sure if that site still had it up. The site that had it up originally was taken down by webpage, but the person that located it copy and pasted it on their news blog. Of course, like I stated, I haven't went back and check again on it, it could of been also taken down, In the long run gist of his motivations, from what was gathered on the manifesto, it was strictly a hate crime where he was under the impression Blacks were responsible for everything. Also there were other hateful references to other races beyond Whites, but some not preached hard about as the darker skin ones.

Edit: Yep, his manifesto is still up http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/ Again it is very hateful and racist.

[LisztesFerenc]

Essentially that is a trick question. One can't tell fully of how the mind of another operates. The verdict can be taken similar to flipping a coin. The individual was clearly very organized and detailed on his manifesto that he had wrote. Which means that he did put some deep thought in everything prior to his actions. At that time he had access to a gun, so the simplest approach was a direct approach. A removal of the gun completely in a world deprive of such? Who is to say, he may of or may not done similar. Of course, if he would of attempted such, having a manifesto up on the web would of got him caught. Which in hindsight, I do not see how he didn't get caught before committing the crime. People knew of it and the manifesto he had, so why did they not notify anyone prior?

  There is a very big difference between writing a manifesto and actually going through with it. There are a lot of unknowns, but you are grasping at straws if you are honestly trying to argue its a coin toss as to whether he had an equal chance of killing 9 people individually over the course of a few days.

So, one form of 'evil' is better than another?

  Yes, hence the concept of "a necessary evil". Also, how is banning fire arms an evil?

You can't win by keeping firearms. You can't win by removing them either. Regulating them would likely be best approach, but at the same time that system is flawed as it is still potentially possible to get hands on a firearm. I am not too familiar with Europe or other Worldly on goings, I do know some areas are stricter on crime such as Singapore and I don't even believe citizens are allowed firearms there, that is a strictly police ruled area. (Unless I am mistaken.) Places controlled more by martial law is plausible, but that too is another problem. As some gave examples that sometimes the police are never quick on the scene to respond and sometimes the crime is already good and done with. Plus, I am not too keen on the concept of being ruled over by martial law; but that is just me personally.

  Europe doesn't live under martial rule, and in Britain, despite patrol cops not carrying firearms, criminals haven't taken over the streets.

Yep, but I doubt firearms are going anywhere soon. There are many Americans that would rather die than give up that right.

  I know, that's rather the problem, or at least one of them. Obviously guns are not leaving, but getting people to understands that on paper a gun-less america would be better is an important step in tackling gun culture, which would save lives.

Well, the motivations were clear. I posted a link to a page in regards to his manifesto. Not sure if that site still had it up. The site that had it up originally was taken down by webpage, but the person that located it copy and pasted it on their news blog. Of course, like I stated, I haven't went back and check again on it, it could of been also taken down, In the long run gist of his motivations, from what was gathered on the manifesto, it was strictly a hate crime where he was under the impression Blacks were responsible for everything. Also there were other hateful references to other races beyond Whites, but some not preached hard about as the darker skin ones.

Edit: Yep, his manifesto is still up http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/ Again it is very hateful and racist.

  I know, I'm saying claiming we can never know what the US - the guns would be like when Europe, Australia and Japan exist is like (although not quite as bad) arguing we cannot know why this crime happened to begin with.

[Andol]

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. Now here in the Southern part of the US where I live, feral hogs are becoming a huge problem... and I mean not just in size, but numbers and aggressiveness. It is just not something that is discussed enough at this point, because literally you sometimes have to have a semi-automatic to automatic rifle to control a pack of these things in a safe manner without the risk of getting mauled. I know that may seem like over kill, but it isn't and going hunting for them with anything less is going to get you or your hunting dogs hurt. That would be my main worry at the loss of the right to own such a weapon, because it would put relatives of my own in danger who are on the front lines of helping to control this problem because of where they live. Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...   

[Caehlim]

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. Now here in the Southern part of the US where I live, feral hogs are becoming a huge problem

Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...

I don't think that seems like a silly thing at all. While I'm in favour of gun control, this sort of situation is one of the very few excellent reasons why people might need automatic firearms in ordinary civilian life. I think it's a factor that certainly has to be considered.

[Ephiral]

I know, I'm saying claiming we can never know what the US - the guns would be like when Europe, Australia and Japan exist is like (although not quite as bad) arguing we cannot know why this crime happened to begin with.

We also have Canada, which has a ton of US cultural influence and a significant number of tightly-regulated guns. The overwhelming majority are longarms, and basically nobody except police carry them on the street, let alone ready for use.

Hey, Drake, wanna take a guess what our violent-crime-per-capita rates look like compared to America's? In general or in specific?

I know this snippet of info may be small, but I saw where someone near the start mentioned that in Russia there are those who get license to have rifles to protect there livestock from bears and wolves. [snip] That would be my main worry at the loss of the right to own such a weapon, because it would put relatives of my own in danger who are on the front lines of helping to control this problem because of where they live. Sorry if that seems like a silly or specific thing to bring up...   

Conclusion does not follow from premise. Here in Canada, we have no such right... but you'd have little issue getting a weapon for that purpose. As I mentioned, the majority are longarms, licensed for just such a circumstance. Guns don't need to be a right to be accessible in justifiable circumstances.

[Sethala]

Drake, did you see my list of suggestions for a gun control law on the last page?  Would those kind of restrictions seem reasonable to you, or do you think something else would be necessary?

[Andol]

*Raises hand* "Conclusion does not follow from premise" I am curious what that means? XD Sorry to be off topic there?

When you use the term long arms I assuming that where speaking of the same style of weapons, just with different terms? I just asked, because I wasn't sure.

As for guns being a right I don't think that is something that should be messed with in order to bring about reasonable change. You have one side clamoring that their right will be taken away, when what really needs to happen is simply for the laws to become even more strict. Messing around with the Constitution like that gets a lot more backlash and makes it harder for people to get behind anything because they think it will mean a complete gun rights loss. At least that is the impression I get a lot, from people who would prefer a simply tightening of the laws because they themselves are sick of people who shouldn't have a gun having one.

Comparing Canada to the US though... well... I am not sure you can do that because the situations are a little different. I admit I am not properly equipped to answer this question why it feels like comparing apples to oranges but it just does.

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S   


Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

[Caehlim]

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S

Switzerland is a good example for the reasons you mention and more. Especially since I suspect it's pretty much what the authors of the constitutional amendment had in mind when they were writing about 'a well-organized militia'.

Swiss gun ownership is very high, however it is not unrestricted. They have to apply for permission to keep their weapon after military service ends and they aren't provided with ammunition. The sales of ammunition is closely tracked and registered, with the ammunition needing to be linked to a licensed gun.

I'd recommend having a look at this article, Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way for a good overview of the situation over there.

[Andol]

That sounds like a great system, though we also must remember how much bigger the US population is when compared to Switzerland... from what I read in the article it seems like it is something that works for them because they are small. If a similar thing could be done in the US it would be useful... but I don't think I could ever answer how. XD (Sorry for the shorter reply this time... :S)

[Sethala]

Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

Yeah, that was part of the mental and physical tests required to obtain (and keep) a firearms license.

[Ephiral]

*Raises hand* "Conclusion does not follow from premise" I am curious what that means? XD Sorry to be off topic there?

The premise you gave ("Gun ownership is no longer a right") does not logically lead to the conclusion you drew from it ("I will not be able to get a gun for dealing with dangerous animals.")

When you use the term long arms I assuming that where speaking of the same style of weapons, just with different terms? I just asked, because I wasn't sure.

Something with a long barrel, designed to be fired from the shoulder. Legal definition in my nation: A weapon with a barrel length of no less than 47 cm (18.5 inches) and a total fireable length of no less than 66 cm (26 inches). Basically small arms except for pistols and weapons modified to be concealable.

As for guns being a right I don't think that is something that should be messed with in order to bring about reasonable change. You have one side clamoring that their right will be taken away, when what really needs to happen is simply for the laws to become even more strict. Messing around with the Constitution like that gets a lot more backlash and makes it harder for people to get behind anything because they think it will mean a complete gun rights loss. At least that is the impression I get a lot, from people who would prefer a simply tightening of the laws because they themselves are sick of people who shouldn't have a gun having one.

But... there's only so much restriction you can do to a right and have it hold up in court. This is kinda the issue with making access to lethal force a right in the first place.

Comparing Canada to the US though... well... I am not sure you can do that because the situations are a little different. I admit I am not properly equipped to answer this question why it feels like comparing apples to oranges but it just does.

Culture strongly influenced by US culture, shared heritage, North America, high rate of gun ownership (seriously, we're #12 in the world, folks)... I'm afraid you'll have to be specific about what makes this a bad comparison.

We also need to look at the example of a country like Switzerland(I hope I said the right country...), where almost every household has a gun because of required military training and the style of their armed forces. Now just because they are trained right in the use of guns doesn't stop people going off the deep end... and so maybe I am just ignorant, but could this simply be a cultural difference that keeps their pre-captia level of volience low? Or is that everyone knows if you mess with someones house... you are going to get into trouble? I was curious on this and hope I didn't silly bringing up others thoughts on what happens when so many people have weapons but are not killing each other a lot :S

I would suggest that, among other factors including a very different culture, a significant contributor is the fact that firearms and ammunition are very tightly regulated there, about as far from a right as you can get. They might be prevalent, but actually using one is significantly harder than it is here in Canada.

Oh and for whoever was throwing up gun control laws... I hope you added mental health stuff to it. It is a better safe than sorry type of thing...

This is actually exactly the sort of thing that calling it a "right" interferes with. The Second Amendment has been used as a bludgeon to stop a lot of data collection in the US, which makes it terrifyingly easy to get around any and all restrictions that are in place. Private sales aren't tracked at all, after all.