CashRules wrote:Again, that's a meaningless distinction. If you can't buy guns then you can't own them. Saying it doesn't have an effect on the guns you already own is also meaningless. Nobody, by your own admission, is talking about the guns already owned. The entire conversation is about guns that a person will potentially own in the future and that is what you are suggesting should be infringed upon. I'm not even sure how this is not being understood.
Um, yes you can. If you can't purchase them you can still have the ones you owned prior to the legislation coming in. Consider them grandfathered in. I've been trying to say the guns already owned are fine and won't be affected.
I'm understanding fine. What I'm suggesting would not contradict the second amendment, it would not infringe it.
Cassius Clay wrote:
Whitey wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.
You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.
That's a pedantic distinction. If someone is trying to acquire arms, and the government is unjustly stopping them, the government has shit on their right to bear arms.
I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
I was initially thinking more about any gun that could be modified to fire in automatic mode.
Okay, but none of the guns that have been used in any of the publicized mass shootings I've read about were automatics.
I know. I'm not claiming that any of what I'm suggesting will sort any of America's many, many gun related problems out overnight. But if you were going to introduce some legislation to try to rationalise the situation, that would seem like a reasonable proviso to add in whilst you're at it.
What I don't understand is probably linked to a wider mentality prevalent with many Americans that their personal Rights are immutable and the government can only ever be a source of "bad things". So they cling to things like Guns because they want to and aren't willing to even consider any potential limitations or restrictions being placed on them because it might inconvenience them personally in some tiny way. Ultimately it comes across (at times) like they're essentially saying "I want this for my own personal enjoyment and I don't give a shit about what's happening anywhere else in this country or to anyone else, so I'm going to scream and yell to make sure I get it".
It all just comes across as being incredibly selfish and immature - both personally and as a nation.
I'm sure this will earn me some hateful outpourings from the gun enthusiasts (and possibly some non-gun toting Americans too) here, but that's just my opinion. Hell - everyone is selfish to one degree or another, it's just that when these sorts of debates flare up and the lunatic fringe elements crawl out of the woodwork to argue their corners, that's what they are in most European countries - "lunatic fringes" - but in America, they're mainstream political movements...
(sigh)
I really did empathise with Obama after the latest shooting - his frustration at the routine nature of these now and the inability to ever make anything happen to change it was palpable. I disagree with a fair bit of his politics, but he's obviously an intelligent man trying to do what he thinks is best but he's being hamstrung by having to work with the ridiculously partisan political framework of America - both on and off Capitol Hill.
(I'll get off my soap box now)
I don't mind people stating their opinions and I don't insult people for that. What I do mind and find personally insulting myself is when people think that opposition to vast, over-reaching gun-control is only due to selfishness. It's not. It's due in large part to the fact that no evidence exists to support the view that fewer guns, or more restrictions on guns, has any effect on the crime rate. I'm also not interested in any faulty comparisons between different countries because such comparisons always involve the person making the comparison be selecting which two countries they want to compare and basing solely on one factor, guns, while ignoring an almost limitless number of other demographic factors. I can easily select countries to compare that would show that more guns equals a drastically lower crime rate but those comparisons would be just as faulty as the comparisons I just complained about. So the truth remains that no valid evidence exists either way and the truth, as far as it can be known, is that the number of guns and the extent of gun laws has no statistically significant effect on crime. If you want to make a valid comparison then you do so either by comparing trends or by comparing the same jurisdiction both before and after a new law goes into effect or expires.
The guns that are most often mentioned as the ones that should be banned were in fact banned in the U.S. for a decade and the result does not make the case that gun-control supporters wish it made. the result in the decade since it expired also does not make their case. There is an especially stupid poster by the name of Goz on the RFS board who has argued many times that Australia's gun massive gun buyback program resulted in a significant reduction in crime. She steadfastly refuses to accept the demonstrable fact that the trend that she boasts about for Australia actually began two decades before that law was enacted and every western industrialized nation on earth experienced the same trend during the same time period regardless of whether they enacted gun-control laws, or laws more favorable to gun owners or no gun laws at all. These are the kind of people who irritate me. It is like arguing with creationists about evolution because these people insist on arguing about a topic they simply do not comprehend.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
Whitey wrote:I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
You can be if you are interpreting them in a way that make rights conflict each other. Someone who's never had any guns shouldn't have to make property rights concessions so they can exercise their right to bear arms with their bear arms.
CashRules wrote:Again, that's a meaningless distinction. If you can't buy guns then you can't own them. Saying it doesn't have an effect on the guns you already own is also meaningless. Nobody, by your own admission, is talking about the guns already owned. The entire conversation is about guns that a person will potentially own in the future and that is what you are suggesting should be infringed upon. I'm not even sure how this is not being understood.
Um, yes you can. If you can't purchase them you can still have the ones you owned prior to the legislation coming in. Consider them grandfathered in. I've been trying to say the guns already owned are fine and won't be affected.
I'm understanding fine. What I'm suggesting would not contradict the second amendment, it would not infringe it.
Then you do not understand the scope or intention of the second amendment because you insist on trying to make a distinction that has no basis in reality. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed". If you tell me that I can keep the 108 guns I already own but can't buy a 109th gun because I refused to allow a baseless search that violates three other constitutional amendments, then you are infringe by the very definition of the word infringe. It applies equally to a guy who owns a single-shot shotgun that cost $100 and now wants to buy a .25 ACP pistol for $75. It is an undeniable infringement. I would greatly appreciate you not trying to tell me what the second amendment means since it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Cassius Clay wrote:
Whitey wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.
You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.
That's a pedantic distinction. If someone is trying to acquire arms, and the government is unjustly stopping them, the government has shit on their right to bear arms.
I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
No, when interpreting these documents, the Supreme Court looks at all relevant material, not just a definitional approach to the exact words themselves. This includes The Federalist Papers, prior case law relevant to the specific provision of the Constitution in question and the writings of the Framers of the Constitution with respect to the body of the Constitution itself and the first ten amendments. What you are saying simply ahs no basis in reality.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
What I don't understand is probably linked to a wider mentality prevalent with many Americans that their personal Rights are immutable and the government can only ever be a source of "bad things". So they cling to things like Guns because they want to and aren't willing to even consider any potential limitations or restrictions being placed on them because it might inconvenience them personally in some tiny way.
The government should first fix the education system and the healthcare system, make it integrated, competent and open for all. Otherwise gun control laws are nothing but more statist control over the population without fixing anything.
Whitey wrote:I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
You can be if you are interpreting them in a way that make rights conflict each other. Someone who's never had any guns shouldn't have to make property rights concessions so they can exercise their right to bear arms with their bear arms.
There isn't a conflict if you accept that the constitution doesn't actually protect a persons right to purchase a gun. The safety check at home thing would be a compromise to still allow people to buy guns. When the law doesn't actually say that right is constitutionally protected.
CashRules wrote:Again, that's a meaningless distinction. If you can't buy guns then you can't own them. Saying it doesn't have an effect on the guns you already own is also meaningless. Nobody, by your own admission, is talking about the guns already owned. The entire conversation is about guns that a person will potentially own in the future and that is what you are suggesting should be infringed upon. I'm not even sure how this is not being understood.
Um, yes you can. If you can't purchase them you can still have the ones you owned prior to the legislation coming in. Consider them grandfathered in. I've been trying to say the guns already owned are fine and won't be affected.
I'm understanding fine. What I'm suggesting would not contradict the second amendment, it would not infringe it.
Then you do not understand the scope or intention of the second amendment because you insist on trying to make a distinction that has no basis in reality. The second amendment says "shall not be infringed". If you tell me that I can keep the 108 guns I already own but can't buy a 109th gun because I refused to allow a baseless search that violates three other constitutional amendments, then you are infringe by the very definition of the word infringe. It applies equally to a guy who owns a single-shot shotgun that cost $100 and now wants to buy a .25 ACP pistol for $75. It is an undeniable infringement. I would greatly appreciate you not trying to tell me what the second amendment means since it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about.
Cassius Clay wrote:
Whitey wrote:
Cassius Clay wrote:@whitey It's a conflict since the government is interfering with your right to acquire/bear arms unless you let the government on your property. A private seller telling you to fuck off is a different matter.
You don't have the right to acquire arms. You have the right to own/bear arms. The words buy/purchase/acquire don't appear.
That's a pedantic distinction. If someone is trying to acquire arms, and the government is unjustly stopping them, the government has shit on their right to bear arms.
I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
No, when interpreting these documents, the Supreme Court looks at all relevant material, not just a definitional approach to the exact words themselves. This includes The Federalist Papers, prior case law relevant to the specific provision of the Constitution in question and the writings of the Framers of the Constitution with respect to the body of the Constitution itself and the first ten amendments. What you are saying simply ahs no basis in reality.
I can tell you that it says nothing about buying a gun. It talks about owning a gun. The owning part is what's protected, not the buying. Preventing someone from buying a gun isn't violating your right to own a gun. Your right to own a gun is not being infringed if you're not allowed to buy any further guns, as purchasing more guns does not affect the ownership status of your previously acquired guns. If the amendment said anything about purchasing or buying a gun this wouldn't be a debate as it would all be protected. But it doesn't say that.
Restricting your right to buy something is not the same as stopping them owning it. They are different words that mean clearly different things.
Buy = obtain in exchange for payment.
Own = have (something) as one's own
Example. You OWN 108 guns. If you are prevented from BUYing another, you still have 108 guns, that has not changed. Your ownership rights have not changed.
Whitey wrote:I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
You can be if you are interpreting them in a way that make rights conflict each other. Someone who's never had any guns shouldn't have to make property rights concessions so they can exercise their right to bear arms with their bear arms.
There isn't a conflict if you accept that the constitution doesn't actually protect a persons right to purchase a gun. The safety check at home thing would be a compromise to still allow people to buy guns. When the law doesn't actually say that right is constitutionally protected.
Protecting a person's right to purchase guns is a very different thing than actively interfering with a person's ability to acquire them. What you're proposing requires the latter. And you are depending on very technical, decontexualized interpretations to do so. You've put a huge obstacle in front of a right (using another right to do so) and saying you're not technically shitting on rights. Kinda like the sibling thats been physically harassing their sister and is told by their parent to stop bothering their sibling, but then says "I'm not touching you!" while wagging their finger in front of his/her sister's face and invading their personal space.
Last edited by Cassius Clay on Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yes they have because I have been prevented from owning 109 guns. That is the definition of infringe. Jesus man, I am actually sitting here in disbelief that you can even say what you are saying right now.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
BruceSmith78 wrote:In a country that clamors over celebrities and is infested with sensationalized media, this is an easy and quick path to fame. Any schmuck that feels beaten down by society can make a splash by doing this shit, and as long as our media caters to them and we all slurp it up with a fucking spoon, it's gonna keep happening.
Probably feeds into the problem but, this is true of almost every first world nation .. Martin Bryant is still well remembered here and internationally for his killing spree.
I have no real idea why America has this issue - mental health is treated here with much the same short comings as almost anywhere else .. you have a bigger issue with poverty than we have but these shooting don't follow a poor equals mass murderer pathology as far as I can tell.
I think America takes it well beyond most first world nations.
^ Has anything like this happened in Australia?
I haven't heard of Martin Bryant, but how many movies does he have made after him? Those fuckwads in Columbine started a trend here. Elephant and Day Zero are the most obvious, but look at this list:
I'm sure there's more than a few that got left out, too.
Also, I don't want to start playing the mental illness card already. Maybe the white supremacy card, like when entitled white men don't get what they feel they deserve, they gotta go murder some folks. That might have something to do with it.
Yes - the exact same shit happens here in Australia, every time a celebrity fucks up in any ways shape or form, there is a news report following, if they are a big celeb or its a major fuck up, I've every expectation it would be a "hold the presses" type thing.
He's responsible for the third worst mass shooting in the world (the second being Anders Behring - the first is a chap I've personally never heard of). - This all happened back in 96 tho, so maybe it was all before your time. Having said that - its been nearly 20 years here and I'm sure most people here would still know who he was. I don't know how you'd go about quantifying it or not but, I have no doubt that we make celebrities out of thugs just as enthusiastically as anyone else tho, in a way I think its probably worse here in so much as shooting are so rare that you don't even have to be all that spectacularly good at it to get pages of press for ages on, by way of example:
This chap only shot 3 people and killed two of them - That's kinda any day in the week in any number of American cities so wouldn't even get press unless there was something extraordinary about the people involved. Here - it was front page news for weeks, Chris Hudson became a kinda celebrity cos he's good looking - and remained in the news for an age.
To the last point - I really wasn't addressing the metal illness thing at all past responding to Gendo's comment, I just figured it would be worth pointing out that we have a horrible track record of treating mental illness and it hasn't resulted in mass shootings every couple of days or even every couple of years .. In fact, American culture and Australian culture are more alike that different in a great many ways - we are far more "socialist" - at least against what a great many Americans seem to think socialism is.. We are probably more uniformly prosperous as opposed to heavily weighted at either end of the wealth spectrum.. We definitely do not have a gun culture at all to the point where I have seen exactly two real life guns in my 48 years and one of those was in the States..
But, like I said, I have no real idea why America is the way it is. The bog standard profile of the shooter both here and in the States seems to be "White, male, middle class, obscure, poor socialisation, history of bullying and access to guns one way or another" .. There's something happening in the states that just doesn't seem to be as profound of an issue elsewhere ..
Whitey wrote:I don't think you can be particularly too pedantic when it comes to interpreting your major legal documents. That's kinda the point of them.
You can be if you are interpreting them in a way that make rights conflict each other. Someone who's never had any guns shouldn't have to make property rights concessions so they can exercise their right to bear arms with their bear arms.
There isn't a conflict if you accept that the constitution doesn't actually protect a persons right to purchase a gun. The safety check at home thing would be a compromise to still allow people to buy guns. When the law doesn't actually say that right is constitutionally protected.
Protecting a person's right to purchase guns is a very different thing than actively interfering with a person's ability to acquire them. What you're proposing requires the latter. And you are depending on very technical, decontexualized interpretations to do so. You've put a huge obstacle in front of a right (using another right to do so) and saying you're not technically shitting on rights. Kinda like the sibling thats been physically harassing their sister and is told by their parent to stop bothering their sibling, but then says "I'm not touching you!" while wagging their finger in front of his/her sister's face and invading their personal space.
^This, this right here!
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
CashRules wrote:Yes they have because I have been prevented from owning 109 guns. That is the definition of infringe. Jesus man, I am actually sitting here in disbelief that you can even say what you are saying right now.
IT would not change what you currently own. Your current ownership rights would not change. The right to own something is not the right to buy something. If you'd like I can show you the definitions of Own and Buy again.
If you got a prescription from your doctor for a medication, lets say you go and collect the medication. That is yours. Nobody is taking that from you. You want/need more. You own that amount that you have. But there are restrictions on getting more. You have to go and do certain things before being allowed to get medication again. What you're suggesting is that once you've got your medication you should never have to see a doctor about getting another prescription. Those restrictions aren't infringing on your ownership of your current supply of medication. They're separate things. Ownership and Acquisition are two separate but related things.
You keep acting as though I'm talking about the 108 guns I already own. I'm not. I'm talking about the 109th gun. For a person who only owns one gun I'm talking about the second one. Explain how your proposal does not infringe upon my right to own that 109th gun or on the right of the other person to own a second gun. Stop disingenuously relying on definitions and ignoring the fact that for the situation being discussed one is dependent upon the other.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
You don't have the right to own something that doesn't belong to you....that 109th isn't yours just like that persons 2nd gun isn't theirs yet. They have not bought it and they don't own it. You don't have the right to own that 109th gun. You have the right to own your 108 guns. And currently have the right to purchase your 109th gun and own it in the future.
Otherwise gun control laws are nothing but more statist control over the population without fixing anything.
You don't even need the first word for this to be a true statement.
I was going to say "Otherwise you are fighting failed statism with more statism" and "Health and Education are important personal rights the state itself isn't providing." And what I said but didn't know how to combine the three in a one coherent sentence, so I left it like that since the point is more government control is bad when the government is already bad at doing the stuff it's supposed to do anyway.
Whitey wrote:You don't have the right to own something that doesn't belong to you....that 109th isn't yours just like that persons 2nd gun isn't theirs yet. They have not bought it and they don't own it. You don't have the right to own that 109th gun. You have the right to own your 108 guns. And currently have the right to purchase your 109th gun and own it in the future.
Imagine a scenario sometime in the distant future after your laws are passed, where a person doesn't and has never had any guns, but they would like to acquire one. With your suggestions, how are you not infringing on their right to bear arms if you are interfering with their ability to attain one? How is saying "oh, you can get a gun, you just have to let me on your property first" not problematic?
Whitey wrote:You don't have the right to own something that doesn't belong to you....that 109th isn't yours just like that persons 2nd gun isn't theirs yet. They have not bought it and they don't own it. You don't have the right to own that 109th gun. You have the right to own your 108 guns. And currently have the right to purchase your 109th gun and own it in the future.
Imagine a scenario sometime in the distant future after your laws are passed, where a person doesn't and has never had any guns, but they would like to acquire one. With your suggestions, how are you not infringing on their right to bear arms if you are interfering with their ability to attain one? How is saying "oh, you can get a gun, you just have to let me on your property first" not problematic?
This is what I've been thinking the entire time Brandon and Whitey have been arguing, and I'm wondering why it took this long for someone to say it.
Also, Castor and Aels agreed with my post, so I consider this thread a win.
Do you mean the specific scenario? Because Cash and I have both basically communicated the exact logic behind the scenario in multiple different ways. And there was an earlier post where I did say something very similar: "If someone is trying to acquire arms for the first time, and the government is unjustly stopping them, the government has shit on their right to bear arms."
Part of the problem is how whitey is defining aquiring arms(in relation to rights). He seemed to be sort of conflating the governments active interference in your ability to acquire arms, with the government protecting someone's right to buy/acquire guns(as if the right is that the government can force people to sell you guns). He is arguing against the latter as not being an actual right, which is true, while proposing something that interferes with the former. But no one is claiming the latter is the right.
Last edited by Cassius Clay on Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
I think he means that since the constitution says you have the right to own guns and not purchase them, you have a window open to regulate the purchasing of the guns without having it interfered with your rights. So new gun buyers would have to compromise to new regulations or whatever.
I don't agree with it, but I think that's the whole issue of this issue being a non-issue because we don't have much issues to issue ourselves from. So I'm going to blame this on Canada too.
I saw several hints at it, but nobody seemed to come right out and say it until your post. Whitey kept saying, "you already have 108 guns, and my suggestion wouldn't make you give them up," and nobody said, "but what if I had 0 guns," except maybe you did when you said the thing about someone trying to acquire arms for the first time, and I'm a little drunk. Whatev's.
Cassius Clay wrote:But if compromising means that new buyers have to let the government on their property if they want to acquire a gun, that's a problem.
Yeah but to me the mere existence of the government is a problem, so I don't know.
me: you have the right to acquire arms(meaning the government cannot actively interfere with your ability to acquire arms)
whitey: you don't have a right to acquire arms(meaning the government does not have to go out of their way to make sure you can buy arms/or that people have to sell you arms)
me: that's not what I meant . But what you've proposed actually goes against what I actually mean.
Whitey wrote:Restricting your right to buy something is not the same as stopping them owning it. They are different words that mean clearly different things.
This really makes no sense at all. What about me? I don't own a gun currently. If tomorrow a law were passed making it illegal to purchase a gun, please explain how I could go about legal owning a gun. I couldn't. Thus, the law would infringe on my ability to own a gun.
Whitey wrote:You don't have the right to own something that doesn't belong to you....that 109th isn't yours just like that persons 2nd gun isn't theirs yet. They have not bought it and they don't own it. You don't have the right to own that 109th gun. You have the right to own your 108 guns. And currently have the right to purchase your 109th gun and own it in the future.
This is just patently false, "shall not be infringed" means, by definition, that I have the right to own as many guns as I want.
__
You can't hang a man for killing a woman who's trying to steal his horse.
Apparently nobody on this board gets the distinction between the words buy and own.
You can legally own something. But if that thing is no longer legally available for sale, but the law protects your right to own it, that means you can keep what you own, you just can't get anymore. My point is that I believe the wording of the constitution only protects your current ownership. Not your right to buy. I think the right to buy a gun can be regulated while staying within the constitution. As I don't see that the constitution actually protects the acquisition of guns. So I think a new law could utilise that.
The thing about allowing a check on your property would be the compromise which still lets you buy guns. When as far as I can see I think the government should be able to limit gun sales altogether as I don't see that the constitution protects it.
Is it more likely that we all really don't understand a distinction between buying and owning, or that there's something you don't quite understand/appreciate here?
It's ok, I no longer have any desire to kill people. I used to, but it's over - transitioning took away 90% of the anger and hatred - and now I get distressed when people torture insects, and am kept awake at night by thoughts of all the horrible things happening to people around the world, and get upset when people on the internet might have been disturbed by things I wrote. If anything I'd do my best - and have - to intervene if someone ever seemed to be a potential shooter, or just mired in that kind of hate that leads to it. Likewise for my friends who expressed similar desires in the past. I've also gone deeper into liberal Christianity the past few years, and try diligently to do the whole 'love your enemies' and 'love your neighbour' things that Jesus talked about. I'm okay now, really, apart from the usual psychological baggage that most people have. But I've got access to good therapists if I ever need them again. They helped a lot.
On hindsight I realise that one of my earlier posts (that marginalised people might be deterred by not wanting to make the community look bad) is bad logic and respectability politics and not representative of reality, etc, as well as how the kind of people who go on murdering rampages generally don't care about that stuff.
So - I'm sorry about that, and you may now continue arguing about gun control.
Yeah, I know that buy and own are different words, but the latter is pretty much dependent on the former, thus restricting the former inherently restricts the latter. How can you own something if you're not first allowed to buy it?
I'm assuming it means that you'll be legally allowed to own whatever guns you already have, but you just can't legally buy more; but if someone gives one to you as a gift, say because he already has 108 guns, or if you inherit it, or join some gun-sharing club, or obtain it overseas, or build your own from scratch, then that's allowed.
Whitey wrote:Apparently nobody on this board gets the distinction between the words buy and own.
You can legally own something. But if that thing is no longer legally available for sale, but the law protects your right to own it, that means you can keep what you own, you just can't get anymore. My point is that I believe the wording of the constitution only protects your current ownership. Not your right to buy. I think the right to buy a gun can be regulated while staying within the constitution. As I don't see that the constitution actually protects the acquisition of guns. So I think a new law could utilise that.
The thing about allowing a check on your property would be the compromise which still lets you buy guns. When as far as I can see I think the government should be able to limit gun sales altogether as I don't see that the constitution protects it.
I think I see the issue here... nobody is disagreeing on the difference between "buying" and "owning". I think the problem is how you interpret "the law protects your right to own it". You see it as meaning nothing more than the law can't take away something you already own. But that's NOT what the law actually protects in this case. It says that if you want to own one, you can. Not that if you happened to be one of the lucky people who bought a gun before more laws were passed, that you get to keep it. But that if you don't own one now, you can own one in the future. That's what the right to own one means in this case.
1) I have not read the whole thread.
2) It seems to be about guns.
3) I think it should be about mental health and how root causes for wanting to do harm to people can be avoided.
4) But, people here probably know more about guns than mental health issues.
5) So, that's OK.
6) Carry on.
The agonies which are have their origin in the ecstasies which might have been.
I mean, with any problem the best way to solve it is from as close to the beginning as possible, right? Talking about guns instead of the person's mental state is like if you're living in a place that rains constantly and instead of taking your umbrella outside you'd rather use a towel to dry off when you get back home. It could have been prevented entirely, but instead you're soaking wet.
The agonies which are have their origin in the ecstasies which might have been.
Almost seems like a catch 22 here. (<doesn't actually know how to work catch 22 into a conversation)
Anyways, the vast majority (and by vast majority I mean 99.99935% <my calculator couldn't handle all the decimals so close enough) of gun owners do not commit any gun related crimes. There's an estimated 400 million guns in the US. Of the 15,000 estimated gun homicides committed this year 6441 guns different guns were used. The majority of the homicides were committed by those with a history of violent offense.
So, it seems stricter gun laws do not make much sense because the majority of gun violence is committed by those with a history of violence and so just as with drugs they will find a way to obtain guns one way or another and such laws would punish the 99.99935% of gun owners who do not break the law?
So, how do we prevent guns ending up in the hands of those with violent pasts? Some say background checks but we have that law already. I think maybe we need to enforce that particular law a little better and close a couple loopholes that exist like a private owner being able to sell their guns to anyone without a background check?
And maybe even we could address the root problem with 15,000 homicides being committed each year? Like fixing the wealth gap, better education, equal opportunity for all races etc...
just some stray thoughts
I Shall Smite Thee Ruinous While Thy Soul Weeps for Salvation
Gypsy-Vanner wrote:fixing the wealth gap, better education, equal opportunity for all races etc...
Yes, this country is fucked a hundred ways up in and around the ass and into next week. American history has irrevocably damaged entire races of people and the government currently oppresses millions. But not everyone is going on murdering sprees. 99% of people have coping skills (some might call it complacency, but better that than murdering a bunch of people).
Institutionalized oppression and inequality couldn't have had much to do with the motivations of the dude in Santa Barbara whose manifesto explained his frustration with women and that they didn't want to sleep with him. That's some self-esteem shit the roots of which are unknowable. It's about coping skills and critical thinking, things that are severely lacking in all spree shooters and most Internet commenters.
So, actually, maybe better education is the ultimate thing that needs to happen. Children should be told, "Yes, the world is fucked, but don't let that get you down!" from a young age.
The agonies which are have their origin in the ecstasies which might have been.
Gypsy-Vanner wrote:fixing the wealth gap, better education, equal opportunity for all races etc...
Yes, this country is fucked a hundred ways up in and around the ass and into next week. American history has irrevocably damaged entire races of people and the government currently oppresses millions. But not everyone is going on murdering sprees. 99% of people have coping skills (some might call it complacency, but better that than murdering a bunch of people).
Institutionalized oppression and inequality couldn't have had much to do with the motivations of the dude in Santa Barbara whose manifesto explained his frustration with women and that they didn't want to sleep with him. That's some self-esteem shit the roots of which are unknowable. It's about coping skills and critical thinking, things that are severely lacking in all spree shooters and most Internet commenters.
So, actually, maybe better education is the ultimate thing that needs to happen. Children should be told, "Yes, the world is fucked, but don't let that get you down!" from a young age.
So what you're saying is we need more pre-90's Don Bluth movies.
Gendo wrote:I think I see the issue here... nobody is disagreeing on the difference between "buying" and "owning". I think the problem is how you interpret "the law protects your right to own it". You see it as meaning nothing more than the law can't take away something you already own. But that's NOT what the law actually protects in this case. It says that if you want to own one, you can. Not that if you happened to be one of the lucky people who bought a gun before more laws were passed, that you get to keep it. But that if you don't own one now, you can own one in the future. That's what the right to own one means in this case.
Maybe a solution could be: Instead of making a distinction between buying and owning, make a distinction between owning and using.
Sort of like with cars. Anybody who can afford it can buy a car; but if you want to drive it in public, you need a driver's license.
Maybe some sort of gun license could work. Anybody can buy a gun, or two, or 109; but if you carry them in public, any cop should be allowed to ask you for your gun license. Just like cops can pull you over on the freeway.
And as long as you use the guns only on your property (and don't commit crimes), then it shouldn't be anybody's business.
The problem I see is that it will be difficult to agree on the possible requirements for obtaining a gun license.
Gendo wrote:I think I see the issue here... nobody is disagreeing on the difference between "buying" and "owning". I think the problem is how you interpret "the law protects your right to own it". You see it as meaning nothing more than the law can't take away something you already own. But that's NOT what the law actually protects in this case. It says that if you want to own one, you can. Not that if you happened to be one of the lucky people who bought a gun before more laws were passed, that you get to keep it. But that if you don't own one now, you can own one in the future. That's what the right to own one means in this case.
Maybe a solution could be: Instead of making a distinction between buying and owning, make a distinction between owning and using.
Sort of like with cars. Anybody who can afford it can buy a car; but if you want to drive it in public, you need a driver's license.
Maybe some sort of gun license could work. Anybody can buy a gun, or two, or 109; but if you carry them in public, any cop should be allowed to ask you for your gun license. Just like cops can pull you over on the freeway.
And as long as you use the guns only on your property (and don't commit crimes), then it shouldn't be anybody's business.
The problem I see is that it will be difficult to agree on the possible requirements for obtaining a gun license.
The difference is cops are meant to pull you over only if you're driving in an illegal manner.
How are cops to "pull you over" simply for carrying without infringing on all your rights? That's like them stopping you just to see if you have a license to drive because you're driving in public.
![[none]](./images/smilies/none.gif "none"){kind=small}
