President Donald Trump.

Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by Link the Writer, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Well, first of all, no one really argues that we should ban every gun, they argue we should ban assault weapons and tools that can turn rifles into semi-automatic rifles. Might someone need a rifle on their homestead in case of wild animals? Sure. Might someone enjoy shooting cans in their backyard or hunting with a handgun? Sure.

    Does anyone need to have a semi-automatic combat-grade assault rifle...?

    Also, take away all guns entirely and you wouldn't really notice that much. Take away all cars or curtains and you'll have worldwide problems. They are not comparable and it's ridiculous and reaching to do so.
     
  2. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    The constitution was also written hundreds of years ago and the right was penned as a way of making sure a budding state militia could never overpower citizens. One could argue it's very outdated and entirely removed from its original purpose.
     
  3. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    That's a very tenuous statement at best. Assault weapons are growing closer and closer to bans every single year, even in the face of increased special interest spending from organizations like the NRA.
     
  4. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    867
    Location:
    London
    This has always seemed to be the weirdest argument in favour of guns to me.

    A) If the government does come at you with guns, it wins - you even admitted as much, upthread. Even in gun-totin' America, the firepower differential is ridiculous.

    B) Any tyrannical government with half a clue isn't going to come at you with guns. It's going to come at you with propaganda, and have you marching alongside it.

    ETA:

    BTW, thanks for the previous answer. I admit if I was happy to put things like that down to political expediency I'd have trouble believing the guy on the things he said I did like, but I can see where you're coming from on it.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  5. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Inner West Sydney, Australia
    I think in reality accidents, suicides and people provoking muggers who might have let them live otherwise are actually more significant than the murder element. And as you say studies agree it helped with suicides. But general murder can become difficult because a they sometimes still get guns and b if they actively want to they can use knives or vehicles to commit murder. I do think it affects murder too in a positive way, when police use guns but most people don't it gives them an advantage, but it's affect there is less clear cut, I think.
     
  6. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Well sure. If someone really, really wants to murder someone, chances are they can probably make it happen if the person isn't some inaccessible celebrity or protected politician or whatever. Even without guns, if someone is dead set on killing you, they can stab you to death with a steak knife. But mass shootings don't happen when people are restricted to knives or cars or single-shot hunting rifles.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  7. The Dapper Hooligan

    The Dapper Hooligan Member Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    The great white north.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  8. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,254
    Likes Received:
    6,529
    Location:
    California, US
    That's not a ban on all guns, as was being discussed above. And any such ban has to be able to pass Constitutional scrutiny in the courts.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  9. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I don't think anyone here is talking about banning all guns, just discussing the usefulness of guns in general while talking about the bans of assault weapons.
     
  10. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,254
    Likes Received:
    6,529
    Location:
    California, US
    I believe that is what @123456789 was referring to above (where he makes multiple references to banning all guns). That's what drew me in to comment on the thread. Reasonable regulation of guns is another matter.
     
  11. TheRealStegblob

    TheRealStegblob Kill All Mages Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2016
    Messages:
    611
    Likes Received:
    291
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I haven't read every single post in the thread so if someone was talking about across-the-board gun bans, then I guess I redact my previous statement.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  12. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    4,408
    I say we copy Europe or Australia when it comes to guns , whatever that means.
     
  13. X Equestris

    X Equestris Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    1,224
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    The 2nd wasn't written to protect against the state militias, but rather the federal government. In fact, before incorporation the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states. The Klan took advantage of this in the post-Reconstruction era to bar freedmen from owning guns.

    Federalist No. 46 may not be a legal document, but it supports the argument that private gun ownership was a counterweight to the federal government having control of the military in peace time (which it hadn't had under the Articles of Confederation), along with a hedge against foreign invasion.

    With regards to A, the government only wins if you stupidly insist on fighting it head on. Guerilla warfare is another story. The US hasn't out and out won a guerilla war since the early 1900s. The tactics used in the Philippine-American War would undoubtedly spark international condemnation and heavy sanctions if used today, and would turn public opinion toward rebels.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  14. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Inner West Sydney, Australia
    Most people in Australia don't use guns. You can get a gun but it's much more difficult than say texas or vermont, and we don't have much of a culture around it.
     
  15. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,254
    Likes Received:
    6,529
    Location:
    California, US
    And incorporation of the 2nd happened not long ago.
     
  16. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Inner West Sydney, Australia
    Europe has many different countries which don't have the same level or methods of gun control.
     
  17. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    4,408
    I think you missed my initial point about U.S having higher murders than Australia, Europe, and Japan (maybe I wasn't clear). I mean to say that the U.S has substantially higher gun murders and substantially higher murders in general. That doesn't mean you can add those two figures together--no, it means that the U.S has higher murders than those countries and that most of those murders are from guns (I looked it up. 17,000 reported murders in 2016. There are about 13,000 gun murders a year). It suggests that if you take away the guns, those gun murders won't be converted into car, knife, poison, etc., murders. Is that clear? If it's true, that less guns =less murders, wouldn't you agree that there is a net negative effect of widespread firearm availability?

    I'm not looking at this from a biased approach. I don't own a gun, but, I used to argue that the second amendment was a right and should not be violated. Now, I'm looking at our first world neighbors--Europe, Australia, Japan, and I see that they have stricter gun laws and less murders. Why would we not want to have less murders? Do you honestly think that those countries have less murders not because of their gun laws, but because of something else? Do you think that Americans are more violent than those countries?

    I'm not sure why you're so focused on localized regions of the U.S. Gun control doesn't matter if it's just local. And just because some areas have lax gun control and few gun deaths, clearly doesn't say anything about our country as a whole, which also has lax gun laws and overwhelmingly has the highest gun deaths in comparison to other first world countries.

    Do you think that Americans have other issues that Europeans, Japanese, and Australians don't? That's what this argument will ultimately come down to.
     
  18. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    4,408
    @Dr. Mambo
    Read my last post but I wanted to do some quick arithmetic for you.

    I'm seeing 17,000 reported murders (all kinds) in U.S for 2016. There are about 13,000 gun murders per year in U.S. That means there are about 4,000 murders per year in U.S that don't require a gun. In Australia, in 2014 (that's all I could find quickly) there were about 240 murders (all kinds). Australia has a population that's about 14 times smaller than U.S. 14*240 is about 3,400, remarkably close to ours. So, I'm not sure we have reason to believe Americans are more murderous than Australians.

    My question is, can we do better or even as good as Australia on reducing murder? Or is that not something worth attempting?
     
  19. Dr. Mambo

    Dr. Mambo Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2016
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    674
    Location:
    Iowa
    I've heard your first counterpoint many times, and I've always thought it misses the mark. Nobody is talking about open warfare with the U.S. government. By the time the military is involved in what amounts to a civil war, and they're enforcing whatever oppression is the order of the day, plenty else has gone terribly wrong. The mere threat of arms does all the legwork long before that. Just look at recent events in the U.S. in response to perceived systemic police brutality. During the riots a couple years ago, the mayor of Baltimore admitted to letting the town burn ("we gave them space to destroy") for fear of inciting even greater violence by cracking down. People in government fear the masses. They fear us even more when we're armed.

    I agree with your second counterpoint. If Americans are ever totally disarmed, it will be willingly.

    As for Trump and political expediency, I agree with you on that too. I'm still nervous he was serious. But recall also his conversation a bunch of weeks ago about immigration. He promised Congress he'd sign whatever they put in front of him, they played their hand and presented a bill, and he refused to sign it when he saw how shitty it was. I'm hesitantly optimistic he was just talking tough on guns because it's bad press to publicly spar with a bunch of high school kids who just survived a school massacre. Plus it's basically obligatory now for politicians to distance themselves from the NRA after a shooting. Anyway, we'll see what happens over the next couple months.

    Mostly agree. Disagree with the idea that an armed response provokes muggers to greater violence. People like muggers prey on the weak; the last thing they want is to be confronted by someone with a gun. In fact, I wrote a note from my concealed carry class that something like 90% of defensive gun uses don't require the person using the gun to fire a shot.

    Adding to what you said, I'd point out that even a cursory look at what the founding fathers had to say publicly about firearm ownership really blows up the revisionist militia angle. Tench Coxe once wrote "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? ... Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.”

    Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

    I'm sure you're also familiar with Jefferson and his quote about the Tree of Liberty. He even once wrote to a nephew that the best form of exercise was carrying arms, and he recommended the boy take his rifle everywhere.

    But it isn't true that fewer guns = fewer murders. I've already shredded this notion. The mere fact that a place like Vermont exists disproves it entirely. You can certainly point out that in specific places fewer guns correlates with a lower murder rate, but that's not the same thing as proving the blanket statement.

    Yes, it's absolutely plausible that Americans may be more violent than Europeans or Japanese or Australians for some reason other than our access to firearms. Case in point: There are only 13 million firearms in Russia, yet they routinely out-murder the U.S., both in total number of murders and murders per capita. Again, fewer guns = fewer murders is only true in some places, not everywhere. Certainly not in Russia. What do you make of that?

    I'm not sure what you don't understand. Your claim is very simple: more guns = more murders. Fewer guns = fewer murders. I've pointed out specific places in which neither part of your claim holds true. Vermont has a ton of guns and virtually no murders; Russia has very few guns and even more murders than we do. You can keep pointing at Japan or Australia or whichever part of Europe is your favorite, but the fact of the matter is your claim is only true in some places. In others it's untrue. Therefore your claim is untrue.

    Heck yeah, I do. The drug war has already been mentioned, I think by X. Prevalence of gangs. Racial diversity and associated tensions. There are lots of reasons for violence. If I shoved an AR-15 in your hands you wouldn't start shooting everyone in sight, would you?

    The practical application of a gun ban is a whole different discussion. @Steerpike has alluded to some of the difficulties, the most immediate of which is the legal battle. Our right to bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. None of the original amendments has ever been repealed. That's a huge roadblock. Maybe just as daunting is our cultural attitude toward firearms. Gun control is no longer clearly the more popular position. You can play with the charts on PEW and see for yourself. Imagine if we attempted to forcibly confiscate arms and even 1% of gun owners decided to shoot it out. That's over a million people. It'd be bedlam.

    In short, it's not possible.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  20. The Dapper Hooligan

    The Dapper Hooligan Member Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,968
    Likes Received:
    2,198
    Location:
    The great white north.
    Jefferson also wrote that blacks were "inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind," and that women should be excluded from politics "to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue." So maybe we should imagine that just because a founding father said something, that doesn't mean it's right or even a good idea.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  21. 123456789

    123456789 Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    7,923
    Likes Received:
    4,408
    Let's stick our comparison with other first world countries. I think that's fair. And then my claim is true in a LOT of places, if not all of them.

    Trying to use localized areas of the U.S instead of the U.S as a whole obviously doesn't prove anything about gun violence on a national level. If you want to argue that states with no gun violence and lax gun laws should get to keep their guns, fine, but if those guns are found in other states there should be massive, massive law suits.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  22. NigeTheHat

    NigeTheHat Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    867
    Location:
    London
    I think the bit where we differ here is that I think the kind of governments you need to be worried about don't fear the masses at all, and not even the American public have enough guns to change that.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  23. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Inner West Sydney, Australia
    Having a gun is a deterrent. But pulling a gun out is potentially provocative for the same reason you are doing it yourself. It's fight or flight, not just flight. If it were, nobody would be asking for guns for self-defence. The same principle must fairly be applied to the criminals. In the same way as militant police tactics can sometimes provoke increases in armament and aggression in return.
    I think the point that was being made before, badly, about guns and Vermont is that individual states are much less able to control the gun market because guns from neighborouring states can be brought in. And at times GOP politicians have attempted, or succeeded, in watering down their bill to do so particularly with the abominable concealed carry reciprocity bill which in practical affect is close to directly attack state gun laws just without trying to coerce them. As a result states have more difficulty replicating the positives that other countries have produced with national efforts, not that those are all spiffy and easy either. But why doesn't Vermont have more problems with it's lax laws? You might ask. Because it doesn't fall within demographic trends for this sort of problem regardless. It's got an above average old age population like Maine and they are both small population somewhat rural areas where gangs don't naturally tend to develop. In contrast Chicago is a massive city with a large population of black slum-area residents that are ripe for organised crime. hence, the murder rate. If you could implement gun control more nationally it would make it easier to judge the Chicago gun laws on their own merits. To be clear of course state borders aren't just porous leaks but with the amount of guns in the US and the sheer business weight, legal and illegal, involved in pushing them it's a tremendous ask for one city police force. No country has ever had that much ease when trying to regulate a widespread product category like this just look at how much activity and developments going on in the area of consumer law for more established, less controversial stuff. Herding cats I tells ya'. People are social and the majority generally cooperates on some level but it's never that simple when whims and wishes get involved.
     
  24. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    6,417
    Likes Received:
    2,811
    Location:
    Inner West Sydney, Australia
    It does show the founders were at least partially made up of gun-positive sort of individuals. But the amendment never established anything remotely close to clear standards really, so it's almost a triviality when it comes to substantial gun control discussion. Unless we're talking about taking literally all guns there's no real sense of requirements other than changeable supreme court ruling(you guys should really amend your constitution more to clarify these issues since you love and rely on it so much; it's painfully outdated). And as you say the amendment could be repealed and shouldn't be treated as dogma.
     
  25. Dr. Mambo

    Dr. Mambo Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2016
    Messages:
    673
    Likes Received:
    674
    Location:
    Iowa
    Irrelevant, and a red herring. Being morally suspect (or bankrupt) in one way or another doesn't make a person incorrect about everything. Jefferson could have been a serial killer and it wouldn't have nullified his views about freedom of the press, for example. I also wasn't arguing that firearm ownership is acceptable because the founding fathers said so, or anything so silly as that. Rather, I was refuting the idea that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to preserve the rights of citizen-soldiers. That was not its intent, as evidenced by the founders' public comments to the contrary.

    Okay, throw Russia out. That still doesn't explain why many locales--indeed, even whole states that are bigger than a lot of European countries--have lots of guns, not many laws governing use of those guns, and extremely low violent crime rates.

    I also don't understand your apparent need to look at this issue nationally and ONLY nationally. That's totally backwards. We're always told our youth are way behind the rest of the civilized world in education. Is that because all American students are struggling, or is it because Alabama, West Virginia (etc.) are dragging the rest of us down? Our approach to the problem is going to change drastically depending on the answer.

    Similarly, looking at our gun violence problem nationally clouds the issue. ~10% of all homicides occur in Chicago and New York City alone. It doesn't make much sense to draft national policy to address local problems.

    But, as has already been mentioned, all that is extraneous when you begin to delve into the functional problems preventing us from banning all guns.

    At least we'll die fighting.

    Your theory is logically sound, but we just don't see it in practice. There are fewer than 300 legal self-defense slayings in America each year. That's not because we don't have crime or because we don't have people carrying guns for self-defense. It's because criminals don't want to get shot. They seek out easier targets when confronted by retaliatory violence.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.

Share This Page