From an outsider’s perspective (I’m Canadian) I truly don’t know what the answer is but I don’t necessarily believe that gun laws of any sort would necessarily help. ISTM that there is a significant cultural aspect to this on both sides of our border. I suspect that if Canada had no gun laws whatsoever, our levels of gun violence might rise a bit but no-where near to levels in proportion to yours. Generally, most of us just don’t have the mindset about guns that the US has. I don’t even know if we are anti-gun. Instead, it’s almost as though they never enter our imaginations except as practical tools for hunters and farmers.
Conversely, I think that your way of thinking about guns (and I don’t mean that each and every American is like this) is so passionate and symbolic that I don’t think that a draconian set of gun laws would reduce gun violence in the US to any significant extent.
Yup … these compromises do not limit gun ownership for those entitled.
However, what will make everyone safer is when these laws are enforced. Just making it illegal to bring guns onto college campuses doesn’t stop the violence … fences and security checkpoints stops the violence.
Not one single law protects the public from people who willingly break the law.
I’m having trouble finding information on fully automatic weapons + crime. I assume your claims are correct, in other words, if there was significant data to indicate fully automatic weapons were commonly used in crime, I’m sure it would be very easy to find that information. So, I’d say you’ve made a very good point here and at least on first analysis I agree with you.
I also think, however, that just as blind and dogmatic as the anti gun people are, so too is the NRA but on the other side. I am not aware of any significant gun control policies they endorse.
As Gary Kunquat said to Canned Mayhem, it refutes a point someone made. They argued that gun control can’t work, because drug control didn’t work. But gun control does work, and we’ve given two examples: control in other nations, and control of some classes of guns, notably fully automatic weapons.
You can’t say, “It won’t work” as a general principle, because it does work, both abroad and here. The argument doesn’t work against me; it works against you. That’s why you’re baffled: you’re quite wrong.
There is one flaw in your example. If fully automatic weapons became as popular as say, highly powered rifles, rifles strong enough to kill a moose or a grizzle bear, would incidents of crime with automatic weapons increase?
No, but – what’d be the analogy, here? Calling for the deaths of those who responsibly operate tractor trailers whenever someone else drives one illegally?
I don’t know but since you seem to want to talk about this reasonably, my point is that we have restrictions on who can operate what type of automobile or other types of machinery. If it is good for one category it is good for another.
And the point of the post I’d quoted and replied to was, y’know, zanier than that.
Your (admittedly more reasonable) proposal, though, is going to come up against the oft-mentioned wall of how there ain’t a Constitutional Amendment saying the right of the people to own and operate vehicles shall not be infringed; it’s more like what’s good for, say, freedom of speech, or religion: until we further amend that pesky Constitution, we can’t restrict those rights to folks who underwent specialized licensing requirements before re-testing 'em and charging 'em a fee on a regular basis, and, shucks, what’s good for one category is good for another, amirite?
As a particularly splendid Australian comedian pointed out, most laws have to be based around the fact that people are idiots.
I drive like a boss after two bottles of wine, but funnily enough there’s lots of laws designed to curtail this behaviour on the grounds that other people will fuck up. Shameful I know, and costs me a fortune in taxis, but I suck it up and don’t whine about the innocent being punished because of what the guilty do.
So out of interest, do you see this as a law intended to “punish the innocent for what the guilty do”?
Yes, except that I don’t hold the constitution to be sacrosanct. The constitution, after all, supports slavery. Or at the very least, reluctantly accepts it… the 3/5 clause. and were not there many legal debates in the early 1800’s about admitting a state as a slave state or a free state. So, am I correct in saying the constitution supports slavery?
I recognize the bill of rights has more significance than other amendments… but still, to me, at the end of the day, it’s a piece of paper over 250 years old.
The problem is, not many other people feel that way. It was pointed out here or on another thread by a Canadian that guns are such a deeply entrenched pat of American culture that doing anything to reform the situation will be very very hard. I agree with this. But, I can still hold a position even if it is going to be hard to implement.
I honestly believe you are sincere in this position, and you have weighed up the costs involved, and feel they are worth paying.
As such, I also honestly hope that the next time an event like this happens that a loved one of yours is amongst the victims. I appreciate this might sound vindictive but there is no malice in this statement. It is so you can show that you are truly prepared to pay the costs for your beliefs, and are not a hypocrite. You will be able to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the right to freely keep and bear arms is something you cherish, whatever the murder rate.
It is also so that a person who disagrees with this position doesn’t pay the price for your beliefs.
Apologies if I’m being whooshed on a massive basis, but are you arguing that the initial amendments are beyond reproach, but further amendments would be bad?
Out of curiosity, what do you make of RTFirefly’s claim, which prompted my reply? Would you figure that was so intended?
[QUOTE=Robert163]
Yes, except that I don’t hold the constitution to be sacrosanct.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone does; if the votes are there, it’ll be amended. I merely note that, when comparing significantly similar categories in a what’s-good-for-one approach, maybe compare the one currently enshrined to another one that’s currently enshrined, and not to one that can be regulated on a legislative whim.
Not at all; I’d wholeheartedly get behind amending one of the initial ones. I merely note that the rights currently protected by any of the Amendments – initial or later, it makes no difference – are easily comparable to each other, and less so to other stuff.
Can’t answer for RTFirefly, but his reply seems like a blatantly sarcastic response to the wonderfully nonsensical ‘“machine guns” sound scary to the general public’ comment he replied to.
There’s never been a time in my recollection when the NRA, or gun proponents generally, were ever looking for some sort of win-win compromise. You know, us gun-control types don’t know as much about guns as you pro-gun types, for obvious reasons. We just want the U.S. to be a place where these sorts of shootings don’t happen anymore, and we certainly don’t have to worry, when we go over and ask some guy at the next table who’s making a scene to tone it down a little, about whether or not he’s carrying, and might perforate us to death after telling us he “feels fear” or whatever the magic SYG words are.
So when we get into these conversations, we get shit when we call a clip a magazine, or vice versa, and are told that we don’t know enough to engage in a conversation about gun control. Which actually is what you spent a chunk of your “measured, well-reasoned” post doing. But never do i see you guys using your superior knowledge about guns to try to come up with solutions. For instance, to take your example, has the NRA ever said, “OK, we’ll join you in outlawing ammo that can pierce body armor when fired from handguns?” I doubt it.
Maybe I accidentally quoted someone else, not you?
No, that was offered more in the vein of “A Modest Proposal.” I’m not that bloodthirsty, thanks.
But let’s phrase it this way: a whole bunch of other people each year are forced to pay the bill for gun-lovers’ “freedoms.” Freedom isn’t free, but you guys have offloaded the costs onto random third parties.
There really ought to be a way of making the bill arrive at the right address, so that y’all can think about whether that freedom is really worth it if YOU have to pay the damn bill.