Know what happens to be relatively affordable, less deadly, and more effective at stopping home invaders? Beware of dog signs, actual dogs, security cameras, adequate exterior and interior lighting, adequate locks, stickers advertising a possibly existent home security system.
As for muggers, do you often carry items you deem worth more than your life? I live in a bad neighborhood where gunshots can be heard quite frequently. When I walk around in an area I feel is dangerous, especially at night, I only carry what I can afford to lose. I don’t see the reason to own a firearm
Know what happens to be relatively affordable, less deadly, and more effective at stopping home invaders? Beware of dog signs, actual dogs, security cameras, adequate exterior and interior lighting, adequate locks, stickers advertising a possibly existent home security system.
As for muggers, do you often carry items you deem worth more than your life? I live in a relatively bad neighborhood where gunshots can be heard quite frequently. When I walk around in any area I feel is dangerous, especially at night, I only carry what I can afford to lose. (Maybe that’s just my Vegas mentality). I don’t see the reason to own a firearm, because I wouldn’t want to use it or have it used on me should such a situation ever arise. To me it just seems far easier and less messy for everybody I if I just try to diffuse the situation and trust that the legal system will eventually catch up with the criminals who insist on mugging. I am not particularly concerned with being a hero or a victim, I just want to be alive.
Thank you for your valuable contribution. I will carefully consider your opinion and update the plan if necessary. Would you suggest crutches, or a stroller?
Just to prove my point(not that I have proof any of these things happened), i just walked my dogs and there were cops circling the block and a chopper in the air circling directly overhead. I didn’t worry about not having a weapon because I don’t believe I was at risk. I didn’t bring anything of value with me, and while I do have a taser, i left it home with my wife, in the rare event she might need it. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately if you’re a sadist) we haven’t gotten the chance to use it on anybody.
Last time I was in the parking lot while a chopper was circling my apartments, I came face to face with the two people the cops seemed to be looking for. They were sneaking around the buildings hiding from the spotlight and walked right by me as I was getting a car off of a tow truck. All I did was prepare to be attacked, look them in the eyes, and then watch their hands. They most likely were not interested in attacking me anyways, since they seemed to have bigger problems.
Now imagine if I had a gun, saw one of them reach for their cellphone(which one did), mistook it for a firearm, and fired. Can you imagine the red tape and hassle I would have to go through? Now imagine if they were actually some innocent teenagers playing cops and robbers. Even if the shot is clean, I would have to deal with proper police procedure, go to court several times, and worst of all, live with whatever mental and legal consequences I will eventually suffer.
I don’t mean to toot my own horn with these anecdotes, I just mean to show that it’s not necessary to own a gun to protect yourself or feel safe, and drawing your weapon or firing at somebody isn’t always the best solution to protect your life or belongings. This is meant to support the effectiveness of my plan as a way to allow Americans ample access to firearms, proper self defense training, and mental health support, and reducing the instances of gun related deaths due to improper or criminal uses of firearms.
I agree with your sentiments completely. My way of thinking is that if the second amendment prevents an effective solution for gun control, then instead of pointing to it as a reason a solution wouldn’t work, the most beneficial and logical course of action is to critically examine the solution, and then to amend the amendment if the solution is a net benefit to society. I believe one role of a good government is to guide society towards improvement. The stats show that for better or worse, that is currently occurring. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement.
That’s why I don’t understand the thinking of people calling my plan laughably stupid or impossible without any critical analysis of whether or not it would be beneficial. Do firearms make up that much if their personal identity that they would never be open to being able to use guns for basically any reason but killing other people? Another thing I’ve noticed is that conservative leaning people tend to favor reactive solutions over pro-active ones. They prefer to use harsh punishments as deterrents rather than expend any effort or money on trying to prevent the criminal behavior from occurring in the first place.
I don’t believe it’s something to worry about(however with the current president I wouldn’t say a fascist party couldn’t rise to power), but I do believe it is a real threat, however unlikely. That is why I believe the people who want to use guns should be trained to properly use those guns to defend their community. They get to run drills and feel, look, and act cool, while preparing themselves for their worst case scenario. That way, if the government decides to try to “grab all the guns” nothing short of a massive nationwide conspiracy among the armories could keep the people from arming themselves. I mean, I still think the rebels would lose, but at least they would have been forced to prepare for it properly before the government turned into fascist straw people.
I think that’s silly because it promotes partisanship.
My view is that pro choice is essentially pro abortion. I see how that may be construed to mean in favor of all abortions, but I think it is possible to convince all but the most ignorant that being in favor of abortions doesn’t mean anybody who matters considers abortions as the first, best, or only option of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.
Anti-gun on the other hand, is a misnomer from the get go. I don’t know many people that are strictly anti-gun, as in no guns for anybody ever. I know people who don’t enjoy them, and ones that love them, however most people just want reasonable regulations but assume the other side is going to be unreasonable from the start.
I think it’s better to avoid partisan terms altogether, as they only serve to support an us vs them mentality. Besides, what would I call myself? Pro-progress? I don’t identify as anti-gun, and I don’t identify as pro-gun either. I imagine the majority of people fit this sentiment.
I understand your position, and I agree that mental health would benefit society as a whole, however I also believe it would specifically reduce the amount of gun related incidents. I also believe everyone in our society should have available mental health care, however that is a separate issue. I believe if one wants to wield a firearm, it is their duty to society to make sure they are of sound mind before doing so. I also believe it is society’s duty to monitor and enforce the mental health of the people who want to carry a tool for which the only function is murder, for the good of the citizens living in it. Mental health professionals wouldn’t need to gain any more power over the gun rights of the patient than they already have now. There are guidelines in place for patients that are a danger to themselves and others, and the rest would be able to use guns and have the benefit of mental health care. Win-win.
In case you misunderstand my position, I believe it is society’s duty to voluntarily monitor the physical and mental health of its citizens in general, and also think it should be mandatory for those who want to be part of the militia to undergo regular mental health checks as a condition of checking a weapon off premesis, or buying a personal weapon to store there. I don’t see the inherent personal or societal harm in requiring those who want to wield a firearm to undergo therapy sessions. I understand that it can be seen as infringing on one’s right to bear arms, however I don’t see how it is actually harmful to anybody. (Unless the therapists were replaced with anti-gun hypnotists planted by Shillary, which seems about as logical as a 'Red Dawn scenario or governmental gun snatching)
In any case, requiring voluntary mental health checks would be still be effective, however anti-social individuals would still be at a higher risk since they will have the option to avoid therapy and continue to feed their fantasies until they become reality
And my question to you was whether or not gun owners specifically would benefit from increased mental health care, mandatory or otherwise. Not whether it would benefit society as a whole, or whether you agree with mandatory therapy sessions as a condition of gun ownership. I understand that you have a problem with them being mandatory, which is why I asked a different question.
We have now established that we both agree that more adequate and available mental health care would be a benefit to the public. What do you think the benefits of adequate mental health care would be?
I believe increased access to adequate mental health care would lower or detect instances of impulsivity and aggression in society. Do you agree or disagree?
I’m not being coy, I am just not sure why you are actually opposed to mental health care as a requirement to wield firearms. Are you afraid you might be deemed mentally unfit and lose your right to wield a weapon? Are you just opposed to the government telling anybody what to do, even if it causes no apparent harm and stands to benefit society? I’m just trying to better understand your position from your point of view.
My presidential mythology is a little rusty, but I also don’t recall them being able to see into the future. It’s almost as if they couldn’t have planned for the unique societal and cultural problems we are facing today, and so they didn’t bother to worry about whether the laws they wrote at the time would still be relevant 250 years from when they were written. If only there were some way we could update, or amend the founding fathers’ original ideas to address the needs of present day America.
And as for funding the government side, we could use the military budget to fund the administrative costs and to arm and train the citizens using the armories.
No, the partisanship is already there. The point is, do you want to have a serious debate or not. If you won’t even concede the trivial point of refraining from calling the other side by a label they find offensive or misleading, then don’t pretend you’re going to discuss the issue seriously.
I get the impression that you’re being facetious about the government coming to take all the guns, however I really don’t see any evidence of that occurring, and I’m not aware of any developed nation where it has been a problem. I recognize your concerns, but I dont see any real reason to be alarmed.
Yep, you caught me. I’m just some sneaky communist/socialist that wants to get rid of all personal possessions or thoughts, so logically my first step is to disarm the populace by convincing them to surrender their firearms and feelings of personal safety under the guise of communal safety and societal benefits.
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling conservatives.
Do note that those are opinion peices, and that I never denied the existence of it, just that I couldn’t think of any off the top of my head.
I don’t agree with confiscation or compulsory buybacks. If you re-read my OP, restrictions on new private sales is not the same as confiscation. The only thing that could be interpreted as gun grabbing would be the limit on the amount or type of firearms, however nothing I said indicated any firearms would be taken by force.
Similar laws limiting the possession and sale of certain weapons already exist. It’s not like you believe that since you have the constitutional right to bear arms, that all armaments are therefore yours to use and enjoy as you see fit. Is making a butterfly knife illegal an infringement of your right to bear arms? You can’t go buy an ICBM to protect yourself against Russia or North Korea, and highly doubt that you believe that fact is an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. What about artillery? Plenty of infringements on your second amendment rights currently exist for the betterment of society. Gun licensing comes to mind. To me, licensing implies it is a privilege, not a right.
Well, I did say that I think any partisan language should be avoided. I thought that indicated that we agree on the negative impacts, but don’t agree with the solution. Rather than pro-gun or anti-gun, how about pro-regulation or anti-regulation?
I just think allowing people to choose their own labels is what leads us to referring to groups as pro-life rather than anti-abortion, which seems to be their actual stance. Pro-life is misleading in the same way calling someone who identifies as pro-choice as being pro-abortion. I was just trying to say that reasonable adults should be able to agree on titles that accurately reflect their stance, rather than allowing either position to pick their on or their opponent’s titles.
Shodan, thanks for welcoming me to the board. I have been lurking on and off for some time now, but was never motivated to register until now. I have those cites you requested, but it is late( or early!), so I will post when I wake up and check your reply after work.
So the nuclear arms strawman rears it’s ugly head again. “Bear” means to carry and you can’t carry a nuke or artillery piece so there’s not constitutional protection, unlike say an AR-15.
So there’s never been a home invasion at a house with a Beware of the Dog sign? If a home invader comes in anyway, what am I supposed to do, try to hit him with the sign to counter his gun?
Besides all the muggings that are prevented because muggers never know if their victim is armed, there was a mugging in St. Paul where the mugger was shot dead by a good Samaritan passerby that happened to have a legal weapon. Even if I don’t have a gun on me if I’m not in a “gun free zone” I can rely on others to protect me.