Gun Control

[Go Braves]

If someone wants to kill or harm a large group of people, there are numerous ways to do it that are cheap and easy.....without guns.

Better Killing through Chemistry

Quoting you again on account of a question I need to ask. Did you read that article? Did you take notice of the date it was published? 2001. 1 man had sent letters laced with Anthrax right after 9/11. The writer wrote it on account of wanting there to be more oversight on what is sent through the mail so folks cannot get easy access to chemicals that can kill or mail it out. Pretty dang reasonable. You recognize a problem, you push for changes to correct it. There already were laws in place, back then, but they needed to be tightened up. It's been a real long time since then. I just looked, can't see that that happened again, in all this time that's passed. Sure would be nice if the same could be said about mass killings from guns.

 

[InterestedApologist]

That has been argued? Or you're just imagining such an argument.
Or you do plan to argue that before the court?
I imagine they will laugh you back home.
Has the "unreasonable burden" tactic ever been used in court on access issues?
Can I use the "unreasonable burden" tactic for
housing?
Healthcare?
Tithing at church?

Yes, that has been argued, and yes it would be argued again under your plan. You can check into this by reviewing DC vs Heller and the Chicago gun permit case. The summary is that excessive fees or legal delays that prevent someone from excercising a constitutional right can be construed as infringement or denial of those rights.

As to using unreasonable burden towards healthcare and housing, as they are not constitutionally guaranteed, you have no leg to stand on there. However, the Supreme Court has used the interstate commerce clause to determine that the government can mandate the purchase of insurance, so there is that.

By the way, I am not taking sides here. I am simply trying to insert a Christian perspective and some practical objectivity. As I said before, gun control is a huge and very complicated issue full of emotionally charged rhetoric. I still believe the human heart to be the problem, not the firearm.

 

[InterestedApologist]

Okay, you want a gun to shoot at burgles or something. Fine. People in England manage to "defend their property" without shooting at anybody and they do not usually have guns. The same is true of people in most Western Democracies - the USA excluded. Nobody has a "right to own a gun" but USA people think of "the right to bear arms" as a personal "right". Fine. Have it that way. It works well for the USA, right? 200+ mass shootings so far in 2017 - yep it works really well.

Are you from England, because I’m not sure if this is true? My understanding from the English folk I have spoken to is that you are not allowed to defend property with force, or even at all in some cases. Granted, my sample size is small, so I may be incorrect. If they can, they are more progressive than most states in the US, as they cannot. This varies by state, but by and large, you are not allowed to protect property with deadly force.

 

[InterestedApologist]

It has been shown that people who "practice" violence in video games
make more responsible choices in real life becasue they have thought
things through more often.

I’m sorry, but that I will need to see a source on, and a legitimate one at that. Rockstar and ID sanctioned studies don’t count.

 

[Aldebaran]

I’m sorry, but that I will need to see a source for that claim, and a legitimate one at that. Rockstar and ID sanctioned studies don’t count.

I could give a more personal account. I used to play video games of all types when I was younger and also again as I got older. In over 40 years of living, and being a gun owner for 26 of them, I've never shot anyone and don't even have a criminal record.

 

[GingerBeer]

With all that in place, how does a person defend himself against an already armed intruder in their home? (That's right, the intruder will not have his gun disassembled from their firing mechanism and from ammunition.)

The same way you defend yourself now. You don't. Nobody does really. Nearly every rape or home invasion happens just as if no guns were owned by the victims. Unless you sleep with your gun in hand and shower with it on you are not going to be defending yourself with it when the "bad guys" come to get you. The idea that you have a gun for defense is absurd. Nivada has lots of gun owners but nobody stopped the mass shooter in Las Vegas. Nobody had their gun ready to get the bad guy. But he has 12 guns and got 58 people and wounded hundreds more.

 

[GingerBeer]

One does not constitute "most." Nor does it constitute a universal truth.

That's right. Tell me exactly which mass shooters did not have a legal gun.

 

[GingerBeer]

Are you from England, because I’m not sure if this is true? My understanding from the English folk I have spoken to is that you are not allowed to defend property with force, or even at all in some cases. Granted, my sample size is small, so I may be incorrect. If they can, they are more progressive than most states in the US, as they cannot. This varies by state, but by and large, you are not allowed to protect property with deadly force.

"reasonable force" is permitted. Shooting a thief is not reasonable force is it? The punishment ought to fit the crime.

 

[Aldebaran]

The same way you defend yourself now. You don't. Nobody does really. Nearly every rape or home invasion happens just as if no guns were owned by the victims. Unless you sleep with your gun in hand and shower with it on you are not going to be defending yourself with it when the "bad guys" come to get you. The idea that you have a gun for defense is absurd. Nivada has lots of gun owners but nobody stopped the mass shooter in Las Vegas. Nobody had their gun ready to get the bad guy. But he has 12 guns and got 58 people and wounded hundreds more.

But that's a fatalistic view. If you're in bed and have a gun beside the bed and are awakened by someone breaking into your house, then you have it when and where you need it. That's where the placement of the firearm comes into play. In the case of concealed carry, you obviously would need to actually be carrying in order for it to be effective. Ask any cop.

As for the situation in Las Vegas, that was a situation where they were dealing with a sniper. It is not typical of self defense situations in general.

 

[GingerBeer]

But that's a fatalistic view. If you're in bed and have a gun beside the bed and are awakened by someone breaking into your house, then you have it when and where you need it. That's where the placement of the firearm comes into play. In the case of concealed carry, you obviously would need to actually be carrying in order for it to be effective. Ask any cop.

As for the situation in Las Vegas, that was a situation where they were dealing with a sniper. It is not typical of self defense situations in general.

At least it is not an impossibly unrealistic view. Nobody is going to rush to defend somebody else with their gun and almost no one has a gun handy with which to fend off the bad guys. The bad guys always have the advantage. They attack without provocation. They plan their crimes. They shoot first and having a gun for defense is not going to stop their bullets.

 

[Phil 1:21]

That's right. Tell me exactly which mass shooters did not have a legal gun.

I'm sorry, did I miss your supporting data for your initial claim?

 

[GingerBeer]

I'm sorry, did I miss your supporting data for your initial claim?

Yes, no doubt you did. Are you trying to avoid providing yours?

 

[Aldebaran]

At least it is not an impossibly unrealistic view. Nobody is going to rush to defend somebody else with their gun and almost no one has a gun handy with which to fend off the bad guys. The bad guys always have the advantage. They attack without provocation. They plan their crimes. They shoot first and having a gun for defense is not going to stop their bullets.

It's just like with anything else--you have to take away that advantage. Home defense is probably the easiest place to do that. It's familiar territory to you, but not for the intruder. Plus, if your door and windows are locked, it's hard for the intruder to have much of an advantage. All you need to do is hear a forceful entry taking place (breaking glass if through a window, for example), and now you have the advantage.
The other way to go is to be unarmed and just hope the intruder is nice and unarmed and weaker than you. Personally, I'd rather have all the advantages over the intruder, because not all home invaders are nice, unarmed, and weaker than I am.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, no doubt you did.

Because you never provided it. Some of us prefer to deal in facts, especially when discussing the future of people's constitutional rights.

 

[GingerBeer]

Because you never provided it. Some of us prefer to deal in facts, especially when discussing the future of people's constitutional rights.

Uh huh. So where are these facts that you say support your claim?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Uh huh. So where are these facts that you say support your claim?

Maybe they're on the same post as yours. But then again, I'm not the one trying to make a case for depriving people of their constitutional rights.

 

[GingerBeer]

I'm not the one trying to make a case for depriving people of their constitutional rights.

Yes, get rid of the second amendment. It was always a bad idea and more so now.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, get rid of the second amendment. It was always a bad idea and more so now.

Suppose that was done. What do you think the government would do from that point? Do you think they'd allow people to continue to own their firearms for whatever purpose they own them for?

 

[pat34lee]

Cities will be the first to ban drivers all together.
Many cities ban all passenger cars from some streets now.
It may be possible to stop the legal resale of old guns.

The USA is too wide spread. They can't stop illegal drugs now.
They couldn't stop illegal booze during prohibition. People with
guns are able to defend their rights to keep them, at least to
some degree.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, get rid of the second amendment. It was always a bad idea and more so now.

Yes, because it violates the "GingerBeer's approval" clause.