What is America's problem with guns?
- Thread starter Auzzie Taco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes! A thousand times yes. And maybe if we are lucky we'll get some gun nuts linger around after this to liven the place up. Sort of like what happen after these forums went throug it's feminist phaseRyotknife said:
So, as I understand your replies -
(1) Any risk of serious threat justifies being armed, no matter how remote or unlikely it is to manifest.
(2) Because there have been school shootings in the past, #1 justifies arming teachers or school staff.
(2A) & (3) Only responsible people should be allowed to carry guns in public. If so, how is such capacity for responsible gun ownership (which should not be limited unduly) to be determined? What limits should exist? More bluntly, who is not capable of training, maintaining and handle the responsibility of a firearm? I'm sorry if this comes off as singling you out - however, your answer suggests that gun ownership is a privilege rather than an inalienable entitlement, and begs the questions of when and how that entitlement is lost, and how could such a shift in attitude (guns transitioning from being a "right" to a "responsibility") be achieved?
(4) Guns + booze = not good. Completely agreed. In the scenario proposed, how could we prevent someone from the firearms dorms from going to the non-firearms dorm (or indeed, to any party held on campus) and racking up a body count?
(5) Afghanistan is an occupation characterised by asymmetric warfare - and you're right, it's a long and brutal struggle where a group is better able to resist when armed. My understanding is that there is no similar coordination or doctrinal consistency throughout the USA which would facilitate a response in the manner of the Taliban (though one could arise under duress). Military personnel are notoriously unwilling to turn their arms on citizens they signed up to protect from external threats. Tyranny, or at least what I understand as such, would be closer to what's happening in Syria. The risk of this occurring in the USA is vanishingly small. However, and I reiterate - if true tyranny emerged and took control of the US military, how would a counter-revolution succeed through force of small arms?
I think we're broadly on the same page as far as #1 & #3. You and PZF both seem to view gun ownership as a responsibility, not a positive right (though one which you can assert as long as you demonstrate the necessary competence). Again, no argument there. However, you assert that most people "are quite unfit for self-defence" (which, again, is truer than most would like to admit). Implicit in that statement is an observation that guns in the wrong hands, or in inept hands, are a threat which should be controlled or limited somehow. I'm not sure how this squares with your interpretation of the Second Amendment and what civilians should have access to. How should such unfitness be determined? Where is the cut-off point?
I can't say I agree with Mr Swann's observation, which comes off as a straw man argument to me. Of course the Second Amendment was about arming the populace to resist threats. Only a wholly originalist reading of the Amendment, taking no account of changes in weaponry and military hardware between 1791 and 2012, could support an interpretation that it justifies "true equality of arms" between 21st-century civilians and military personnel. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Having noted your comment about the Columbine shootings - Would arming teachers not simply make teachers the first targets of anyone still intending to commit a mass shooting at a school? Better a trained shooter than kids, to be certain, but if teachers were shot first, would not the outcome be the same as if they were unarmed (particularly if, as seems to have been the case in Connecticut, the shooter was wearing body armour)?
PS: Enjoying the discussion, trying to keep it civil - no offence is meant, just trying to expand on the OP's question.
(1) Any risk of serious threat justifies being armed, no matter how remote or unlikely it is to manifest.
(2) Because there have been school shootings in the past, #1 justifies arming teachers or school staff.
(2A) & (3) Only responsible people should be allowed to carry guns in public. If so, how is such capacity for responsible gun ownership (which should not be limited unduly) to be determined? What limits should exist? More bluntly, who is not capable of training, maintaining and handle the responsibility of a firearm? I'm sorry if this comes off as singling you out - however, your answer suggests that gun ownership is a privilege rather than an inalienable entitlement, and begs the questions of when and how that entitlement is lost, and how could such a shift in attitude (guns transitioning from being a "right" to a "responsibility") be achieved?
(4) Guns + booze = not good. Completely agreed. In the scenario proposed, how could we prevent someone from the firearms dorms from going to the non-firearms dorm (or indeed, to any party held on campus) and racking up a body count?
(5) Afghanistan is an occupation characterised by asymmetric warfare - and you're right, it's a long and brutal struggle where a group is better able to resist when armed. My understanding is that there is no similar coordination or doctrinal consistency throughout the USA which would facilitate a response in the manner of the Taliban (though one could arise under duress). Military personnel are notoriously unwilling to turn their arms on citizens they signed up to protect from external threats. Tyranny, or at least what I understand as such, would be closer to what's happening in Syria. The risk of this occurring in the USA is vanishingly small. However, and I reiterate - if true tyranny emerged and took control of the US military, how would a counter-revolution succeed through force of small arms?
I think we're broadly on the same page as far as #1 & #3. You and PZF both seem to view gun ownership as a responsibility, not a positive right (though one which you can assert as long as you demonstrate the necessary competence). Again, no argument there. However, you assert that most people "are quite unfit for self-defence" (which, again, is truer than most would like to admit). Implicit in that statement is an observation that guns in the wrong hands, or in inept hands, are a threat which should be controlled or limited somehow. I'm not sure how this squares with your interpretation of the Second Amendment and what civilians should have access to. How should such unfitness be determined? Where is the cut-off point?
I can't say I agree with Mr Swann's observation, which comes off as a straw man argument to me. Of course the Second Amendment was about arming the populace to resist threats. Only a wholly originalist reading of the Amendment, taking no account of changes in weaponry and military hardware between 1791 and 2012, could support an interpretation that it justifies "true equality of arms" between 21st-century civilians and military personnel. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Having noted your comment about the Columbine shootings - Would arming teachers not simply make teachers the first targets of anyone still intending to commit a mass shooting at a school? Better a trained shooter than kids, to be certain, but if teachers were shot first, would not the outcome be the same as if they were unarmed (particularly if, as seems to have been the case in Connecticut, the shooter was wearing body armour)?
I get that, and that's a fair view. However, it seems predicated on the existence of a threat to life requiring response. How often does such a threat exist? You suggested that there was a climate of fear, which is not reflective of the actual risk outside of a few areas. It's probably fair to say that Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes and Adam Lanza were not in their right minds and likely incapable of being dissuaded through rational means. If we agree on that, then how could we prevent the threat from manifesting in the first place, rather than preparing a countermeasure for a highly-unlikely situation?chadachada123 said:
PS: Enjoying the discussion, trying to keep it civil - no offence is meant, just trying to expand on the OP's question.
1 - Probably somewhere around 96% of the people who obtain the their concealed carry licenses are the most law abiding citizens in this country. Also, criminals usually don't announce when they will commit a crime. With Americas melting pot heritage, you have many different cultures that view the same thing different ways and will react different ways. Compare this to Japan where everyone is Japanese and most are extremely respectful of each other. Evil exists, if it will ever present it self in front of me, I don't know, but I would sure like to be prepared if it does.Haagrum said:
It almost like have a fire extinguisher in ones home. Fires happen sometimes, and it's a good idea to have one just incase.
2 - It is certainly not an end all solution but, if one or two teacher volunteer to be armed, there is a great potential the school shootings can be drastically limited in deaths. With more shootings happening, I'd say the threat is fairly good.
3 - I've been shooting since I was about 10. I'm 22 now and own multiple firearms. I was raised to respect firearms and how to handle them safely. Some people don't get that, they have to figure everything out on their own. In the state I live in, the only things that is required to obtain a conceal handgun license is $10 and a criminal background check done by the local police.
I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is a right and not a privilege like driving, but there really should be something set up for new gun owners. I would be in favor common sense gun laws ala something like a firearms purchasing license (FPL). In order to obtain a FPL, one must take a one day firearms safety class (should be no more then $25 to be affordable to everyone) which covers firearm ownership, safe handling, and range time to show one know what they are doing. Also have a similar one day class for concealed carry, where laws of the state are covered, target identification, and range time to show you are proficient with your weapon. These license will be good for 3-5 years after which you must take a refresher class.
4 - Honestly, I'm not really sure. There are many young adults who are quite responsible, and other who are just stupid. The only thing that come to mind is again, licensing. Make it mandatory for those who wish to carry on campus to have a concealed carry licensed from the state, and be licensed from the school as well.
5 - "how would a counter-revolution succeed through force of small arms?" I doubt it would. People would fight back and resist, but there is almost zero organization among those who would. Establishing a command structure would be very difficult, outside a few veterans, combat tactics would have to be a foreign concept, Civilians would be at a serious disadvantage with no armor support, air support or use of weapons like missiles and grenades. Could tanks, Missiles and grenades be captured? Sure, but at what cost? I think too many people have visions of being Jed Eckert in Red Dawn. I hope the day never comes to where people would engage in armed combat, but there are people out there who will fight for gun rights.
You have no idea how glad it makes me to have a rational and peaceful discussion with someone rather then having "OmG GunZ R Bad, thy Ned 2 B bannd" come back as a response. Thank you.Haagrum said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,526
- 4,295
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Because we refuse to pay for prevention, I'm not talking about gun control per-say since with how many are out there I think it would be almost a lost cause. But what we really need are mental health facilities that can actually help when people need help.