Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
It's like any other amendment that's born scrutiny and interpretation over time. Short of amending it again, what we have is what the current interpretations have determined. Thus, we have the individual right to bear arms, with some caveats.
The overall question of gun violence takes in a considerable number of factors that go well beyond a simple interpretation of the clause most quoted, and need to factor in the effects of social trends and problems as well. If you look ONLY at firearm data, you might conclude that yes, guns contribute greatly to a loss of life, just as do automobiles. If you factor in where and how guns take lives, you might conclude that we have a suicide problem in our society (2/3 of all gun deaths), for which anything short of mandatory destruction of all guns in society would have not so much as a drop-in-the-bucket deterrent effect. The other large percentage of firearms that kill people are used in crimes, where either the gun was already an illegal purchase for which the intent was to commit a crime, or an already legally owned firearm where the owner, for whatever reason, decided it was suddenly acceptable to use it in some criminal manner.
So, in terms of legislating away gun deaths, what a lot of the proposed legislation actually stands the greatest chance of reducing would be, arguable, those weapons that fall into the hands of criminals by way of otherwise legal sales in which the seller, sance background check, unwittingly or knowingly transfers a firearm to someone intent on committing a crime. The other type of legislation proposed that would require such things as safe storage would have the greatest chance of reducing stolen firearms that find their way into criminal hands, and firearms involved in accidental deaths, such as when jr. gets hold of dads firearm and shoots himself or someone else, which are terribly tragic events.
As to legislation aimed at reducing the number of high-capacity semi-automatic weapons in use during the current trend of mass murders, I don't see much that's truly going to be effective, short of banning all semi-automatic arms with detachable magazines. There, you're talking not just about the "black rifles" in common use, but also many of the firearms typical of sporting and self-defense, as well as recreational shooting. This is where I depart from much of the so-called reasonable argument in favor of stricter gun control. Mainly because I view ANY weapon as being capable of taking human life, and especially because just about anyone can become proficient in reloading firearms considered in many eyes to be traditional hunting weapons which are specifically designed to be high-powered, easily reloadable, and efficient killing machines. To hunt with less would be irresponsible. Therefore, I've personally come to the conclusion that such types of weapon bans would be needlessly (and ineffectively) restrictive; but that's just my personal opinion.
What I'm really hoping is two-fold:
1. we'll get smarter about what would and wouldn't be effective in reducing gun violence, without being overly restrictive
2. we'll get smart about addressing the mental issues that contribute to violence and suicide, both of which contribute to whether or not someone turns to firearms to push their agenda, like it or not.
The one thing that really does concern me, as I've stated earlier, is that terrorism will take notice of just how vulnerable we are as a society, and just how easily they affect us in such a manner as to produce within the fabric of our society a willingness to give up our freedoms for a false sense of security. Ultimately, all they have to do, really, is turn us against ourselves. The gun debate is becoming so divisive that it is beginning to do just that, along with all the other far left/right political bullshit that we are continually using to drive a bigger wedge between us all.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2015 - 10:06am PT
|
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
As to legislation aimed at reducing the number of high-capacity semi-automatic weapons in use during the current trend of mass murders, I don't see much that's truly going to be effective, short of banning all semi-automatic arms with detachable magazines.
Not gonna happen, but that wouldn't be the craziest thing in the world. Good ol .357 revolver, pump action shotguns, etc. are just fine for self defense, but probably lot harder to do mass shootings with anything but semi-autos.
Oh and another stupid post from Philo:---if a woman is of an age that parental notification would have anything to do with an abortion, then a man (or woman) of that age could not buy gun under any circumstances (at least I think that's right).
Now that the falsity of Philo's message has been demonstrated, let's see if he takes it down.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
There really seems to be no compromise possible with him. He is the quintessential "gun control nut".(At the risk of invoking his uncompromising wrath)
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2015 - 11:51am PT
|
You have no sense of humor blah blah.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
I laugh every time you post it.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
Just bought a Sig 9mil over the weekend.
but not because of San Bernadino, or anything else current.
I grew up shooting small bore, and around guns. Also, I live in a sketchy area of town.
The fact that it is so easy to obtain a gun of significant power is disturbing. It is also unnerving that the 2nd Ammendment is a catch 22 so we are supplying the terrorists, now some of which are apparently neighbors next door, can have easy access.
I don't see any 'solution' to the situation. In the UK and AU, the gun laws were ramped up 20 or so years ago before the streets were flooded with guns.
There are so many guns now, whether in the hands of everyday people or criminals, or now terrorists, that it really is impossible to get it to a point that they can be regulated in a sane way, such as in civilized counties.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
It will require a cultural shift. Currently the NRA is working as hard as it can to make gun culture American culture. They want every American open carrying at all times and making that a badge of honor and thus identity. Our dear friends here on the Taco show very clearly what happens when someone wraps their identity around gun ownership. It's really no different than branding cigarettes or cars though arguably gun enthusiasts take it to totem fetish levels. Make a cultural shift away from that, create robust buyback programs and you're well on your way.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Buy-back programs would have a chance of removing a significant number of guns if they were evaluated and paid current market value. Otherwise, might as well shoot yourself in the foot.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Not if you were phasing in caliber/firing rate restrictions that would eventually make those guns illegal. Australia did a buy back and managed to get something like 20% of the weapons out of private ownership.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
[quote]http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/12/07/nra-furious-as-supreme-court-upholds-common-sense-ban-on-assault-weapons/[/quote]
Very misleading URL and headline.
While a SCOTUS denial of cert does mean that the lower court decision stands, a denial of cert is not "upholding" the law in the sense that the Court is saying that the law is constitutional, or is even tacitly endorsing the lower court decision. A denial of cert has no precedential value.
The Court hears a very low percentage of cases, and often waits for a "circuit split" (different lower courts deciding similar cases differently) before granting cert.
Whether the Court will ultimately sanction these sorts of restrictions is very much an open question.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
No teeth without mandatory background checks and a registration requirement. Otherwise, guns go to the highest bidder. What's it worth to you to get them off the street?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
What's it worth to you to get them off the street?
Absolutely nothing in terms of a buyback.
Why should my tax dollars go toward buying something "back" that I will never own? Why should my tax dollars go toward solving a "too many guns" program, when I (and tens of millions of others) simply do not agree that "too many guns" IS "the problem"?
Philo's graphic, while patently ridiculous on countless levels, DOES open the door to a consistent discussion that I'm sure he'd wish never got started: Controlling abortion.
Look, you lefties want to control ALL guns, which in terms of total deaths (particularly of the kiddies you so wring your hands about) have a negligible effect on total preventable death in this country (including of the kiddies).
Meanwhile, you DEMAND that abortion remain a convenience, on-demand procedure that MANY tens of millions in this nation equates with flat-out murder... of KIDDIES no less.
Like you, I don't agree that it is murder, but that's not the point! The point is that they have good reasons to believe as they do, just as YOU think that you have good reason to believe as you do that "too many guns" is a BIG part of the "gun violence problem" that you SAY exists in this nation.
So, you'll move Heaven and Earth to "stop the carnage," making EVERY frothy appeal to "moral outrage" that the religious-right makes regarding abortion.
The difference? Guns kill a few hundred kids per year, while abortion "murders" over a million babies every year.
If you want to found a "moral outrage" case, it seems the the anti-abortion folks have it all over you by orders of magnitude!
And most of YOU would not want restrictions on abortion at all, even though most are convenience cases! (The vast majority are not motivated by rape or the life of the mother.)
See, the problem YOU face is that your expressions of moral outrage and your commitment to "liberty" are both will-of-the-whim affairs rather than consistent, principled positions.
So, yeah, philo, beat us over the head with your UTTERLY STUPID graphics, but just realize that you've yet again revealed what a shallow "thinker" you really are. AND you've provided the foil that "the right" will always use against you, because you're not even minimally consistent in your outrage.
The mere fact that you don't agree with the anti-abortion folks is MEANINGLESS, as they even more strongly don't agree with you. The point is that you want CONTROL over a whole pile of causality you can't even empirically demonstrate. The religious right, by contrast, CAN empirically demonstrate a DIRECT causal linkage between abortions and the deaths of almost countless human beings.
YOU wiggle all around to justify these killings (you are definitely supporting the KILLING of something), even for mere convenience. But you'll fall all over yourselves to bag on tens of millions of law-abiding citizens who will NEVER be ANY threat to you in the slightest... and that over a TINY fraction of the killings.
So, before you get all worked up over about 6k actual murders that you THINK you MIGHT prevent by this or that law, why not take seriously the concerns that tens of millions of your fellow citizens have about abortion-on-demand?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Why should my tax dollars go toward buying something "back" that I will never own? Why should my tax dollars go toward solving a "too many guns" program, when I (and tens of millions of others) simply do not agree that "too many guns" IS "the problem"?
Too bad.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2015 - 03:15pm PT
|
you lefties want to control ALL guns
Utter Bullshit!
Got a link for that load of fertilizer?
The difference? Guns kill a few hundred kids per year,
You really need to do a fact check.
while abortion murders over a million babies every year Like you, I don't agree that it is murder ,
Which is it?
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
Dec 7, 2015 - 12:07pm PT
Just bought a Sig 9mil over the weekend.
I grew up shooting small bore, and around guns. Also, I live in a sketchy area of town.
Fear mongering brainwashed gun freak.
LOL!
PS: What model btw?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Which is it?
Poor philo is so uncharitable in his "thinking" and "reading" that he cannot determine context paragraph-by-paragraph.
The point is that I don't know what it is, and neither do you. The point is that tens of millions THINK they know, just as YOU insist that you know that we've "gotta do something," where that "something" has no demonstrable causal connection to the thing you're trying to fix.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Nothing? Absolutely nothing? Bullsh#t.
A non-mandatory buy-back program that paid fair market price wouldn't affect you any more than your neighbor getting an abortion and I see no reason that both couldn't be offered. Other than, well, you object to YOUR tax dollars being spent toward a program you see as unnecessary. Well, I got news for you: there's a lot of "unnecessary" programs out there for a bunch of us. Just depends what walk of life you come from. If your gripe about a buy-back program is that it needlessly spends millions of dollars to buy back useless, defunct weapons, or that it doesn't pay enough to entice the kind of weapons that are desirable among the criminal buyers, well, that's where the "fair market value" part of it comes into being. Other than that you've got your panties in a wad over your precious tax dollars being spent, what could possibly be wrong with it? Ineffective you say? To what extent? We live with the cost of the current NICS system, which arguable does not stop all sales, specifically illegal sales. However, it does actually stop legal sales to prohibited persons in a significant number of attempts. So... YOU come up with something better.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Other than that you've got your panties in a wad over your precious tax dollars being spent, what could possibly be wrong with it? Ineffective you say? To what extent? We live with the cost of the current NICS system, which arguable does not stop all sales, specifically illegal sales. However, it does actually stop legal sales to prohibited persons in a significant number of attempts. So... YOU come up with something better.
Easy!
Put the same money into gun-education programs, research into the causes of the wide array of different sorts of incidents that the media spins into a "national crisis" (that isn't!), and outfitting schools with passive systems like these:
http://www.wthr.com/story/29980040/shelbyville-high-school-tests-state-of-the-art-security-measures
Let's get SERIOUS about addressing the on-school security measures.
Also, let's follow the big-corp money trail. WHY do radicalized Muslims hate us in the first place? In a nutshell: because we're IN their countries and supporting Israel?
WHY are we IN their countries and supporting Israel?
That's more complicated, but in a nutshell: OIL!
Let's get SERIOUS about ENDING (not reducing, but ENDING) dependence on ALL foreign oil. Let's get SERIOUS about an infrastructure overall (and quit being pessimistic about how long it would take) to eliminate the need of Mideast oil.
You want to put a stake through the heart of radical Islam? Cut off the flow of petro-dollars to the whole region.
Oh, but dat hurt da precious wittle oil companies a lot. So dey cry and cry to Congress and keep us under da wittle thumbs?
YOUR choice.
Don't go after American, law-abiding citizens because you don't have the WILL to go after the actual causes of the incidents (Mideast terrorism and inner-city violence).
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!