Could this be the solution to the gun issue?

#1
It's pretty sad how routine mass shootings have become in America, something is wrong and there needs to be some sort of solution, but it's hard to figure out what that should be.

Well, I have a crazy idea, a middle ground, something I've never heard anyone talk about before.

The Second Amendment does clarify a "well regulated militia" not just any random citizen being able to own things like assault rifles, so what if we got.... just that? What if the Government created a special militia, separate from but probably mostly made up of members from, the military that would be outfitted enough and powerful enough that it really could overthrow the US government should, somehow, they cease to honor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or should some foreign power seize control, think of it as a last line of defense should the worst happen.

It might sounds crazy but the more I think about it the more it makes sense, even average joes armed with AR-15s could not hope to stand up to tanks or drone strikes and if you think of the Second Amendment as fundamentally being about defending liberty, where does that logically end? Why shouldn't people be able to own tanks? Missiles? There's already enough bad consequences to people being able to purchase what is already military grade hardware (assault rifles) so where does it end? Because if defending liberty is what you're most concerned about, a "well regulated militia" seems to be the most logical choice to me.

To reiterate my idea, a Government overseen but still semi-independent militia outfitted with major military hardware whose sole purpose would be to defend America should there be collapse of government or totalitarian takeover of Government and with it perhaps we could phase out some matters of private firearm ownership.

What do you think? Also, what would be a cool name for said militia? :messenger_winking_tongue:
 
#2
Simply not going to happen. Guns are so ingrained into American society via the second amendment that if you try and remove this right, it would literally lead to a second civil war. I am not for repealing the second amendment because it is not feasible at all. As far a a government sanctioned militia? That would never work, not for the government and not for gun nuts.
 
#4
I don't see this ever happening considering the US mentality of freedom and capitalism and low taxes trumping (no pun intended) overall social welfare of the population, but the best solution for American gun control is to follow other countries.

And that is a government that has a bigger safety net so the have-nots aren't so desperate (financially and mentally) that it leads to crime or gun sprees and suicides.

It makes sense the US has more gun crime than other G20 countries since there's so many more Americans and so many guns out there, but the proportions are out of wack.

The US might have more guns per capita than another G20 or G7 country by a factor of 3:1, yet the gun violence is more like 30:1.

I think every other well off western country (I think all of them?) have universal healthcare, better social assistance and even more family oriented things like maternity leave durations.

Having citizens have a decent set of social policies and medical care should work wonders for people having issues.

Put it this way. Even eternally sanctioned Cuba has universal healthcare.
 
#6
I can't believe this nonsense about the Second Amendment having to do with a militia is still a thing. People should read the Federalist Papers, it is clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson

The right to self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary, to nations and to individuals.
James Monroe

Every husbandsman will be quickly converted into a soldier, when he knows and feels that he is to fight not in defense of the rights of a particular family or a prince: but for his own.
George Mason

People can disagree with the amendment itself, but the militia nonsense really needs to go.
 
Last edited:
#8
I've made peace long ago with the fact that unpredictable violence will always be a price to pay to live in a country with this much freedom. If you can't deal with it you can always move to Europe. Or Canada.

But no one ever tries to address why there seems to be more and more shootings though. We've always had lots of guns and lots of people with mental issues. What else about the country has changed? My own theory is that the rise in shootings is directly related to the decline of the middle class.
 
Last edited:
#10
It sounds like you're saying ban guns for everyone who isn't in the military or national guard. Won't fly
Not quite, this militia could be joined by and also made up of civilians in addition to military personal.

I can't believe this nonsense about the Second Amendment having to do with a militia is still a thing. People should read the Federalist Papers, it is clear that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson

The right to self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary, to nations and to individuals.
James Monroe

Every husbandsman will be quickly converted into a soldier, when he knows and feels that he is to fight not in defense of the rights of a particular family or a prince: but for his own.
George Mason

People can disagree with the amendment itself, but the militia nonsense really needs to go.
Even if you are correct, would an official militia as a last line of defense still be a good idea?

A militia that exists to overthrow a tyrannical government should be... regulated by the government...?
To expound on the idea a bit further, the militia would be run by a council of people who would be separate from the government and it would be up to them whether to utilize it, but only in absolute worst case scenarios.

This was just a crazy idea that popped in my head, I'm not saying it's feasible or makes perfect sense, I just thought it'd be interesting to discuss.
 
#11
People... stop reading it and interpreting it yourself. Same goes for the first.

Look at the interpretation from the courts. That is your answer.

That’s why they try to get judges who are friendly to that interpretation in seats.
 
#12
What is about the constitution that people just don’t seem to understand?

It simply affirms our human rights. Rights that every living organism on earth has. Government doesn’t give us the right to breathe, it is our NATURAL right. I shouldn’t need to take permission from a stupid government official (who is also a human like me) whether I can breathe, eat or drink. Owning a gun is no different from owning a spoon or knife or plate or car. It is my human right.
 
#13
It simply affirms our human rights. Rights that every living organism on earth has. Government doesn’t give us the right to breathe, it is our NATURAL right. I shouldn’t need to take permission from a stupid government official (who is also a human like me) whether I can breathe, eat or drink. Owning a gun is no different from owning a spoon or knife or plate or car. It is my human right.
How about owning a nuclear weapon? Is this a natural right as well?

What makes possession of firearm a natural right? Neither do firearms exist in nature, nor would many people argue that everything one might possible own is a natural right to own.
 
#14
How about owning a nuclear weapon? Is this a natural right as well?

What makes possession of firearm a natural right? Neither do firearms exist in nature, nor would many people argue that everything one might possible own is a natural right to own.
I don’t know I’d say natural right. But you have a right to own a gun in the USA.

You expect to have access to a lot of things. Transportation, running water, information. But you have the right to own a gun.
 
#15
If we're allowed pie-in-the-sky solutions (since banning bump stocks and large clips hasn't slowed down any of the gun violence in California, clearly), I would offer these two:

1. Mental health services need to be a part of Medicaid/Medicare or whatever healthcare plan we move too after scrapping the garbage Obamacare we have now. The lack of psychiatric hospitals is a part of the problem, exacerbated by the rise of opioids and anti-depressant medications.

2. Free gun classes, paid for by taxpayers. Local/state police officers or military personnel can offer as instructors for the class. These classes would be optional, not required for a license or whatever. I believe that if we taught our kids how to properly respect guns it would go a long way to turn this aspect of our culture around.

I don't believe there are any simple solutions. I don't believe banning or restricting will have any sustainable impact.
 
#16
I don’t know I’d say natural right. But you have a right to own a gun in the USA.
The poster specifically says it is a right every human on earth has. It is a political decision what rights people might have in a state. Sure, there are some rights that are basic human rights and have extra protection beyond national politics, but owning a gun is not among them. A natural right would probably even go beyond basic human rights, but I see no way this is the case for guns. The second amendment does not state it is a natural right and amendments can be modified or removed, they are just political decisions (and as I have stated numerous times: Should be changed).
From my understanding of the text, I agree though, that the text states that individuals should keep the right to own weapons. To which I would assume it is not referencing a natural state but the previous state in stating that the right shall not be limited.
 
#17
2. Free gun classes, paid for by taxpayers. Local/state police officers or military personnel can offer as instructors for the class. These classes would be optional, not required for a license or whatever. I believe that if we taught our kids how to properly respect guns it would go a long way to turn this aspect of our culture around.
I'd argue the copious amount of gun violence in the US is not indicative of a lack of knowledge about firearms. Of course, there are instances where a lack of knowledge plays a role, with carefree handling of weapons or with young children gaining control over a weapon, but this would hardly be rectified by having the option to get trained in weapon usage. A(n enforced) complete ban of owning firearms except when necessary (for the job) would definitely be effective. Whether it is easy to enforce is another question, because, sure, there are a lot of nutters around.
 
#18
The poster specifically says it is a right every human on earth has. It is a political decision what rights people might have in a state. Sure, there are some rights that are basic human rights and have extra protection beyond national politics, but owning a gun is not among them. A natural right would probably even go beyond basic human rights, but I see no way this is the case for guns. The second amendment does not state it is a natural right and amendments can be modified or removed, they are just political decisions (and as I have stated numerous times: Should be changed).
From my understanding of the text, I agree though, that the text states that individuals should keep the right to own weapons. To which I would assume it is not referencing a natural state but the previous state in stating that the right shall not be limited.
Yeah, it’s not a natural right. Otherwise it would be written as it is.
 
#19
I'd argue the copious amount of gun violence in the US is not indicative of a lack of knowledge about firearms. Of course, there are instances where a lack of knowledge plays a role, with carefree handling of weapons or with young children gaining control over a weapon, but this would hardly be rectified by having the option to get trained in weapon usage. A(n enforced) complete ban of owning firearms except when necessary (for the job) would definitely be effective. Whether it is easy to enforce is another question, because, sure, there are a lot of nutters around.
The USA is too large of a territory to enforce such a ban.

What if a person's first experiences with a gun was in a safe, educational environment instead of getting handed one by a fellow gang member, getting one shoved in your face by a mugger, or buying one in a deranged fury to do who-knows-what? Since "educate and rehabilitate" seems to be the go-to solution from the Left for criminals, why wouldn't the same approach work for guns? Don't ban them outright. Educate our citizens with safety tips and a positive community of enthusiasts.

I agree that the violence isn't directly due to a lack of education (leading to accident and negligence), but I do believe that a positive introduction to guns would reduce much of it.
 
Last edited:
#20
I'd argue the copious amount of gun violence in the US is not indicative of a lack of knowledge about firearms. Of course, there are instances where a lack of knowledge plays a role, with carefree handling of weapons or with young children gaining control over a weapon, but this would hardly be rectified by having the option to get trained in weapon usage. A(n enforced) complete ban of owning firearms except when necessary (for the job) would definitely be effective. Whether it is easy to enforce is another question, because, sure, there are a lot of nutters around.
I don’t see how it would have impact when the statistic is 89-97% of homicides with guns are done by illegal users.

Even with incidents like we had in California, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville they still are a very small percentage of overall gun homicides.

And there really is no reason to assume that those incidents wouldn’t still happen. Yes they used guns they legally purchased because they had no criminal past. But they desired to kill people. They desired to end their life after. And illegal guns are not out of reach.
 
#21
The USA is too large of a territory to enforce such a ban.
I assume Heroin is also uncontrollable because of the USA being so large? I really do not understand this argument at all. It is possible, whether it is politically possible, considering the gun lobby and how far right the political make-up of the USA, is another thing, of course.
What if a person's first experiences with a gun was in a safe, educational environment instead of getting handed one by a fellow gang member, getting one shoved in your face by a mugger, or buying one in a deranged fury to do who-knows-what?
I see no indication that the gun violence in the USA is a consequence of people making negative experiences with getting weapons shoved in their face. In general, an education towards non-violent behaviour is of course helpful and it might also be helpful to enforce such an education when it comes to firearms, but shootings are not a consequence of people not knowing what a gun is and what to use it for, it is a consequence of people with bad intentions using guns for what they are made for.
Since "educate and rehabilitate" seems to be the go-to solution from the Left for criminals, why wouldn't the same approach work for guns? Don't ban them outright. Educate our citizens with safety tips and a positive community of enthusiasts.
This is completely unrelated. Guns and criminals are very different and rehabilitive justice is a completely different topic than allowing objects that are designed as murder instruments in the general populace's hands.
 
#22
I don’t see how it would have impact when the statistic is 89-97% of homicides with guns are done by illegal users.

Even with incidents like we had in California, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and Jacksonville they still are a very small percentage of overall gun homicides.

And there really is no reason to assume that those incidents wouldn’t still happen. Yes they used guns they legally purchased because they had no criminal past. But they desired to kill people. They desired to end their life after. And illegal guns are not out of reach.
By restricting gun ownership strictly, you make it much more difficult to obtain a gun and you make it much more likely that officials will register your effort to obtain the means to kill many people quickly. In a society where firearms are almost omnipresent, it is very easy to obtain a firearm, both, legally and illegally. I argue that the large presence of firearms in American society is one big reason for the many unjust killings by police. Police officers have to regularly fear that people they interact with are armed and may snap, becoming a personal threat to the life of the officers. Such a climate makes police officers more trigger happy.
 
#24
By restricting gun ownership strictly, you make it much more difficult to obtain a gun and you make it much more likely that officials will register your effort to obtain the means to kill many people quickly. In a society where firearms are almost omnipresent, it is very easy to obtain a firearm, both, legally and illegally. I argue that the large presence of firearms in American society is one big reason for the many unjust killings by police. Police officers have to regularly fear that people they interact with are armed and may snap, becoming a personal threat to the life of the officers. Such a climate makes police officers more trigger happy.
Then retrain your officers. That’s not a very good reason to eliminate a core American right. Because officers don’t act right.
 
#25
Then retrain your officers. That’s not a very good reason to eliminate a core American right. Because officers don’t act right.
Acting not right in hindsight is not the same as seeing before that it is acting wrong. The right to have firearms has no positive sides but leads to violence, death and (otherwise) unnecessary brutality in state action).
 
#26
I assume Heroin is also uncontrollable because of the USA being so large? I really do not understand this argument at all. It is possible, whether it is politically possible, considering the gun lobby and how far right the political make-up of the USA, is another thing, of course.
Your lack of understanding isn't my problem. Are you not aware that policing a larger area = more infrastructure, more police, more surveillance, more $$$? The USA is too large of a territory to implement widespread bans. The best we could do is ban it in cities. Which we do! Do large metropolises like Chicago have less gun crime due to these stricter laws?

I see no indication that the gun violence in the USA is a consequence of people making negative experiences with getting weapons shoved in their face.
I'm not claiming a lack of gun education is the root cause of the violence. I'm offering it as a part of the solution to turn the culture around.

I also see no indication that gun violence in the USA is a consequence of people owning too many guns, as there is no relationship between paying for an object and using that object to kill someone. The problem lies in the heart of the criminal, not in the weapon they picked for their crime.

In general, an education towards non-violent behaviour is of course helpful and it might also be helpful to enforce such an education when it comes to firearms, but shootings are not a consequence of people not knowing what a gun is and what to use it for, it is a consequence of people with bad intentions using guns for what they are made for.
Which is why it education would go hand in hand with rehabilitation (mental health).

This is completely unrelated. Guns and criminals are very different and rehabilitive justice is a completely different topic than allowing objects that are designed as murder instruments in the general populace's hands.
Pricked a nerve, did I? It's exactly the same thing: instead of treating the criminal themselves as a dangerous object that must be locked away from the public, we rehabilitate them and reintroduce them to society. Instead of treating a gun like a dangerous object that must be locked away from the public, we teach the public how to use it safely which also provides opportunities to educate on safety, de-escalation, and self-defense.
 
#27
Do firearms have an impact upon the overall homicide and suicide rate?
That's how policy should be defined, the bottom line, not based upon fringe events.

Bear in mind, that in a country that allows firearms, people will USE them to murder or kill themselves more than countries without them, but if there isn't an overall increase in either statistic then it won't matter in the grand scheme whether firearm legislation exists or not.
So prove to me that the ability to own firearms is directly contributing to the variance in homicide and suicide rates when comparing the US to other countries and demographics.
 
Last edited:
#28
Do large metropolises like Chicago have less gun crime due to these stricter laws?
This is hardly effective, if all surrounding areas of a city allow wild west gun ownership. If it was state-wide forbidden and prosecuted accordingly, it would work. Afterall, controlling substances like Heroin also works within reason in the US (never in a perfect way, of course, but that's no different in other countries).
I also see no indication that gun violence in the USA is a consequence of people owning too many guns, as there is no relationship between paying for an object and using that object to kill someone.
There is, the relationship lies in buying an object whose only purpose is to kill someone. Of course, other things can also be used for killing, but they also serve other purposes and are less efficient and less effective than firearms for that purpose.
Pricked a nerve, did I? It's exactly the same thing: instead of treating the criminal themselves as a dangerous object that must be locked away from the public, we rehabilitate them and reintroduce them to society. Instead of treating a gun like a dangerous object that must be locked away from the public, we teach the public how to use it safely which also provides opportunities to educate on safety, de-escalation, and self-defense.
No, you did not. Equating criminals (i.e. humans) with guns (i.e. inanimate objects) is just such a leap. Rehabilitive justice is a matter of humanity, because if you can correct the behaviour of a criminal, it would be inhumane to keep him locked up. Weapons have no agency, no feelings, so no one is harmed by restricting access to them (except gun producing companies, but then again, the money spent on weapons by the general populace will surely find other avenues, so one company's loss is another one's gain).
 
#29
Acting not right in hindsight is not the same as seeing before that it is acting wrong. The right to have firearms has no positive sides but leads to violence, death and (otherwise) unnecessary brutality in state action).
No positive sides. It’s estimated that guns are used in self defense in the USA 100k+ times every year. WTF are you talking about.

I think the CDC (while Obama was in office) estimated 500k times a year.

You have legal gun owners using guns in self defense 100k times a year versus 1,000 (on the high side) murders by legal gun owners.
 
#30
Only way possible for this is to give every gun owner the option to join the militia.
So the just have to join a special club to be allowed to own guns.

This could prevent illegal gun ownership, but crimes with illegal gun ownership is already a problem and would not be prevented by this.



Honestly the only way out of this is a society shift to be less violent. That will take time.
And even then the USA will never be one of the most peaceful countries in the world. It's just not in their DNA.
You can't just become Japan. You have to live with it and try to minimize the impact and occurrence of this.
 
#31
This is hardly effective, if all surrounding areas of a city allow wild west gun ownership. If it was state-wide forbidden and prosecuted accordingly, it would work. Afterall, controlling substances like Heroin also works within reason in the US (never in a perfect way, of course, but that's no different in other countries).
Yes, and that's my point: since we can't control them effectively within a city, we would need more infrastructure to control it in the surrounding territories. When that doesn't work, make it state-wide! When guns still come in from surrounding states, get the Feds to ban them too. Widen the net! Ban the guns! Those criminals and nutjobs won't get the impression that the gov't is cracking down on them and act out accordingly, I'm sure...

But once we've squelched all that, then we're encroaching on something rather uncomfortable: we'd have to have real border security to not allow foreigners to bring in guns. :messenger_confused:

Instead of saying "the reason why those restrictions didn't work is because they weren't restrictive enough across a wide enough area" is bullcrap. You're stupid if you believe it, sorry Yoshi. It's a poor argument founded on emotions and lies. If the small-scale implementation of gun bans doesn't work, explain to me how a large-scale gun ban would work? What needs to be done differently than what is already being done in cities?

I'll repeat it because it's really the crux of the issue: if small-scale implementation doesn't work, how will large-scale implementation be any different? That's something the Left has never been able to explain.

There is, the relationship lies in buying an object whose only purpose is to kill someone. Of course, other things can also be used for killing, but they also serve other purposes and are less efficient and less effective than firearms for that purpose.
So the object itself imposes upon your brain and makes you think certain thoughts and leads you to behave certain ways?

Please, go on. How does a gun cause someone to be more violent? How does a gun make a murderer? I'm not asking whether it makes a murderer more effective or dangerous. I believe that's related but separate. How does a gun make a murderer?

No, you did not. Equating criminals (i.e. humans) with guns (i.e. inanimate objects) is just such a leap. Rehabilitive justice is a matter of humanity, because if you can correct the behaviour of a criminal, it would be inhumane to keep him locked up.
And I would argue that restricting what people can buy -- especially when it may be a matter of defending their own family -- is inhumane.

If you could've save a family by allowing them to defend themselves, it is inhumane to keep them defenseless. I don't think guns are a perfect solution nor the only solution to self-defense. There are numerous other ways to improve the situation as well.

Weapons have no agency, no feelings, so no one is harmed by restricting access to them (except gun producing companies, but then again, the money spent on weapons by the general populace will surely find other avenues, so one company's loss is another one's gain).
What is a supply chain? People would be put out of jobs, not just the gun companies themselves but the gunsmiths, enthusiasts, hunters, those who supply materials, and so forth.

But this is a strawman anyway: I'm not arguing that we should keep guns around because it keeps gun companies around. To say that "no one is harmed by restricting access to them" is completely ignorant of history. Gun restriction has been used -- quite regularly -- to harm the populace and to oppress them.

You appear to be ignorant to the long and well-documented history of government seizure of weapons and how that has been used across the ages to subjugate a populace.
 
#33
No positive sides. It’s estimated that guns are used in self defense in the USA 100k+ times every year. WTF are you talking about.

I think the CDC (while Obama was in office) estimated 500k times a year.

You have legal gun owners using guns in self defense 100k times a year versus 1,000 (on the high side) murders by legal gun owners.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...4-innocent-people-die/?utm_term=.a0a5e47b554c

So, in terms of actual usage of guns for one's own protection, it is twice as likely that you kill someone in accident than in self-defense. I am fine with ignoring the suicide statistics, because for just killing yourself, the efficiency of firearms is irrelevant, using other means of killing yourself is in fact a proper substitute. But we also have 34 unjust killings of others via firearms per killing in self defense.

I am aware that not every shoot kills, but killings are the only thing we can get usable data of for various reasons (gun wielders not wanting to involve law enforcement with their legitimate gun usage if the criminal escaped unnecessarily, as to not become the focus of investigation, criminals unwilling to report their being hit while performing a crime) but that also goes both ways, with people merely hurting themselves or relatives accidentaly with a gun, rather than outright killing.

The net benefit of firearms is negative and for self-defense, the efficiency in killing multiple targets is almost always irrelevant, whereas on the attacker side it is very important, so substituting firearms with other means of selfdefense is more reasonable than substituting firearms with other means of killing loads of people in a shooting.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
#34
To the OP, this isn't really about the 2nd Amendment. Yes, that is held up as a defense but it is actually a very poor one for the amount of freedom with respect to firearms Americans currently possess. Logically most types of firearms could be banned while still allowing for a significant militia. You can have a militia with bolt-action rifles, after all it would be asymmetrical warfare we're talking about.

What it is about is taking away the freedoms of every American in response to a handful of crazy Americans.

And even that isn't the actual problem, the actual problem is passing painful legislation with our current form of government. Most politicians aren't interested in risking their chances at re-election to implement change their base doesn't want in the first place.

tldr; It doesn't matter what your proposed fix is when either way it isn't a piece of legislation that will ever get passed into law by our partisan-dominated government.
 
#35
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...4-innocent-people-die/?utm_term=.a0a5e47b554c

So, in terms of actual usage of guns for one's own protection, it is twice as likely that you kill someone in accident than in self-defense. I am fine with ignoring the suicide statistics, because for just killing yourself, the efficiency of firearms is irrelevant, using other means of killing yourself is in fact a proper substitute. But we also have 34 unjust killings of others via firearms per killing in self defense.

I am aware that not every shoot kills, but killings are the only thing we can get usable data of for various reasons (gun wielders not wanting to involve law enforcement with their legitimate gun usage if the criminal escaped unnecessarily, as to not become the focus of investigation, criminals unwilling to report their being hit while performing a crime) but that also goes both ways, with people merely hurting themselves or relatives accidentaly with a gun, rather than outright killing.

The net benefit of firearms is negative and for self-defense, the efficiency in killing multiple targets is almost always irrelevant, whereas on the attacker side it is very important, so substituting firearms with other means of selfdefense is more reasonable than substituting firearms with other means of killing loads of people in a shooting.
No sir or ma’am.

Using a gun in self defense doesn’t mean shooting it. Statistics say the majority of self defense with a gun isn’t shooting that gun. It’s having that gun for the criminal to choose to retreat.

Sorry but the statistics of self defense with a gun shows that most don’t shot that gun, and that legal gun owners aren’t “looking” for a reason to shoot.

Find actual statistics on gun self defense. They say it’s used 100k+ times a year. Rarely shooting.
 
#36
Yes, and that's my point: since we can't control them effectively within a city, we would need more infrastructure to control it in the surrounding territories. When that doesn't work, make it state-wide! When guns still come in from surrounding states, get the Feds to ban them too. Widen the net! Ban the guns! Those criminals and nutjobs won't get the impression that the gov't is cracking down on them and act out accordingly, I'm sure...

But once we've squelched all that, then we're encroaching on something rather uncomfortable: we'd have to have real border security to not allow foreigners to bring in guns. :messenger_confused:
Other countries such as Germany, France or Austria manage as well (though they are not as strict as they ideally would be with firearms). But yes, border control would be required. And guess what? I find border control reasonable. The issue with just doing it in a city is, that cities are only loosely separate units. Cities and countries are not comparable in their autonomy and in terms of capacity to enforce something like gun control.
So the object itself imposes upon your brain and makes you think certain thoughts and leads you to behave certain ways?

Please, go on. How does a gun cause someone to be more violent? How does a gun make a murderer? I'm not asking whether it makes a murderer more effective or dangerous. I believe that's related but separate. How does a gun make a murderer?
I did not say the first thing, just that a gun is different from other things you might buy, because it's only purpose is killing people. A gun does not make people decide to want to kill, but
- it makes murder more feasible
- it makes murder more effective
- it makes murder more efficient
- it brings a sense of power and superiority with it, that goes well beyond other measures chosen to kill people

Lax gun laws such as in the US creates an atmosphere where the presence of firearms and obtianing the required training to be an efficient murderer with a firearm is more feasible.

If you could've save a family by allowing them to defend themselves, it is inhumane to keep them defenseless. I don't think guns are a perfect solution nor the only solution to self-defense. There are numerous other ways to improve the situation as well.
If the aggressor has a firearm himself, then protecting your family with a gun is lottery, if he does not, it is most likely an unneeded escalation of force / violence. There are other, better means for self defense. Above statistics show that the expected net result of owning a gun for the lives of your family is negative.
 
#37
No sir or ma’am.

Using a gun in self defense doesn’t mean shooting it. Statistics say the majority of self defense with a gun isn’t shooting that gun. It’s having that gun for the criminal to choose to retreat.

Sorry but the statistics of self defense with a gun shows that most don’t shot that gun, and that legal gun owners aren’t “looking” for a reason to shoot.

Find actual statistics on gun self defense. They say it’s used 100k+ times a year. Rarely shooting.
Then the positive effect could be had with non-lethal replica as well, without the negative effect. Also these statistics are pure guesswork.

Oh and I do not care if you reference me as male or female, but male would be correct.
 
Last edited:
#38
Then the positive effect could be had with non-lethal replica as well, without the negative effect. Also these statistics are pure guesswork.
No. It’s from the CDC. If it’s guess work, than so is all the studies on guns.

The guess work comes from you assuming a taser would scare a criminal same as a gun.
 
#39
No. It’s from the CDC. If it’s guess work, than so is all the studies on guns.

The guess work comes from you assuming a taser would scare a criminal same as a gun.
If the taser looks exactly the same as a real gun? Now if I were the criminal and wouldn't want to risk being shot, I would certainly fear an object that is visually a perfect replica of a gun the same way as an actual gun. Unless my fear only starts when someone shoots at me, but then we are in a situation when the shooting is the required step for self defense (so above statistics apply). Also, being shot with a taser has a disabling effect, too, so the replica could still serve the protective purpose even in this instance.
 
#40
If the taser looks exactly the same as a real gun? Now if I were the criminal and wouldn't want to risk being shot, I would certainly fear an object that is visually a perfect replica of a gun the same way as an actual gun. Unless my fear only starts when someone shoots at me, but then we are in a situation when the shooting is the required step for self defense (so above statistics apply). Also, being shot with a taser has a disabling effect, too, so the replica could still serve the protective purpose even in this instance.
Again that's guess work by you.

The CDC said that 3-11% of all gun homicides are done by legal gun owners. That guns are used in self defense 500,000 - 3 Million times a year compared to 300,000 violent crimes using guns. But I was being nice and not assuming the high side of self defense while assuming the high side of homicides by legal gun owners.

And the numbers would still show that A) gun owners use their guns 100K+ B) that the vast majority of homicides aren't committed by legal gun owners.

I don't dislike you Yoshi, but if you have to bullshit about your stats, your point is bullshit.
 
#41
OP's plan of creating another group of powerful gun-holding nuts doesn't entirely sound great.

we already have cops, cops have guns, they regularly abuse this privilege, and it's because they are state sanctioned. obviously if we created a gov't sanctioned militia, it would act the same way, probably even have the same people sign up, people that wish they were cops.

you can't just say "oh well let's just limit guns to some people". it doesn't work in the USA. this is why collecting everyone's guns will never work -- the cops still have guns. think cops have a God complex now? how about when they are the only people allowed to carry?

what OP is proposing seems like more of the same, just creating a new class of gun-wielding cops, walling off the rest of us. it would actively make things worse. try another think.
 
Last edited:
#42
I don't dislike you Yoshi, but if you have to bullshit about your stats, your point is bullshit.
Please tell me which stats I used are bullshit. The thing you quoted was not a statistic (obviously, it does not even contain numbers). The statistic on gun usage in self defense, to my best knowledge, is a mere estimate and it does not say anything on whether in those instances the guns were needed or just chosen as means (which, of course, is much more difficult to answer still).
 
#43
Other countries such as Germany, France or Austria manage as well (though they are not as strict as they ideally would be with firearms). But yes, border control would be required. And guess what? I find border control reasonable. The issue with just doing it in a city is, that cities are only loosely separate units. Cities and countries are not comparable in their autonomy and in terms of capacity to enforce something like gun control.
Germany is the size of Montana and France is the size of Texas. Austria is tiny.

This still doesn't answer my concern about the failure of gun laws within the USA and how we are supposed to overcome these shortfalls. Appealing to countries that gun-crazy USA has saved from tyranny several times in the last century as an example of sane laws doesn't necessarily help your case, since one purpose of gun rights is to have an internal preventative against governmental tyranny.

I did not say the first thing, just that a gun is different from other things you might buy, because it's only purpose is killing people. A gun does not make people decide to want to kill, but
- it makes murder more feasible
- it makes murder more effective
- it makes murder more efficient
- it brings a sense of power and superiority with it, that goes well beyond other measures chosen to kill people
So if the gun itself isn't responsible for the action, what is the purpose of banning them? We already restrict them but there appears to be an upper limit to how effective restriction can be. Wouldn't you agree that's the case since all the data indicates that is the case? There is an upper limit to how effective gun laws can be because a non-zero number of criminals will still use them.

Lax gun laws such as in the US creates an atmosphere where the presence of firearms and obtianing the required training to be an efficient murderer with a firearm is more feasible.
So lax laws are responsible for bad behavior. Sorry, but I don't believe in the same ideology as you do. I believe that people make their own decisions and laws can -- at best -- curb those behaviors.

Is it right and just to deprive citizens the ability to own a weapon that a non-zero number of criminals have access to? Is it right and just to force citizens to rely on the government for their safety in all circumstances? I don't think there are simple answers to these questions which is why I don't think banning guns is the solution. Too simple. Too many variables that it fails to solve.

If the aggressor has a firearm himself, then protecting your family with a gun is lottery,
You think it's the government's job to decide what risks a family can take? Many families choose to play that "lottery" instead of waiting for the police.

if he does not, it is most likely an unneeded escalation of force / violence.
Empty words. "most likely" by whose standard? "Unneeded escalation" by whose standard? This isn't your call to make. You want to deprive people the ability to defend themselves using the same tools a criminal uses

Guns have been invented. That genie is out of the bottle. Getting rid of them is impossible.

There are other, better means for self defense. Above statistics show that the expected net result of owning a gun for the lives of your family is negative
Your statistics have been contested by others in the thread.

But it really doesn't matter: am I required to rely on the government for my safety? Is it just to deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves because that same tool is used by criminals?

You also didn't address my comment about the vast history of gov't seizure of weapons. In the majority of cases, banning weapons has been used to oppress and subjugate the populace. If correlation between the number of guns and number of gun-murders is important, than correlation between weapon seizure and gov't oppression should matter too.

It's almost as if the founding fathers had some personal experience with this issue or something...
 
Last edited:
#44
What is about the constitution that people just don’t seem to understand?

It simply affirms our human rights. Rights that every living organism on earth has. Government doesn’t give us the right to breathe, it is our NATURAL right. I shouldn’t need to take permission from a stupid government official (who is also a human like me) whether I can breathe, eat or drink. Owning a gun is no different from owning a spoon or knife or plate or car. It is my human right.
I love you.
 
#45
Please tell me which stats I used are bullshit. The thing you quoted was not a statistic (obviously, it does not even contain numbers). The statistic on gun usage in self defense, to my best knowledge, is a mere estimate and it does not say anything on whether in those instances the guns were needed or just chosen as means (which, of course, is much more difficult to answer still).
I’m done arguing with you. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

You think the numbers I gave you are happy guesswork. If they were I would have given you numbers that were provided by agenda driven groups, not the CDC.

The guesswork is being done by you, guessing that guns in reported self defense situations may not have needed guns.

The numbers are out there. It says that very few homicides are done by legal gun owners. And that legal gun owners use guns in self defense and aren’t trigger happy when doing so.
 
#46
Germany is the size of Montana and France is the size of Texas. Austria is tiny.
And cities are even smaller, so what is your point?
This still doesn't answer my concern about the failure of gun laws within the USA and how we are supposed to overcome these shortfalls. Appealing to countries that gun-crazy USA has saved from tyranny several times in the last century as an example of sane laws doesn't necessarily help your case, since one purpose of gun rights is to have an internal preventative against governmental tyranny.
You must be shitting me. The last case we can talk about here would be Nazi Germany and how on earth do you suspect would Nazi Germany have resolved itself differently with gun laws as they are in the US? Do you envision the jews all shooting down the SS / SA forces and the angry mob going after them? That's deluded, plain and simple. There is absolutely no indication that the US system is particularly safe from ideological extremists. In fact, tea party, Trump, violent social justice activists show that the US system is in fact very compatible with it.
So if the gun itself isn't responsible for the action, what is the purpose of banning them?
Removing a tool whose only purpose is killing from general citizens and drastically reduce the number of such tools existing in the country.
Wouldn't you agree that's the case since all the data indicates that is the case? There is an upper limit to how effective gun laws can be because a non-zero number of criminals will still use them.
Yes, I agree, there is an upper limit to this, you cannot, by putting restrictions on gun ownership, eliminate all instances of illegal gun violence. This limit is far, far from reached by current US law.
So lax laws are responsible for bad behavior. Sorry, but I don't believe in the same ideology as you do. I believe that people make their own decisions and laws can -- at best -- curb those behaviors.
Lax laws enable bad behaviour. By your logic we wouldn't need any laws at all. No one kills just because it is not illegal to do so, so why not remove that restriction as well? Indeed, laws can curb misbehaviour and a law forbidding guns in general populace's hands can curb the behaviour of shooting other people to death.
Is it right and just to force citizens to rely on the government for their safety in all circumstances?
When it comes to use fire arms, yes. It should be a state's privilege.
You think it's the government's job to decide what risks a family can take? Many families choose to play that "lottery" instead of waiting for the police.
It's the government's job to decide what can be freely sold and what cannot. The effectiveness of a very dangerous object for productive purposes is an important point to consider in that regard.
Empty words. "most likely" by whose standard? "Unneeded escalation" by whose standard?
Most likely: I deem it more likely if a criminal has no weapon himself that to scare him off no firearm is required than it being strictly required. Unneeded escalation by the standard of what amount of force is necessary.
But it really doesn't matter: am I required to rely on the government for my safety? Is it just to deprive law-abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves because that same tool is used by criminals?
It is the government's job to ensure the safety of its citizens and developed countries with strcter gun laws such as Japan or EU countries do a much better job at protecting their citizens from being shot unlawfully than the US does.
 
#47
And cities are even smaller, so what is your point?

You must be shitting me. The last case we can talk about here would be Nazi Germany and how on earth do you suspect would Nazi Germany have resolved itself differently with gun laws as they are in the US? Do you envision the jews all shooting down the SS / SA forces and the angry mob going after them? That's deluded, plain and simple. There is absolutely no indication that the US system is particularly safe from ideological extremists. In fact, tea party, Trump, violent social justice activists show that the US system is in fact very compatible with it.
Calm down. You can simply show me how we can improve from the failed city-wide gun bans in the USA. That's all I've asked for but you keep dodging. Like you said, "cities are even smaller", so why can't we get it to work even in cities? "Look at Germany" isn't an argument when they have a different history than ours (as I've pointed out). "Look at France" isn't an argument when they have a different history than ours.

Removing a tool whose only purpose is killing from general citizens and drastically reduce the number of such tools existing in the country.

Yes, I agree, there is an upper limit to this, you cannot, by putting restrictions on gun ownership, eliminate all instances of illegal gun violence. This limit is far, far from reached by current US law.
This is fantasy. The tool's "only purpose" isn't killing, but you've already made up your mind and I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Lax laws enable bad behaviour. By your logic we wouldn't need any laws at all. No one kills just because it is not illegal to do so, so why not remove that restriction as well? Indeed, laws can curb misbehaviour and a law forbidding guns in general populace's hands can curb the behaviour of shooting other people to death.
Many tyrannies would agree with you.

However, I don't believe in governance by "keeping the people safe from themselves".

And since you crammed multiple strawmen in there, I can confidently say you have very little knowledge about ethics and law. To say that "by my logic we wouldn't need any laws at all" is misrepresentation and reducto ad absurdum.

By your same logic, we should just make "violence" illegal to curb people from hurting one another. That'll fix the problem, right?

Personally, I'd like to have a real discussion, not the clacking of retarded truisms that are easily disproven. Either keep up with the discussion Yoshi or go hit the books. You're falling too far behind.

When it comes to use fire arms, yes. It should be a state's privilege.
Many tyrannies would agree with you here, too.

It's the government's job to decide what can be freely sold and what cannot. The effectiveness of a very dangerous object for productive purposes is an important point to consider in that regard.
Sure, and in a representative gov't we get to tell the government how to make those calls. In the case of the USA, we've told the government to leave our gun ownership alone. It's even written into our constitution! Seems like things are working as intended, then.

Most likely: I deem it more likely if a criminal has no weapon himself that to scare him off no firearm is required than it being strictly required. Unneeded escalation by the standard of what amount of force is necessary.
And you believe your opinion and what you deem should determine the forms of defense that all the other citizens of the country can have access to? No thanks. Since you don't even have a basic grasp on the structure of civil and criminal law, I consider your uneducated standpoint on the matter to be irrelevant.

It is the government's job to ensure the safety of its citizens and developed countries with strcter gun laws such as Japan or EU countries do a much better job at protecting their citizens from being shot unlawfully than the US does.
In a representative government, it is the government's job to carry out the means of safety that people vote on and pass into law. Pointing to smaller countries than the USA with a different history than ours doesn't explain why gun laws inside of the USA are failing to curb gun violence. This would be "whataboutism".

Why do California and liberal cities like Chicago have skyrocketing gun violence in spite of strict laws?

"Whatabout Japan" is not an answer to the above question.

Still haven't answered me when it comes to the historical seizure of weapons. Why?
 
Last edited:
#48
I’m done arguing with you. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

You think the numbers I gave you are happy guesswork. If they were I would have given you numbers that were provided by agenda driven groups, not the CDC.

The guesswork is being done by you, guessing that guns in reported self defense situations may not have needed guns.

The numbers are out there. It says that very few homicides are done by legal gun owners. And that legal gun owners use guns in self defense and aren’t trigger happy when doing so.
Exactly. For some reason people who want to "ban" or limit gun ownership lumps all the millions of legal and law abiding gun owners with criminals and people with mental issues. If I said we should ban alcohol because look at how it damages and kills innocent people's lives on a daily basis, then people would use the same argument.

It's just like my most hated lazy management decision that generally occurs at work. If a couple of people are abusing a policy, say taking long lunches, instead of confronting those people that are actually abusing the policy, management just makes everyone badge in and out. Punish everyone instead of dealing with the main issue. And the main reason for this is that dealing with the real issue is hard and takes thought and effort and people are lazy.

My main argument and question is how do you stop crazy?
 
#50
Calm down. You can simply show me how we can improve from the failed city-wide gun bans in the USA. That's all I've asked for but you keep dodging. Like you said, "cities are even smaller", so why can't we get it to work even in cities? "Look at Germany" isn't an argument when they have a different history than ours (as I've pointed out). "Look at France" isn't an argument when they have a different history than ours.
Banning a product only in a city in an open country cannot work in principle, because you do not have border controls in cities and due to the very small space of a city when compared to a country, distribution of illegal products over the borders of the city is very simple. It does not work because a city does not have the infrastrcture of a whole country. I will leave it at that to ensure you read the most relevant points, because they seem to have escaped your attention before.
This is fantasy. The tool's "only purpose" isn't killing, but you've already made up your mind and I doubt I can convince you otherwise.
Killing or threatening to kill.
Many tyrannies would agree with you.
This is not an argument. It is a variant of reductio at Hitlerium. Just because tyrannies would agree with a point does not make that point wrong.
However, I don't believe in governance by "keeping the people safe from themselves".
Restricting guns makes people safe from others who wield guns. I explicitly excluded suicide from my argument. I was just talking about unjust shootings and accidents, though admittedly, in accidents, it is also possible to kill the owner himself.
Sure, and in a representative gov't we get to tell the government how to make those calls. In the case of the USA, we've told the government to leave our gun ownership alone. It's even written into our constitution! Seems like things are working as intended, then.
And that's your right, as it is mine to say it's pretty stupid.
And you believe your opinion and what you deem should determine the forms of defense that all the other citizens of the country can have access to? No thanks. Since you don't even have a basic grasp on the structure of civil and criminal law, I consider your uneducated standpoint on the matter to be irrelevant.
No, I should not have governance over the US, but still I am allowed to have an opinion on what would be the best course of action.
Still haven't answered me when it comes to the historical seizure of weapons. Why?
I have, you just did not understand it. Refer to point one of this posting. Border controls. Infrastructure. Small area.