discuss Gun Laws

[Bernard Wright]

This is just a hodgepodge of thoughts. I won't distinguish between good and bad people. I'll focus on peoples' actions.

Bad actors shouldn't have guns for committing acts of violence against innocent people, nor for threatening innocent people with potential violence. It would be nice if society could prevent a bad actor from obtaining the gun used in a bad act.

Good actors should have the right to defend themselves and others against bad actors with necessary force. Such force includes the threat of lethal violence, and the use of lethal violence if necessary.

Bad actors don't have regard for the rule of law when acting in a criminal manner.

Society is comprised of individuals pursuing their own interests. Laws are instated to ensure that individuals' rights are not infringed upon by another person or entity. When an individual infringes upon another individual's rights, there are criminal and civil procedures to deal with such matters, overseen by our governing officials. In extreme cases, when the infringing party is a usurping government, it is up to the citizens to protect their natural freedoms from that government. This happens rarely, but it happens. It is wise for an individual to aspire to maintain his/her own personal sovereignty and ability to protect him/herself from unjust threats.

A good actor is responsible for protecting him/herself and, if desired, other people from threats and acts of violence. When police officers are capable of assisting, assistance is welcomed, but the police's main duty is to maintain law and order, not to protect another individual from immediate threat. The individual's primal concern is his/her own personal safety, and this is a responsibility that lies within every individual when faced with a threat of violence.

A gun is a tool. A gun can do a number of things. Here are three examples.

1. a gun can be used to engage in a violent act.
2. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a violent act.
3. a gun can be used to deescalate/end a threat of violence.

We are all players in society with an interest in pursuing our best interests and defending our well-being. Laws that would take guns away from some bad actors are sure to also result in fewer armed good actors who could deescalate violent and potentially violent situations. Violence is not good. Good actors with guns end violent situations more quickly and effectively than good actors without guns do. There are hundreds of millions of firearms on this planet. A bad actor with the desire to obtain a gun will always have the means to locate a gun. Black markets are real.

Good actors should have the legal right to possess guns in order to protect themselves, and others, from bad actors.

 

[Joe N]

You want me to write up the new legislation?

Make handguns and assault weapons inaccessible. Make the rest more difficult to acquire and retain.

Now you'll ask me how to do it. The answer is that it's going to take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a majority of the population that is brave enough to make the change.

 

[Bernard Wright]

There are guns in the hands of people, some of them bad actors, and your solution is simply to "make them inaccessible". It will take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a lot of people ...to achieve this thing you have yet to explain how achieve.

You think too many bad actors have guns. I agree with you. You say the remedy is to make guns inaccessible. And after your plan is carried out, none of the bad actors will have guns? Intriguing concept. Again Joe. More specifically, how do you propose we make hundreds of millions of guns inaccessible in the US?

 

[Joe N]

There are guns in the hands of people, some of them bad actors, and your solution is simply to "make them inaccessible". It will take a long time, a lot of work, a courageous government, and a lot of people ...to achieve this thing you have yet to explain how achieve.

You think too many bad actors have guns. I agree with you. You say the remedy is to make guns inaccessible. And after your plan is carried out, none of the bad actors will have guns? Intriguing concept. Again Joe. More specifically, how do you propose we make hundreds of millions of guns inaccessible in the US?

Legislation and enforcement, Bernard. The same way you make any change in a democracy.

You keep asking for more specifics. You need to ask more specific questions. You could keep up with this generic "how" line of questioning forever. How is decided by politicians, policy makers, and law enforcememt officials. Are you asking me what I would do if I were one of them? Are you actually asking me to write out legislation for you, and then a detailed national plan for execution and enforcement of said legislation? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

All the general public needs to decide is if gun ownership is a good idea. I said it's not. I told you why. You tell me why it is. How is gun ownership benefitting today's America?

 

[Bernard Wright]

I don't mean to make this antagonistic or "ridiculous", but you're going to have to keep some realities in mind.

• There are more guns than people in the US. Let that sink in a bit. That's a lot of guns.
  
• The undeveloped countries you don't want to compare us to are not stable, and many of their citizens are finding their way into the US. With their illegal entry comes their culture, their attitudes, and a need to survive in an unfamiliar land where they probably are not equipped to excel in the US economy.
  
• The people who are least likely to want to follow the legislation you propose fall into two camps.

1. The very criminals you are concerned about, and would write the legislation for
2. Those who are suspicious of their government's intentions in drafting such legislation

Touching upon #1, you'll have to convince a lot of would-be robbers, would-be wife-murderers, would-be mass shooters (and I'll leave it at those three; those are the examples that have been provided in this thread) to hand over their guns because it's illegal to have them now. I don't know how one would convince someone who would ever consider committing a violet crime/robbery/etc with a firearm that they should willingly hand all of their guns to the authorities because "Guns are bad now. See? It says so on this document." Everyone who has ever committed, or would commit, a robbery with a firearm. Anyone who would consider committing a mass-shooting, etc. Just knock on their door and tell them to give you their guns instead. All of their guns. (I edited this paragraph)

Regarding #2, similar challenges will arise with respect to many of those who would never commit a crime with a firearm. Many are very suspicious of the government. It might be reasonable to conclude that an attempt to seize privately-owned firearms might escalate to unprecedented levels of violence against the government, among those who distrust the government, and perhaps lead to a civil war. I don't think that scenario to be far-fetched in the least. And again, keep in mind that we're talking making all guns inaccessible. That's going to require a lot of snooping inside of closets, under beds, etc. I don't want the police doing that in my house.

Or maybe you think collecting all the registered firearms is good enough. That's a shortsighted view to hold. Do you really think it's the law-abiding, firearm-registering gun owners that are most problematic? I'll answer that. It's not. It's the 34 you mentioned for every one "self-defense" gun. Take the self-defense guns away and watch the bad actors run amok.

Your intentions are good. But you cannot resolve this issue by simply saying, there is a problem, so make it illegal and it will go away. And you can't say, just copy the laws of another country. Give 400 million guns to one of those countries you named in your post. Do you think the law is going to be effective?

The only effective countermeasure to force is counter-force. Keeping guns in the hands of would-be good actors keeps the system in check. It lets the would-be bad actors know that their deeds might be met with counterforce, and it enables the chance of counterforce to exist when violence occurs. There's no better landscape for a would-be violent criminal than an unarmed populous on which to prey. It would be great if we could all hold hands and sing We Are The World, but there are people within a mile radius of you right now who would do harm to you for your possessions. There is evil in this world. That is not going to change. Gun rights ensure that your ability to defend yourself, your property, and the ones you love is maintained, should you choose to. (edited that last sentence to read Gun rights instead of Gun laws, as was written initially)

 

[Bernard Wright]

That was a long one, and I'm kicking myself for not keeping it concise and focusing on the most-obvious and pertinent fact: it's impossible to get 400 million guns out of the hands of the public. It's just not even remotely possible. Cops can look in closets and under beds all they want. Even if there were the manpower to do so, it wouldn't yield the intended result.

Calling it another day over here.

 

[Joe N]

So all that to say that your solution is: "It's hard, so let's not try"?

 

[accuname]

Blades force you to take a very intimate role in killing another person. Guns let you dissociate and kill from a distance with little more difficulty than flicking a light switch.

Well I hear intimacy is a good thing so not so sure about this reasoning. Maybe the problem is that people in general have issues with intimacy? Maybe the solution is to make guns more intimate AND provide therapy to help people with intimacy issues surrounding killing. Don't laugh please - it's clear this issue requires thinking outside the box.

 

[HotKey]

I don't see any clear points being made other than guns exist. They do.

The clear point is, you do not need nor deserve to have a firearm. Prove that you do.

What are you looking for, Bernard? Perhaps deep down you know there is something off with America's obsession with firearms?

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privilege. It can only be granted to those who can respect that privilege, not those on a whim some sort of "personal right", where enacting in moments of an unsettled mind can result in consequences forever changed. Moving this line of thought, and implementing it via law, along with then eradicating illegal possession, will take years, decades. But it must be done.

They are like vehicles. In the wrong hands, automatic killing machines. This is why the ability to drive a vehicle requires a license. But even then, look at the damage vehicles have done. Good gun laws is not the only solution. Everything comes down to the individual, and the decisions they choose to make. If someone want a gun, or to use a vehicle to drive down a bunch of innocents, they will find a way to do so, regardless of the laws in place. But we can try, can't we?

"We are at one of the great turning points in human history when the survival of our planet and the restoration of our humanity require a great sea change in our ecological, economic, political, and spiritual values." Grace Lee Boggs

 

[Joe N]

Well I hear intimacy is a good thing so not so sure about this reasoning. Maybe the problem is that people in general have issues with intimacy? Maybe the solution is to make guns more intimate AND provide therapy to help people with intimacy issues surrounding killing. Don't laugh please - it's clear this issue requires thinking outside the box.

No laughing, I promise. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

 

[Bernard Wright]

So all that to say that your solution is: "It's hard, so let's not try"?

What, specifically are you calling "hard"?

1. Passing legislation is hard, you mean?
   
2. Ending unnecessary gun violence is hard, you mean?
   
3. Confiscating guns from owners is hard, you mean?

1. The least-difficult of the three. It could be tried, but I don't believe it would result in the outcomes most of the citizens of the US would set out to achieve in passing such legislation. My previous posts explain why.

2. Indeed it is hard. And realistically, violence will never completely end.

3. It's impossible to seize 400 million guns. We don't even know how many there really are. How do we know when we've seized the last gun? How do we quarantine the homes and property of those who have already been searched to ensure they don't amass stockpiles after the fact? Is this even up for consideration in your mind? Start knocking on gun owners doors and tell them to give you all their guns. Let's see how your day goes.

Again, I don't doubt that you are well-intentioned. Your solutions just aren't grounded in reality.

 

[Bernard Wright]

The clear point is, you do not need nor deserve to have a firearm. Prove that you do.

When the threat of lethal force exists, every citizen has the god-given right to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their way of life from the use of that lethal force when it is in the hands of people who would threaten those things. If someone has a gun and threatens to use it against you, you have the right to protect yourself by all means necessary. Some means are more effective than others. The most effective countermeasure when faced with lethal force is lethal force in turn.

What are you looking for, Bernard? Perhaps deep down you know there is something off with America's obsession with firearms?

I don't think Americans are obsessed with firearms. So, no. I don't know this.

Owning firearms is not a right, it is a privilege.

I think this might be my final post in this thread. The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights is the very tenant we are discussing. It is a bill of rights. I'm not here to debate the obvious.

they will find a way to do so, regardless of the laws in place. But we can try, can't we?

You answered your own question right there. Seriously. It's not the responsible, law-abiding gun owners anyone in this thread are concerned with. Some people would surely surrender their firearms if a bill were passed to such effect. But the individuals society should be most concerned with are the gun owners who have no regard for the law, no regard for human life, and/or are mentally unstable. I have made this point clear many times that the only countermeasure to force in the hands of such people is equal or superior force. It's a fact. That kid in the article you linked to couldn't have asked the shooter to put down the gun and hand it over. The only thing that could have saved the kid from that shooter was for the shooter to either run out of ammo or to be taken out. Would-be shooters are going to have a lot more time to use up all their ammo so long as they can act out their crimes uncontested.

Tell a murderer guns are illegal. Murderers don't care about legality.

Pass a law, start confiscating guns, watch gun owners start shooting the confiscators. Watch things escalate to civil war. All in the name of ending violence.

This might be my last. I'm repeating myself a lot in these posts, and I'm debating the obvious.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Yeah, just saw this thread in current post window and wanted to jump in, and then back out.

On more than occasion in my life, a gun has saved my life. I've been self employed for 90% of my life and at times carried large amounts of cash...it doesn't take a criminal too long to figure out who the main man (or woman) is at a business and target them for robbery.

Had a crackhead once try to get into my house (thinking he was on the other side of town and out of his mind) carrying a machete and insisting he get free drugs...a gun saved me and my family that time as well.

Once I ran a bear out of my garage by firing a weapon in its general direction.

Once I am provided a 24 hour guard(s) to protect me and my family wherever and whenever I (they) live or travel, then you may ask for my weapon.

 

[Joe N]

What, specifically are you calling "hard"?

1. Passing legislation is hard, you mean?
   
2. Ending unnecessary gun violence is hard, you mean?
   
3. Confiscating guns from owners is hard, you mean?

1. The least-difficult of the three. It could be tried, but I don't believe it would result in the outcomes most of the citizens of the US would set out to achieve in passing such legislation. My previous posts explain why.

2. Indeed it is hard. And realistically, violence will never completely end.

3. It's impossible to seize 400 million guns. We don't even know how many there really are. How do we know when we've seized the last gun? How do we quarantine the homes and property of those who have already been searched to ensure they don't amass stockpiles after the fact? Is this even up for consideration in your mind? Start knocking on gun owners doors and tell them to give you all their guns. Let's see how your day goes.

Again, I don't doubt that you are well-intentioned. Your solutions just aren't grounded in reality.

You can't ransack people's homes looking for guns... people have rights. Make them illegal and impose heavy fines on people who are caught owning unregistered or illegal weapons.

Will you get rid of all guns? Of course not. There are illegal guns in all countries. The point is to start the process so that eventually attitudes change, fewer and fewer guns become accessible over time, and gun violence decreases. The process could take decades. You need to start somewhere, though.

What kind of nation would you live in if your leaders were constantly throwing their hands in the air and exclaiming, "This is too hard! Let's give up!"? Slavery would still be legal... Women would still not be allowed to vote... The British would still run the country (which is the whole reason the 2nd amendment exists... FYI: it's no longer an issue).

By your logic, we should make drugs legal as well. Lots of people possess and use them illegally, so why bother trying to stop them? Wal-mart should sell crack and heroin right alongside their gun display. Now you've got yourself a fun weekend!

You say people have the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary. Who determines what's necessary? Terrorists bomb people, so can I install landmines around my property to protect myself? Are you okay with militia patrolling the streets unchecked in some communities in order to provide "necessary protection"? Where does it end?

 

[Joe N]

Yeah, just saw this thread in current post window and wanted to jump in, and then back out.

On more than occasion in my life, a gun has saved my life. I've been self employed for 90% of my life and at times carried large amounts of cash...it doesn't take a criminal too long to figure out who the main man (or woman) is at a business and target them for robbery.

Had a crackhead once try to get into my house (thinking he was on the other side of town and out of his mind) carrying a machete and insisting he get free drugs...a gun saved me and my family that time as well.

Once I ran a bear out of my garage by firing a weapon in its general direction.

Once I am provided a 24 hour guard(s) to protect me and my family wherever and whenever I (they) live or travel, then you may ask for my weapon.

Very cool input. And glad to hear you were able to keep your family safe on both occasions.

I'm not arguing that a gun can't be a useful tool. In the right situation, it absolutely has a place. But that's not justification for handing them out like candy...

 

[Mister Funsky]

handing them out like candy...

I agree...there needs to be a more comprehensive background check system.

But, having had my feet (at least one foot) in the security industry for more than two decades, the one thing that is clear is that criminals and those unable to legally get weapons will still be able to do so. Also, they are not that hard to make.

There was a great story done on that by one of the major networks a few years ago...they showed how many 3rd world countries have learned to make fairly good knock offs of the AK family using wood fires and bellows to create the metal parts.

The awful reality is that the bad guys and girls will always find a way to beat the system...we (citizens of the world) are ultimately responsible to protect ourselves and loved ones...the reality for me is that I am getting too slow and tired to defend myself (or others) with a stick or knife.

 

[Joe N]

I agree...there needs to be a more comprehensive background check system.

Yes, at the very least.

The awful reality is that the bad guys and girls will always find a way to beat the system...we (citizens of the world) are ultimately responsible to protect ourselves and loved ones...the reality for me is that I am getting too slow and tired to defend myself (or others) with a stick or knife.

This argument seems to pop up a lot. Yes, bad people will always find a way to do bad things, but simple logic dictates that the harder you make something, the less people will be inclined to do it.

There's no black and white answer that will solve everything. That's why you need to play the odds. Statistics show time and time again that guns cause problems far more often than they create solutions for the average American. Make them illegal, and yes... you will lose some of those solutions; but you'll also rid the country of far more problems. Not only that, but you'll create opportunities for people to discover newer, safer solutions!

I'm a big believer in self-fulfilling prophecies. As long as you live in a place where the majority of people feel like they need to own a gun to defend themselves, your reality will reflect that belief.

 

[Mister Funsky]

This argument seems to pop up a lot

Not an argument friend. Just a cold, hard fact.

 

[Bernard Wright]

I'm a big believer in self-fulfilling prophecies. As long as you live in a place where the majority of people feel like they need to own a gun to defend themselves, your reality will reflect that belief.

I'm a big believer in unintended consequences. Draft a bill restricting gun rights and many citizens will rush to purchase a gun with no understanding of how to use or store firearms. The 34 to one problem you mentioned earlier is precipitated by such gun owners. The more unseasoned, uncommitted gun owners we have, the more likely for gun theft and black market transactions to flourish. That is why I concluded that the only logical answer to your 34-1 dilemma is for gun owners to act responsibly, and stow their firearms securely. Putting US citizens in a crunch, making them think their gun rights are in jeopardy, might flood the market with rush purchases and make firearms more accessible in the long run to those who you don't want to possess them. It might also make people in dire economic straits more likely to consider purchasing a gun to sell on the black market. I don't know what all the unintended consequences would be, but don't expect many not to arise from even the proposal of further legislation. Perhaps sound legislation can be enacted. But it must be brought forth with much care and consideration. There is no easy fix.

 

[Joe N]

Not an argument friend. Just a cold, hard fact.

And yet it's a useless fact. The sky is blue... water is wet... bad people do bad things. So what? That alone should stop us from taking action?

 

[Joe N]

I'm a big believer in unintended consequences. Draft a bill restricting gun rights and many citizens will rush to purchase a gun with no understanding of how to use or store firearms. The 34 to one problem you mentioned earlier is precipitated by such gun owners. The more unseasoned, uncommitted gun owners we have, the more likely for gun theft and black market transactions to flourish. That is why I concluded that the only logical answer to your 34-1 dilemma is for gun owners to act responsibly, and stow their firearms securely. Putting US citizens in a crunch, making them think their gun rights are in jeopardy, might flood the market with rush purchases and make firearms more accessible in the long run to those who you don't want to possess them. It might also make people in dire economic straits more likely to consider purchasing a gun to sell on the black market. I don't know what all the unintended consequences would be, but don't expect many not to arise from even the proposal of further legislation. Perhaps sound legislation can be enacted. But it must be brought forth with much care and consideration. There is no easy fix.

Big problems are never easy to fix. There will be blow-back. There will be unintended consequences. But the end result is worth it.

It's not enough to kindly ask everyone to "please use and stow your guns responsibly". That's not even a new solution; it's status quo.