Gun Control

[stuward]

The most valid argument against gun control, and I think the main reason for the "Right to bear arms" is to protect the citizenry from it's own government. Facebook is rampant with example lately of genocides coming on the heels of gun restrictions. Turkey, Russia, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia are given as examples from the 20th century. It may seem extreme but it happens.

Nah, I think that's the worst argument. People don't have what it takes to engage in the kind of long brutal insurgency that would be required to overthrow a government. People like to talk tough, but nowadays about 99.99999% are soft and weak. Those that aren't are probably Navy Seals.

Maybe in North America it seems unrealistic but Romania did successfully overthrow their government in 1989. The defection of the army undoubtedly help but it was a popular uprising.

[Ironman]

A) Giving up my constitutional rights in the name of science doesn't sound very attractive to me. Would you feel the same way if we were talking about free speech or due process?

<facepalm> That was an analogy. We're not really doing anything for science.
Those 3 things don't compare by the way. For one the constitution is what says you get the right, it is NOT the reason the right is in there. There is a reason for a right being there. When you look at these reasons they are not the same at all. Americans are never going to be able to stop their government with all the guns in the world. If they were allowed to have 50 Cal machine guns and rocket launchers it still wouldn't happen.


My support of gun right is not and has never been about that. You may as well say the 2nd amendment is so you can shoot the ground and launch yourself to the moon because that's about as realistic as the stated purpose.

My support of gun rights is because people should, for the most part be able to do whatever they want. I think people have a right to go hunting, collect guns, go to the shooting range, and all that sort of thing. I can even see self defense although really it should be supplemental as it's no substitute for a security system. It also requires training, and big pair of balls. You need to be able to shoot straight, and you need to be prepared to look someone in the eye and shoot them dead, or shouldn't even draw the weapon, because that's what it might come to.

So if something is causing a safety issue, we might need to think about that.
That brings me to:

Would you feel the same way if we were talking about free speech

Yes, if it is a safety issue. For example, shout "fire" in a public theater, or inciting a riot. Those are not covered by free speech because of safety issues.

So even if these rights did compare, it is not unprecedented to abridge it in the name of safety. It should only be done in situations that extreme though, where people could really be in danger.

We've already had an assault weapons ban that included a ban on high-capacity magazines. It failed.

Actually it was allowed to expire, mainly because Democrats viewed it as the reason for their defeat in 1994, and didn't want anything to do with it anymore.
Whether it worked or failed is debatable. My opinion is the idea may have been ok but ultimately it was flawed. Too much restriction for not enough benefit basically. That's just my opinion though.

Support for gun rights comes largely from gun owners.

You'd be surprised. I don't have any guns, and I'm largely in favor of them. I'm in favor of pretty much the same restrictions you are, like background checks and closing loopholes.
It's just that now I'm starting to think that maybe a little more restriction might be a good idea. So I'm not even reversing my position on any of it, I'm just reevaluating, I'm thinking it's possible I might have been wrong about something like the high capacity magazines. I wouldn't be in favor of banning "assault weapons" though, because nobody even knows what that means. Naming specific things would be something to consider, but only to consider.


So in other words I agree with you despite thinking your arguments are mostly bad. However I am at least willing to consider that I'm not 100% right.

[Ironman]

Maybe in North America it seems unrealistic but Romania did successfully overthrow their government in 1989. The defection of the army undoubtedly help but it was a popular uprising.

Yes, that's right.I'm just talking about North America. Other places have a weaker military and tougher citizens.

[Matt Z]

"Now on the other end of this argument, are assault rifles necessary for this? Personally...I'm not really sure. But I do want to point out a couple things-" - Rucifer

An assault rifle is a select-fire military weapon. For example, the M-16, M-4, AK-47, AKM, AK-74 and Galil are assault rifles. A civilian AR-15 is not a true assault rifle.

"Assault weapon" is a vauge term created by politicians. I've seen everything from belt-fed machine guns to revolvers refered to as assault weapons.

[Matt Z]

"<facepalm> That was an analogy. We're not really doing anything for science." - Ironman

I was being sarcastic. My point is that giving up my freedoms just to see what happens doesn't appeal to me. Meanwhile, to conduct a valid experiment one would need to control all the variables. That simply isn't possible with what you're describing.

[Matt Z]

"Actually it was allowed to expire, mainly because Democrats viewed it as the reason for their defeat in 1994, and didn't want anything to do with it anymore.
Whether it worked or failed is debatable. My opinion is the idea may have been ok but ultimately it was flawed. Too much restriction for not enough benefit basically. That's just my opinion though." - Ironman

The federal assault weapon ban banned specific types of semi-automatic rifle based on superficial features like pistol grips and bayonette lugs. I actually own a semi-auto AK that was made durring the ban. The only difference between my rifle and the pre-ban equivalent is that my rifle lacks a bayonette lug and flash hider.

Also, pre-ban high-capacity rifle magazines remained available (and affordable) throughout the ban.

The only noticable effect of the ban was that high-capacity pistol magazines became expensive and difficult to find. This led many gun buyers to choose large-caliber handguns.

[Matt Z]

I should probably explain that with handguns there's an inverse relationship between caliber and capacity. For example the Glock 17 (9mm) has a standard magazine capacity of 17 rounds, while the slightly larger Glock 21 (.45 ACP) has a standard magazine capacity of 13 rounds. Limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds eliminated one of the main selling points of the smaller caliber (9mm) pistol.

[Jungledoc]

If anyone expects gun control of any kind to decrease the tragedies like the school or theater shootings, they are way off. No one here has mentioned (that I have noticed) the issue of mental health services. I would guess that most of the countries with low rates of violent crime have well-developed mental health care. In the US we started with big institutions, started shrinking and closing them in the 1950, then have offered less and less and weaker and weaker outpatient psychiatric services ever since. I believe that we could have avoided many of the major shooting incidents if the perpetrators had been properly diagnosed and treated (involuntarily if necessary) many years before.

[Ironman]

"Actually it was allowed to expire, mainly because Democrats viewed it as the reason for their defeat in 1994, and didn't want anything to do with it anymore.
Whether it worked or failed is debatable. My opinion is the idea may have been ok but ultimately it was flawed. Too much restriction for not enough benefit basically. That's just my opinion though." - Ironman

The federal assault weapon ban banned specific types of semi-automatic rifle based on superficial features like pistol grips and bayonette lugs. I actually own a semi-auto AK that was made durring the ban. The only difference between my rifle and the pre-ban equivalent is that my rifle lacks a bayonette lug and flash hider.

Also, pre-ban high-capacity rifle magazines remained available (and affordable) throughout the ban.

The only noticable effect of the ban was that high-capacity pistol magazines became expensive and difficult to find. This led many gun buyers to choose large-caliber handguns.

Yea, that's the same problem I had with it.

[Ironman]

If anyone expects gun control of any kind to decrease the tragedies like the school or theater shootings, they are way off. No one here has mentioned (that I have noticed) the issue of mental health services. I would guess that most of the countries with low rates of violent crime have well-developed mental health care. In the US we started with big institutions, started shrinking and closing them in the 1950, then have offered less and less and weaker and weaker outpatient psychiatric services ever since. I believe that we could have avoided many of the major shooting incidents if the perpetrators had been properly diagnosed and treated (involuntarily if necessary) many years before.

I mentioned mental healthcare. That is actually what I think should be the primary area of focus. It is largely ignored in this country. In China it is even more ignored, and it's hard to get guns there, and the result is people going on rampages with knives. Economic disparity and other societal issues also contribute to violent crime. Mental health is by far the most important though. It needs to be covered, and we need to lessen the stigma.

Of course if there is a push to do something about that, the same conservatives that are pointing to mental health now during all the gun talk, are going to be screaming socialism and crying about rich people.

If Democrats are smart they will push some comprehensive mental health coverage through while Republicans are desperately trying to deflect attention away from guns. They of course won't though, because a lot of them are almost as dumb as Republicans.

I think what will happen is Senate Republicans will filibuster the mental healthcare plan that Democrats are going to come up with. About half the Democrats are going to push for getting the party to work on gun control legislation, and get the support of maybe 2 Republicans tops. Then the other half of the Democrats will say "no way", and that will be the end of it.

While I am at it, I will also predict that on the "fiscal cliff" Obama will agree to 80% of what the Republicans want, they will still refuse. We will go off the cliff. We will lose triple A rating temporarily. Middle class tax cut will eventually go through summer to fall of next year, taking the middle class back to where they are now. Republicans will be against that tax cut at first until Democrats start saying "why won't Republicans cut your taxes", Republicans will cave soon after.

[hoosegow]

Off subject...
Ironman - Mental healthcare plan?

I thought we now have a comprehensive healthcare plan. Am I wrong? Won't we all have the mental healthcare now currently available through medicare and medicaid? So we are all good on that in... Right?

It just seems like that issue is now resolved.

[Matt Z]

"I mentioned mental healthcare. That is actually what I think should be the primary area of focus." - Ironman

Right now, the focus seems to be almost entirely on gun control, with only breif, passing mension of mental health and violence in media. Every specific suggestion I've heard has dealt with gun control.

I don't believe this new push was actually motivated by Sandy Hook. Rather I think the Obama administration is taking advantage of a tragedy to advance an agenda that has been planned for some time (certainly since before the election).

[Ironman]

I thought we now have a comprehensive healthcare plan. Am I wrong?

VERY. We have a half-assed watered down shell of a healthcare plan. basically the poor can get help buying insurance, and we can buy insurance under one big umbrella to get a better rate. It also prevents companies from dropping customers when they get sick, or refusing to cover preexisting conditions.

That's it.

It helps but it's far from a healthcare plan.

Won't we all have the mental healthcare now currently available through medicare and medicaid?

Medicare does, but I don't think medicaid does, I'm not sure though.

Besides even if you have health insurance, our society as a whole largely ignores mental health, and people don't view it as a real medical problem.

[Ironman]

the Obama administration is taking advantage of a tragedy to advance an agenda that has been planned for some time

No, that's NRA alternate reality Obama you're thinking of. It's the Obama that has a thick vandyke.
Planet earth Obama has never said much about it until now.

Although it could be that alternate reality Obama shaved and took his place.

[Matt Z]

"Planet earth Obama has never said much about it until now." - Ironman

Exactly. Throughout his first term as president he downplayed his stance on gun control even following other high profile mass shootings. Now one month after his re-election he rolls out his gun violence task force. Do you really think the timing is a coincidence?