The Gun Debate

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 23rd Jan, '13, 22:10

So, all we need to do is disarm / arrest / lock up 100% of people that are planning to commit mass murder (either with or without first murdering their own mother)? Good plan.

That's impossible, obviously. So, therefore, I suppose the next logical step is to assume that everyone is a potential mass murderer and treat the entire population accordingly? President Obama needs you in Washington, you've got potential!

Remember FB - anyone in the US that is smart enough to figure out how to buy cocaine (which is 100% illegal, completely banned in all 50 US states and our two neighboring nations, requires a trans-continental smuggling network and is available in any medium sized US town) can figure out how to buy guns too. Illegally, of course, but if you're willing to commit mass murder you don't care about laws. These nutjobs are not stupid, to the contrary they mostly seem to exhibit meticulous planning. Depriving the other 99.9% of law abiding citizens of their constitutional right is not a logical solution.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 24th Jan, '13, 08:13

Haven't you seen the Minority Report? It is possible to use precognition....but fraught with dangers!

(Back to serious) So if it's impossible to lock up the people who have yet committed any crime, surely you should lock up as many instruments which can help them commit the crimes which are not really needed for much else?

If you keep on telling yourself that you'll always be able to buy illegal guns, then that will be the case. Remove on source of illegal guns, and though it's a probably only a drop in the ocean, you are reducing the availability of the weapon of choice.

The mass murdering nutjob types are not your average criminal. They are loners, people who are disassociated from society. If you think that, in a moment of clarity, they acquire the social skills to be able to make a illegal gun purchase from whoever supplies the weapons, then I think you give them one hell of a lot of credit.

And if you make gun ownership illegal, you are no longer looking for the needle in a haystack. Everyone with a gun on their person, in their homes, will be breaking the law.

Oh, of course, constitutional rights come before safety. So why aren't US citizens allowed to carry out their constitutional rights at all times?

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 24th Jan, '13, 12:25

I cannot possibly address the issue of illusions of "safety" any better than Benjamin Franklin did in 1755:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

But here, you can quote me on this one:

"Perhaps when we're all locked up in padded rooms eating soylent green with dull wooden spoons - then we can all be 'safe'."

We are not going to repeal the 2nd and 4th Amendments (the 4th gives guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures). It would require both to accomplish the protracted Soviet-style national kick-in-the-doors confiscation exercise you propose. Even then, criminals would still have access to guns. It would be a useless and destructive exercise.

Seriously, think of the example I gave you. Cocaine has been illegal for decades in the entire US and in Canada and in Mexico. The US has spent bazillions on a "war on drugs". We've got a federal law enforcement agency (DEA) focused on the complete eradication of the illegal narcotics trade. We've put DEA agents in the origin countries, trained their police and militaries to stop smuggling, etc. The smuggling network to get it to the US starts in central South America for Christ's sake!

And I'm reliably informed that anyone with a little motivation can find cocaine in any medium sized city in the US. Any nutjob that is willing and able to plan and execute a mass murder could handle it, I'm sure. Lots of loners, rejects, losers, etc in the US manage to buy drugs every day. I think you are vastly over-estimating the amoung of "social skills" that it requires to score some coke, dude! Drug dealers don't only sell to the captain of the football team, the prom queen and the kid with 1000 Facebook friends.

Reasonable limits to constitutional rights exist. The classic being, in relation to the 1st Amendment, that one cannot falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The thousands of gun laws we presently have in the US constitute more than enough reasonable limits to the 2nd Amendment. We need to vigorously enforce the many laws we have (as I stated above). Many are presently ignored - and yet the solution is to pass more feel good laws that will not impede criminals at all?

slinky · Post by **slinky** » 30th Jan, '13, 12:05

Yeah, this won't have any ill effects on any of the students or teachers, I'm sure. Can anyone say, "Law suit waiting to happen"?? Wonder what genius came up with this plan.

Drill To Include Shooting Blanks In Hallways

Lili Von Shtupp · Post by **Lili Von Shtupp** » 30th Jan, '13, 12:39

“They run fire drills all the time, but they don’t run up and down the hallway with a flamethrower.”

Seriously.

I think the safety drills are a good idea. Although I still can't figure out how, when I was a kid, walking out into the hall and sticking my head in my locker would protect me from a nuclear bomb.

sluggo · Post by **sluggo** » 31st Jan, '13, 04:22

Lilli, your locker can't protect you from a nuclear attack. Everybody knows that. Now your wooden desk, that's protection.

BoD · Post by **BoD** » 31st Jan, '13, 07:14

I've read hardly any of this thread. But I work from the fairly simple premise that if there were no guns then nobody would be able to shoot anybody, and if there were some guns, some people would use them to kill some other people. So all the convenient constitutional/criminals have guns/people kill people/ooh it's just to hard to sort out excuses aside. Why should anybody need a gun?

baloo · Post by **baloo** » 31st Jan, '13, 07:23

The basic premise of the debate is that peace can only be achieved through superior firepower.

Joseph27 · Post by **Joseph27** » 31st Jan, '13, 09:21

baloo wrote:The basic premise of the debate is that peace can only be achieved through superior firepower.

Given that the US defence budget is higher than the next 13 countries combined, I would suggest that this mantra perfectly reflects their mindset both at home and abroad...

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 31st Jan, '13, 15:10

You're correct, BoD, if there were no guns no one would get shot (but people would get stabbed to death, beaten to death, strangled, etc). So, even better, if there were no murderers no one would get murdered. Let's make it happen!

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 31st Jan, '13, 17:45

I've an easier solution. No media, and then we wouldn't hear about it!

BoD · Post by **BoD** » 1st Feb, '13, 05:41

T2K wrote:You're correct, BoD, if there were no guns no one would get shot (but people would get stabbed to death, beaten to death, strangled, etc). So, even better, if there were no murderers no one would get murdered. Let's make it happen!

Ah.. another lovely example of bollox dressed up as logic

If there were no guns, then yes, some people would still be stabbed/beaten etc to death, and maybe the numbers would be higher as some the gun-toting murderers would be 'forced' to find other means to kill people. But overall less people would die as, if nothing,else stabbing/strangling is just so inefficient as a killing method

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 1st Feb, '13, 06:24

But you missed the point - we've as much chance of having "no guns" as having "no murderers". The genie is out the bottle, they're not going to be uninvented, they exist and aren't going away. The North American continent, which has porous borders, has hundreds of millions of them around. What may work in Singapore or the UK won't work there.

BoD · Post by **BoD** » 1st Feb, '13, 06:30

No I didn't miss the point. Hence my original "So all the convenient constitutional/criminals have guns/people kill people/ooh it's just to hard to sort out excuses aside" qualifcation

So yes the genie is out of the bottle, and yes it would be bloody hard to put it back in. That I can accept. What is still ridiculous however is the that is people not guns that kill people and it's in the constitution excuses

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 1st Feb, '13, 07:50

But T2K, by your own argument, it could work. There are already so many laws that limit guns, they just need enforcing. There are also so many laws which limit the porousness of the borders of the USA, again, they need enforcing. The idea that it's "just not worth it" for the reasons you give means that you are happy with the current situation and willing to accept high deaths due to the guns and accept tragic situations such as what has happened in shopping malls, schools and cinemas as a by-product.

The borders of the UK are probably just as porous as the USA borders. The UK is an island, smugglers have been there for years. Illegal drugs, guns, immigrants and non-taxed goods all enter the UK on a regular basis. The UK acted after Hungerford and acted again after Dunblane.

However, I do agree that the first thing to do is toughen the stance on current gun laws. And then see where the gaps are.

Hell, if people always followed the law then no one would ever be murdered, right?

slinky · Post by **slinky** » 1st Feb, '13, 10:27

Fat Bob wrote:However, I do agree that the first thing to do is toughen the stance on current gun laws. And then see where the gaps are.

I think that's reasonable given the fact that so many are either not enforced or not consistently enforced.

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 1st Feb, '13, 14:27

BoD - I don't get your point. You mean guns kill people on their own? Then, are all mine faulty? They've never harmed anything more than paper targets and tin cans. And it is in the constitution (which means rather a lot to us), it's not an excuse it's a fact. What specific action are you proposing?

FB - We seem to be getting somewhere. "If" the US would actually control our borders, like almost all other real countries do, and "if" the US would enforce the thousands of existing gun and violent crime laws we already have, then we could discuss what new laws "might" be needed, if any. Until then, putting new laws in place is just legislative masturbation - knee-jerk, feel-good pointlessness that does nothing more than restrict the necessary and valid rights of law-abiding citizens without affecting crime in any significant way.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 1st Feb, '13, 14:56

So what are the obstacles standing in the way of effective enforcement of current gun and border laws?

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 1st Feb, '13, 21:36

Politicians (of both the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum parties) who need to pander to various segments of the electorate so that they can maintain their elected offices / rice bowls.

Oh, and it also doesn't help that we're over USD16,000,000,000,000 in debt, I suppose. New prisons and enforcement efforts cost money.

This is fun! Next question?

BoD · Post by **BoD** » 2nd Feb, '13, 08:34

T2K wrote:BoD - I don't get your point. You mean guns kill people on their own? Then, are all mine faulty? They've never harmed anything more than paper targets and tin cans. And it is in the constitution (which means rather a lot to us), it's not an excuse it's a fact. What specific action are you proposing?

I am not denying that the constitution is not very important and that it means a lot to you, but that does not mean that it is unchangeable. I believe there have been amendments from time to time. So not to change it now is not a matter of importance or impossibility, it is a matter of need and will. If you wanted to, you could, but it seems that you don't want to. But hey, politics is much more important than life.

As for the 'guns don't kill people, people do' argument, whilst you are purely logically correct, you know full well that people need weapons to kill people (and yes fists and poison are weapons) and that you are just hiding behind a convenient logical excuse. If there are some people who can't be trusted not to use guns to just shoot tin cans and who choose to shoot people, then the most obvious solution is to ban guns. Sure, the tin can shooters will be a little upset and might have to find alternative hobbies, but surely that would be a small price to pay for saving lives.

slinky · Post by **slinky** » 2nd Feb, '13, 09:14

BoD wrote: If there are some people who can't be trusted not to use guns to just shoot tin cans and who choose to shoot people, then the most obvious solution is to ban guns. Sure, the tin can shooters will be a little upset and might have to find alternative hobbies, but surely that would be a small price to pay for saving lives.

From a logic standpoint, based on that argument, I can't help but think that there must be a whole lot of other things that need banning then. Lots of people can't be trusted not to drink too much alcohol and then they do things like drive cars and sometimes kill people, so perhaps an alcohol ban is in order. Also, there are a lot of people who can't be trusted to eat healthful food as opposed to junk food and then they get fat and put their lives in danger, which we might be able to live with given it's only themselves they are risking, but many of those same people feed their children that same junk food and then they get fat too, putting their lives at risk, so we should probably ban junk food too. What about cigarettes? We know those kill and we're learning that second hand smoke is about as bad as just smoking yourself, so there's another ban to consider.

Now, do I actually understand the point you are trying to make, yes, of course. And from a standpoint of wouldn't it be great if it were that simple and would work, I'd love it. I guess my point from a standpoint of I'd rather government not get themselves too overly involved in my life and my choices, I see the point you are making as a bit of a slippery slope.

Fat Bob · Post by **Fat Bob** » 2nd Feb, '13, 09:16

Hmmm... (in answer to t2k) I don't believe the only obstacles to enforcing the current laws (both gun and border) can be laid at the politician's feet. I mean, you have a chance every 2/4/6 years to change your politicians. So change them!

Or is it that the people don't want the change, and therefore society is the biggest obstacles to enforcing current gun and border controls and laws.

Your argument continues to make everything else the problem. And not ma and pa's gun emporium on the village street, nor the availability of guns next to groceries.

Ostriching yourself a lot.

BoD · Post by **BoD** » 2nd Feb, '13, 16:37

slinky wrote:
BoD wrote: If there are some people who can't be trusted not to use guns to just shoot tin cans and who choose to shoot people, then the most obvious solution is to ban guns. Sure, the tin can shooters will be a little upset and might have to find alternative hobbies, but surely that would be a small price to pay for saving lives.
From a logic standpoint, based on that argument, I can't help but think that there must be a whole lot of other things that need banning then. Lots of people can't be trusted not to drink too much alcohol and then they do things like drive cars and sometimes kill people, so perhaps an alcohol ban is in order. Also, there are a lot of people who can't be trusted to eat healthful food as opposed to junk food and then they get fat and put their lives in danger, which we might be able to live with given it's only themselves they are risking, but many of those same people feed their children that same junk food and then they get fat too, putting their lives at risk, so we should probably ban junk food too. What about cigarettes? We know those kill and we're learning that second hand smoke is about as bad as just smoking yourself, so there's another ban to consider.

Now, do I actually understand the point you are trying to make, yes, of course. And from a standpoint of wouldn't it be great if it were that simple and would work, I'd love it. I guess my point from a standpoint of I'd rather government not get themselves too overly involved in my life and my choices, I see the point you are making as a bit of a slippery slope.

You are right, it might be a slippery slope, and yes it's hard to know where to draw the line. But it doesn't mean there can't be a line. Maybe it's intention that is important here. People who drink and drive do not do so with the direct intention of killing people (which is not to in any way condone drink driving or imply that is should not be illegal)

T2K · Post by **T2K** » 2nd Feb, '13, 17:11

You are both very good subjects, expecting your monarch and her appointed government to solve all your problems and tell you what's best. That's now how the US works.

Putting that aside, though, and addressing your specific points:

Bod, you stated you've not read this thread in it's entirety. That's cool, it's long and most of it has been repeated on this site before. But, you did drop in for a comment, and this has all been addressed already.

To summarize - the US Constitution can be amended and, in fact, it has a total of 27 Amendments to date (since its ratification in 1791). The fact that the 2nd Amendment in particular has not been repealed or changed is the choice of the US people. If we wanted to change it, we would (as you correctly stated). It is not, however, a matter of politics. It's a matter of liberty. The 2nd Amendment exists so that the people can be armed as a final defense of liberty against tyranny, including that of our own government. You may find it crazy, you may find it nuts, I know many British subjects with whom I've discussed the matter do, since all power derives from god to your monarch and it's just and proper that she and her family rule forever, or something like that. But, that's how it is in the US.

This one really staggered me, though: "...then the most obvious solution is to ban guns." Really? I've read that in the UK you also want to ban pointy objects, and I gather than "banning" things is considered good policy there, but let's just get to the point - banning things, whether by royal decree or legislative action, fails. See above example re: cocaine. We would not be so stupid as to impede the liberty and lives of hundreds of millions of Americans with a failed ban which would not in any way impede criminal behaviour. We have thousands of laws regulating gun ownership and violent behaviour, we need to enforce them.
Guns are not the relevant variable in our societal problems. Semi-Automatic rifles (the dreaded so-called "assault weapons") have been a constant in American civilian hands for nearly a century, they "cause" nothing.

FB - You are free to "believe" what you want about US domestic policies or the tooth fairy. I'm just telling you how it is. But, in general, a society gets the government it deserves and it's fair for you to conclude that this, like all policy and governmental matters in the US, has as its root cause the US electorate. As a matter of courtesy, I apologize that our policies don't align with your beliefs on how we should govern ourselves. The UK is in no way, shape or form a model of what most Americans want, though.

slinky · Post by **slinky** » 2nd Feb, '13, 18:22

I think one of the causes behind many of the ills in society today boils down to a lack of personal responsibility. For whatever reason, people seem less and less willing to take responsibility for themselves and for their actions. We've become, in the US and probably other places too, a culture of 'it's not my fault' and 'someone else is to blame.' I can't see how we will ever be able to fix our problems if we don't demand people take responsibility for themselves and for their actions. In the context of guns and crime with guns, this is exactly why I like the program I mentioned earlier in this thread, Project Exile. It puts the onus on the individual to make a choice and then to have to live with the consequences if they choose to break the law. What's wrong with having to pay a price if you choose to do something illegal (and get caught)? If you know what the penalty is up front then there really can't be any surprises.

What concerns me about the ‘let’s just ban it’ solution, is we are, once again, removing the concept of personal responsibility and just deciding for everyone because we just don’t trust that everyone can or will make the right decision. Where does it end? We keep trying to account for the lowest common denominator at the cost of the majority who stick to the rules. I thought of another example of this kind of thing earlier today. You can no longer by products in stores in the US that contain pseudoephedrine without showing ID and jumping through whatever other hoops they ask. Why? Because too many dumbasses are using it to make crystal meth. No longer can I get something that actually works for a cold because apparently no one in society can be trusted not to cook up a bunch of illegal drugs with it. (I actually couldn't buy any last time I was in the US because they wouldn't accept my foreign driver's license as acceptable ID and I didn't have my passport on me at the time.)

Maybe I'm just being a baby, but if I have to be responsible for myself and for my actions, why doesn't everyone? Why must we make exceptions and ultimately decisions though (more) legislation time and time again for those who refuse personal responsibility?

Edit: missing word

The Singapore Forum

The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate

Re: The Gun Debate