Should There Be Tougher Gun Laws?

[Hanafuda]

What we do know for a fact is that restricting gun ownership lowers crime, lowers murders and lowers chaos.

Mexico and Brazil both have very strict gun control, and yet higher gun murder rates per capita than the US. Explain.

(If your answer has anything to do with illicit drug trafficking, I agree. Eliminating recreational drug prohibition in North and South America would pull the rug out from under the cartels, widely spread gangs like MS13, even the 'mafia'. It wouldn't have any effect on the random looney shooting spree, but overall gun/violent crime would decrease substantially. We're talking thousands of deaths a year less.)

 

[Gahars]

I hear that a lot, from "progressives." I don't agree. The words are there to be strictly interpreted according to their original meaning. The drafters of the Bill of Rights, in writing the 2nd Amendment, intended that the everyday citizen be armed sufficiently to provide for the common defense (against foes foreign and domestic). That means weapons that are capable of meeting a contemporary threat. However, it also limits this to arms that can be borne about the person (i.e. the right to bear arms), and I take this to mean nothing more than an infantryman might be issued in the military, i.e. not nukes, tanks, heavy artillery.

However, if you want to amend the Constitution, and specifically the content of the Bill of Rights, there's a process. Go ahead and try.

This isn't a "progressive" ideal - it's exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It's one of the reasons we have the Supreme Court in the first place - the Justices are entrusted to apply the underlying principles behind the Constitution to modern day dilemmas as best they can. Thomas Jefferson himself advocated a rewriting of the Constitution every generation to limit the "power of the dead over the living," essentially. They were aware of the fact that they simply couldn't foresee the future, and that the nation's guiding document should be flexible and vague enough (even without amendment) to accommodate changes.

If we didn't have this in place, for example, then the Federal Government couldn't ensure that state law adheres to the various clauses of the Bill of Rights through incorporation - that's a pretty big deal, I'd say.

We talk about the concepts of security and defense, but it's imperative to recognize that these very concepts have changed dramatically over the past two centuries. The context that birthed the 2nd Amendment as is can't be ignored. Another British invasion lay on the horizon, attacks from Native American tribes were a legitimate threat, and law enforcement was little more than a novelty depending on where you lived - if it even existed at all. We don't live in that world anymore, and to continue to legislate as if we did is counterproductive. This doesn't mean we abandon the spirit behind the amendment - rather, we preserve it by applying it in a way that makes sense for the world we do live in.

You offer a little challenge there about the amendment process, as if I wasn't aware of this - I already mentioned that in my first post, and advocated for it, so it's pretty redundant.

Plus, you kind of contradict yourself there. You advocate going by the 2nd Amendment's literal "intended" meaning... while throwing in your own personal interpretation of how the text should be applied in a modern context. So...

 

[BlueStar]

Mexico and Brazil both have very strict gun control, and yet higher gun murder rates per capita than the US. Explain.

Much poorer countries, Mexico is practically in civil war due to drugs cartels (and still only has a slightly higher gun death rate than the US, 11.1 compared to 10.2) and most of Mexico's gun problem comes from being next to America. Which is why it's better to compare to similar countries like the UK and Australia which, when they tightened gun control, saw no more school massacres, no increase in criminals taking advantage of unarmed citizens and fewer murders, for reasons we just can't seem to work out, I mean, what could it be?

I don't know how things are in other parts of the world, but in most, if not all of the 'States, we have what's called a School Resource Officer, an on-duty and armed police officer who is stationed in the school every day from before students get there till after they leave. Thing is, we only have them in Jr. High/High School (in my area, at least). Elementary schools are left more or less without any sort of law enforcement. Why doesn't every school have an SRO (or more than one) on duty?

How the fuck do you get into a position where you have to have an armed guard in every elementary school? People are talking about arming teachers. You want your kid to be learning their ABCs from a woman with a bullet proof vest and an M16 slung over her shoulder? Can you not be a teacher without also wanting to be a fucking merc? Who's going to pay (through taxes or increased prices) to train and arm every DMV clerk, theatre usher, teacher, supply teacher, dance class instructor to be trained and armed to a level where they can fight off some ex-marine with PTSD?

You've now got a parent sending their kids to school with guns and thinking it'll make them safer!

!

 

[xist]

unlike yourself, of course

Whilst you may not realise it because you're so vehemently defending one side of the argument, i've noted multiple times and even in reply to you, that the horse has bolted on gun law within the US. From the outside looking in it's a total mess of a system where an individual is allowed to use deadly force is they think someone "might" be threatening them...the law regarding shooting first is something that people from places where guns aren't so prevalent would find horrifying in it's severity. Similar could be said of being allowed to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home (although obviously that's far rarer) And unlike you of course i'm willing to see every side of the argument, but thus far your arguments justifying ownership seem immensely weak - more people get injured by accident with guns than there are cases where they're used for defence.

Care of Neogaf -

I know the numbers are a bit small, so I'll reproduce them. If we were to make the caveat that all fire/hot object/flame homicides involved explosives (they didn't), that would be 186 deaths. If we then make the allowance that every single specified homicide that didn't fall into a stated category was also due to an explosive (absolutely no chance, but why not): total gets bumped up to 426. If we add in all unspecified homicides (cause unknown or not part of the record), saying that all of those are explosives too, we get up to 2340, some portion of which were fertilizer related bombs. Let's say all of them were fertilizer-related bombing deaths. For the purposes of argument.

Gun homicides? 11,493. Eleven thousand four hundred and ninety-three. Even with all the ridiculous no-chance-in-hell allowances I just made to account for the "rash of fertilizer-related bombings" plaguing America, they would barely equal 20% of the number of firearm-related homicides in this country.

So no, there is no equivalency to be drawn whatsoever between increased gun regulation and regulating fucking fertilizer, which isn't even a weapon in the first place.

Are these shootings inaccurate/ is Texas really a state that denies gun possession? - (sourced from a BBC article).

• 1984: James Oliver Huberty shoots dead 21 people at a McDonald's in California
• 1986: Postal worker Pat Sherrill kills 14 people at post office in Oklahoma
• 1991: George Hennard kills 23 people at a cafeteria in Texas
• 1999: Two students at Columbine high school kill 13 and injure 20, before killing themselves
• 2007: A student kills 32 and injures dozens more at Virginia Tech university
• 2009: 13 people are killed in a mass shooting at Ford Hood military base in Texas
• 2012: James Holmes kills 12 people and injures 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado

Because if they are the really discredit your gun expert and stats about public shootings. Plus there's these just from this year. Isolated cases of increased control isn't much of a solution...if anything it creates a greater problem as the disparity between areas of America is increased.

Whilst you're trying to paint me into a box of extreme anti firearms, i think that the best option for the US would be stricter laws that enforce responsibility. Owning a gun should be something that is a serious issue and respect and fear of it's power is something that should be imbued in anyone owning one. If someone takes a large dog out in public then there may be a level of fear about that dog injuring someone - there's a level of responsibility there. However, it seems guns are so easily owned that the ease at which human life can be lost is overlooked. People don't feel awed by possessing a lethal weapon, it seems like guns are almost treated like toys. In the US now i'd think that the best approach would be stricter legislation limiting the number of guns, amounts of ammo, keeping weapons locked up, strict registering of ownership, only allowing them out at home etc...castle doctrine is immensely brutal in many circumstances and i'd imagine would do more to increase death and injury than prevent it.

And you made no mention of maybe...read that back. You told me to come back when i had something worth defending. I have no idea how much first hand experience you've had with death, but the gravity of taking a life is something that can't be ignored. Soldiers trained for war come back with mental health issues related to killing people, and yet with no training or preparation some office worker could buy a gun and kill an unarmed burglar? The immensity of just snuffing someone out is hugely obfuscated by the ease of pulling a trigger. Killing someone with any other sort of weapon involves so much more thought, and again it seems like there's a lack of, for want of a better word, fear associated with having to get a firearm out.

Guns are a persistent problem in the US, and the statistics involving deaths and injuries really support this. However, they're so ingrained in American culture that removing their access to everyone would do more harm than good at this point. There just needs to be more thought associated with getting your gun out, and more respect for human life.

If you moved to somewhere in England or France and no longer had access to a gun would you feel less safe? Here guns are a threat....in places where they're much more prevalent they're a weapon. Whilst experiencing someone breaking in to burgle me was one of the most invasive and awful things i've experienced, would it have been made better if we'd both been armed? I don't think so.

As for a response....i'm honestly not bothered as i know what will be said anyway, so feel free to not bother. It just seems there's more fear associated with removing the ability to kill people than there is making if more easy. That seems somewhat topsy turvy....a gun is a lethal weapon and in a civilised society with law enforcement agencies making them readily available seems backward.

 

[Jamstruth]

If you could reel back the gun market from America (and I admit that would be insanely difficult to do). People are right, not all gun crime would be avoided. Any organised crime gig will find a way to get guns. I know this, its the same anywhere in the world.. Its also a heck of a lot more hassle to carry a gun though. As soon as a gun is spotted then the Police are calling in the backup. Our Police don't carry guns, I think this helps because criminals don't feel that they need guns to protect themselves from Police. The deaths that would go down as a result of banning guns would be the rash, impulse ones. Homicides that come from somebody just escalating an argument really quickly. Maybe this would just be replaced with knives, or an increase in beatings or something but here's the thing: They are nowhere near as destructive as guns. You can stab somebody and they can survive. Its a lot easier to run away from a guy going on a machete spree through a school than it is to run from somebody with an automatic rifle.
From the outside looking in America's gun control seems mad. I know you're supposed to be very strict about who can buy one but clearly having easy access to such a destructive weapon is not good for anybody. I've never felt the need to own a weapon for protection but I live a privileged life so perhaps I'm not the best to comment on that.

 

[Hanafuda]

• 1984: James Oliver Huberty shoots dead 21 people at a McDonald's in California
• 1986: Postal worker Pat Sherrill kills 14 people at post office in Oklahoma
• 1991: George Hennard kills 23 people at a cafeteria in Texas
• 1999: Two students at Columbine high school kill 13 and injure 20, before killing themselves
• 2007: A student kills 32 and injures dozens more at Virginia Tech university
• 2009: 13 people are killed in a mass shooting at Ford Hood military base in Texas
• 2012: James Holmes kills 12 people and injures 58 at a cinema in Aurora, Colorado

Because if they are the really discredit your gun expert and stats about public shootings.

These are all locations where guns are either prohibited by law or by the business owner (McDonald's, cinema) as a matter company policy.


I'm sorry you experienced being the victim of a burglary. That sucks. But one thing I found interesting is that you posited, "would it have been made better if we'd both been armed?" .... that suggests that the person who burgled your home was not armed. And that's the thing. In the US, he almost certainly would have been armed, and passing a gun ban won't change that.

 

[xist]

These are all locations where guns are either prohibited by law or by the business owner (McDonald's, cinema) as a matter company policy.

I'm sorry you experienced being the victim of a burglary. That sucks. But one thing I found interesting is that you posited, "would it have been made better if we'd both been armed?" .... that suggests that the person who burgled your home was not armed. And that's the thing. In the US, he almost certainly would have been armed, and passing a gun ban won't change that.

Oh, now i see the distinction. You didn't mean state law (which is what i assumed), you meant actual specific location...that division seems immensely flimsy in regards to gun possession and shootings because if these were not premeditated then these same people would have been perfectly entitled to possess their guns out on the streets. Removing the level of freedom to access those weapons everywhere in a state would make carrying a gun a great deal more serious....rather than serious if inside a building, not so much outside.

He had a knife. However, the thought of being able to shoot and potentially kill someone for that crime still seems immensely over the top and whilst the idea of restraining him still crosses my mind, the idea of fatally injuring him doesn't. And thankfully in the years since that event there have been no further incidents....random opportunistic crimes shouldn't potentially have the death penalty. I may sound like the victim, but in a sense i regard the justice system and my personal right to justice as distinct entities. Being entitled to kill an intruder blurs that line.

Surely from an objective standpoint you can see the laws which are in place at the moment are not working?

 

[BlueStar]

I hear that a lot, from "progressives." I don't agree. The words are there to be strictly interpreted according to their original meaning.

So why are you so in favour of something that's an amendment, a change to the original document?

 

[Hanafuda]

Oh, now i see the distinction. You didn't mean state law (which is what i assumed), you meant actual specific location...that division seems immensely flimsy in regards to gun possession and shootings because if these were not premeditated then these same people would have been perfectly entitled to possess their guns out on the streets. Removing the level of freedom to access those weapons everywhere in a state would make carrying a gun a great deal more serious....rather than serious if inside a building, not so much outside.

Yeah that's what dickfour was talking about a couple pages back. We have these 'gun free zones' here where you're not to take a weapon under any circumstances even if you have a concealed carry permit. Only law enforcement officers are exempted. Post offices, schools, any federal building, libraries, etc. The problem with this approach is that it makes for a soft target for lunatics, so these are the places where random mass shootings tend to occur. Last week, it took police 20 minutes from the time the shooting started before they arrived at the school. By that time it was all over.

So why are you so in favour of something that's an amendment, a change to the original document?

I never said I was opposed to the amendment process. If the American people decide to remove the 2nd Amendment, or any other Amendment, or to amend the content of the main document, so be it. I don't think that's going to happen, but there's a process for it. What I'm opposed to is an attempt to essentially ignore the original intent of the Constitution through a perverted interpretation. The 2nd Amendment says the American people have the right to bear arms, because the drafters of the Bill of Rights felt this was necessary for keeping this a free country. Free from threats from its enemies, free from oppression by the government. That's what it means. If the people decide otherwise, then they can take the appropriate legal steps to have that portion removed. But unless that happens, that's the law and it means what it says it means.

 

[Engert]

Gun control debate in year 2113:

But seriously though, for now the best thing to do is to infuse a bunch of dollars into defense contracts with the local police stations around the country so they can keep us safe.

 

[ZAFDeltaForce]

so the british 0people are going to fight with flowers if one day their government became tyrannical ?
were i live we have gun laws that are way stronger that the ones in the USA the common person here cant get a damn gun and were are been hit by the highest criminal wave in history of our island because only criminals are the ones with guns

i would have love to see this child killing asshole try this in texas

Forgive my ignorance, but is that the actual justification for allowing the common man to bear arms in the US?

 

[Engert]

Forgive my ignorance, but is that the actual justification for allowing the common man to bear arms in the US?

It has something to do with an outdated constitution and the culture in the U.S.

 

[Hanafuda]

The Constitution is outdated? What other parts of the Constitution do you think are "obsolete?" Shall we do away with our system of three branches of government, with checks and balances? Do you want to do away with freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? The right to peacefully assemble? What about protections against unreasonable search and seizure? Right to counsel and right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination also outdated? I guess due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment no longer apply in our modern society either? Because the same people who came up with all those protections for the people also insisted that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary.

 

[Engert]

Don't worry, i was just explaining to someone from Singapore our traditions (as someone from Argentina put it):

We had this kid back at primary school, he was a nice guy, but weird as fuck. We always though: "if this was America, he would shoot every single one of us in the classroom"
I found it really weird, it's like a tradition in your country. It's so sad...

on a side note, in others countries (like mine), the government uses this kind of episodes to justify themselves saying: "see... you think our country is insecure?, america is worst"
I hate politicians, specially if they are argentinians

I realize that nothing will change.

 

[Hanafuda]

Singapore - where chewing gum is illegal.

 

[Engert]

Singapore - where chewing gum is illegal.

Let's find something to declare war on them. It's healthy for our country.

 

[Jamstruth]

The Constitution is outdated? What other parts of the Constitution do you think are "obsolete?" Shall we do away with our system of three branches of government, with checks and balances? Do you want to do away with freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Separation of church and state? The right to peacefully assemble? What about protections against unreasonable search and seizure? Right to counsel and right to a trial by a jury of your peers? Is the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination also outdated? I guess due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment no longer apply in our modern society either? Because the same people who came up with all those protections for the people also insisted that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary.

...
100 years ago you had laws saying that people could be owned as property.
50 years ago you had laws giving black people reduced rights.
Even now people are trying to reduce the rights of homosexuals.
Society is fluid and things change. Who gives a shit about the people who founded your country and "what they would do" because frankly THEY DON'T FRICKIN' MATTER! What matters is what people now think. Bring the Founders to our modern age and they would wonder what the hell is going on. Black people can marry now? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE!? etc. They're opinion means exactly dick now. You guys put far too much moral weight on what the people who founded your country said. What matters is what you and the rest of your country thinks right now.

 

[Engert]

...
making too much sense.

Stop making too much sense. It's a culture thing. You Brits don't understand.

I for one, want more of the Military Industrial Complex in our neighborhoods.

http://rt.com/usa/news/swat-guns-paragould-arkansas-224/

http://rt.com/usa/news/drone-surveillance-mesa-colorado-433/

 

[Sicklyboy]

How the fuck do you get into a position where you have to have an armed guard in every elementary school? People are talking about arming teachers. You want your kid to be learning their ABCs from a woman with a bullet proof vest and an M16 slung over her shoulder? Can you not be a teacher without also wanting to be a fucking merc? Who's going to pay (through taxes or increased prices) to train and arm every DMV clerk, theatre usher, teacher, supply teacher, dance class instructor to be trained and armed to a level where they can fight off some ex-marine with PTSD?

Well if it has sense to have police in Jr. High/High School, why not elementary school? We're talking police officers here, not marines. I don't know how UK police are armed but here, ours carry a handgun, taser, pepper spray, and handcuffs. Yes, they wear bullet proof vests, under their uniforms. I don't think the teachers should be taught and armed, because then they're taking vigilante law enforcement into their own hands, or they're working two jobs at the same time. Nowhere did I ever say a teacher should be trained. I said a police officer should be staffed in every school. Learn to fucking read before you jump to rash conclusions like that.

 

[Hanafuda]

...
100 years ago you had laws saying that people could be owned as property.
50 years ago you had laws giving black people reduced rights.
Even now people are trying to reduce the rights of homosexuals.
Society is fluid and things change. Who gives a shit about the people who founded your country and "what they would do" because frankly THEY DON'T FRICKIN' MATTER! What matters is what people now think. Bring the Founders to our modern age and they would wonder what the hell is going on. Black people can marry now? WHAT IS THIS NONSENSE!? etc. They're opinion means exactly dick now. You guys put far too much moral weight on what the people who founded your country said. What matters is what you and the rest of your country thinks right now.

I think you're missing the point. Engert was saying "the Constitution" was obsolete ... I was just wondering what other parts he thinks are outdated and need to be abolished.

And for the record, your country had legal slavery, too. It was England that established slavery in the Americas. And England beat us in getting rid of it by a whole 32 years (1833 vs. 1865), mostly because they didn't need it anymore because they could just buy what they needed from the American south where the economy depended on slaves. That's why England nearly entered the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy ... to keep the cheap slave-produced goods coming.


Edit: Anyway, back on topic, I've already explained my feelings about the process for amending the Constitution. You think the American people support abolishing the 2nd amendment? Go for it.