Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
![]()
I agree. That level of absolutism is unsustainable in this physical universe.
Efforts to save even one life cannot be so dismissed, at the very least considering that one life could be yours.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:47:26 PM by Eschaton
Sorry, I don't care if it's a perfect solution fallacy in any damn way. I don't accept anything less than no victims as the best outcome. It's sad when any victim happens, period. So find a way to reduce it. It won't be easy. But it's also a fallacy to think that taking away all guns(which is your entire suggestion, Smokeycut, and please don't act like you didn't actually say this. Now if you're taking it back and meant just to make sure citizens can't get them, that's a different argument and something I might be willing to agree with, but only so far. It only really works for citizens in an actual city, but as noted, there's tons of problems outside of it that it doesn't entirely work either. Especially with the wild animals. And hunting being natural. Hunters completely count as citizens. Do you have a more specific set of people you believe should not have guns? And even if we could do that, how do we perfectly make sure that only hunters/cops/those in the army can get them? This is what worries me about any kind of major ban. It's very difficult to work out right.) will work at all.
Reducing the body count is good, don't get me wrong. But we need to stop the person before it happens. Mental checks are definitely more effective than background checks alone. But there is no effective measure to prevent it all the time. I'm aware of that. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best and use every measure we can. This is why, again, I completely agree with banning Assault Rifles. War is the only time they'd even remotely make sense to use at best. You are fighting an army, after all. Cops don't need 'em. Hunters don't need 'em. Citizens trying to protect themselves in their homes don't need 'em. It's a start.
edited 12th Jun '16 10:50:50 PM by Irene
Shadow?To play devil's advocate somewhat: the "it doesn't save everyone" principle makes no sense. Why even have laws if people break them? In fact, I might invert the absolutism: if a law the amount of people the law saves is above zero, it's probably worth at least considering.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
That's my position. While I completely agree with the notion that all lives are equal, I don't agree with taking it to the point that the individual life is ignored.
Otherwise I agree with ![]()
![]()
the second paragraph.
OK. I'm on board with that. Yes, the end goal should always be 0 deaths, and constantly worked towards.
edited 12th Jun '16 11:23:05 PM by Eschaton
![]()
I don't honestly think any gun that fire multiple bullets at once should be anywhere outside of the army, but eh.
I never said an individual life didn't matter. I said that the fact we lost anyone is horrible and the solution needs to lead up to "0 deaths". Albeit, I guess I did express that badly, but that's my actual argument anyway. Try to avoid any death is the best solution overall without a doubt. How we do that is the kicker.
@Protagonist: The more coherent form of "it doesn't save everyone" would weigh the perceived benefit against the perceived loss and argue whether the loss or the benefit was greater.
...I'm not going to attempt it myself as it's much more effort than I actually have interest in the topic. The immediate aftermath of a tragedy is IMO the worst time to have a sane debate because emotions and tempers are high. Also, my own views are mostly confined to "loosely held options".
edited 12th Jun '16 11:05:49 PM by Elle
The US can barely keep drugs and people contraband from its borders and while the Cartels can get their weapons from straw purchases in the US they mostly get them from the very corrupt police and military and from all those weapon caches in other Central American countries.
Banning weapons outright would mean they'd have another nice and sweet source of income because for the established gangs, gun running will be profitable and while your half mill criminal won't easily get a gun, you will be sure the gang whacks and wanna be terrorists with a death wish will.
edited 12th Jun '16 11:17:36 PM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesWell, banning a specific type of gun like Assault Rifles and Submachine Guns is different from banning guns altogether.
I'm aware it's still hard to obtain as an ideal realistically. We've got a better chance at stopping criminals before they can hurt a lot of people realistically too.
Baby steps.
Shadow?Those weapons are already banned, or at least require an E3 license and tax stamp to own, since at least '87 and they are so annoying and expensive to get most gun owners don't even care about them.
However the US has several semi automatic rifles and pistol carbines that can range from the scary black 'salt rifles like the AR-15 to the piece of wooden furniture like the Mini-14. In which they look like military rifles but in practice they are a rifle like any other.
So trying to ban automatic weapons like Assault Rifles and SM Gs is useless because they are already banned in practice.
It may be fatalist thinking but there are plenty of crimes the US police and political system can't prevent regardless of how many laws they try to pass and how many civil liberties they want to screw over trying to make people "safe", even France with very restrictive gun laws couldn't prevent the Charlie Hebdo and the Paris Shooting attacks.
Inter arma enim silent legesWow, this thread grows fast.
Anyway: I think it's clear that banning guns from military use is an idiotic idea in a world where other armed forces have them. I think it's also clear that completely banning civilian (as in non-police civvies, your average Joe) gun use is highly unlikely.
There are two other points:
- As Greenmantle noted it's very much possible to control knives as well as guns — for example, clause 186 of the Israeli Criminal Code states that possessing a knife or a knuckle duster outside of one's property for a purpose that is not according to law is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
- I can't see a reason for a civilian to possess anything that isn't a hunting rifle or a small handgun. I really can't. You can argue that you need a handgun for self-defence and that you need a rifle to hunt, but I can't see why a civilian would need anything with more stopping power than that.
Yeah, it's terribly easy to forget that assault rifles, SMGs and MGs are de facto (since usually the people who gravitate towards these hate the idea of giving the government money) banned from civilian ownership. But, hey, this is the country that brought us the Assault Weapons Ban, so all's fair I guess.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
The principle that the citizenry have a right to defend themselves from tyranny is not wrong, so long as the practical laws, policies and measures are sane and reasonable.
Perhaps the example to follow as a moderate and feasible policy would be for gun regulations inspired by the example of Switzerland. If we abide by the concept of the necessity of an "armed militia", then it would follow that gun ownership should be tied specifically to civic responsibility, with personal or individual responsibility as an added component. For example, every Swiss citizen at the age of 18 must undergo obligatory military service. Until the age of 30, Swiss citizens are part of the militia keeping their army-issued weapon with them at home. After their end of militia-reserve time, they are permitted to keep the weapon so long as they are given the relevant ownership permit.
Of course what I'm describing is an idea which I'm sure isn't very popular I know, given that there is generally an individualist interpretation of the "right to bear arms" especially in relation to self-defence.
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."To everyone who answers "Animals! Hunters!" to the idea of a weapons ban, I answer that's what licences (or permits, or whatever you call them) are for.
France is a no-guns country, and we still allow hunters to have some.
Edit: Grammar.
edited 13th Jun '16 2:25:49 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."And to add to the France/USA comparison that keeps being made since yesterday, one huge fucking difference is that the Orlando shooting was committed by Average Asshole Joe, while the Paris attacks were committed by a group of soldiers who fought in a warzone for months, warzone that they reached and came back from illegally.
So when you say that "criminals can get guns anyway when they are banned" - yes they can, but they are criminals. Random loonies cannot. When a law-abiding nutjob decides to start a killing spree in France, it usually ends with one or two victims, tops, because he could only get a hunting rifle and/or a knife. Mohamed Merah who committed the Toulouse shootings a few years back had also travelled to the Middle East and fought there.
And honestly, even if somehow everyone in France could buy a gun, my money would still be on the guys who actually fought a war when it comes to efficiently using them.
edited 13th Jun '16 1:37:08 AM by Julep
Generally, the point of gun control is that you limit the weaponry to law enforcement/military and the criminals. This allows the criminals to be engaged with extreme prejudice whenever such a problem pops up. It's how Japan does it, but then again, in Japan even the criminals are deathly afraid of the gun control laws.
The US is far too different of an entity for this to work though. It's too far gone, which is why it would prudent to allow the CDC to investigate gun violence again. Just to at least get other options.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleThe CDC? The Centre for Disease Control, or there's another alphabet agency with that name? I'm confused.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.@medinoc:
I'm an Alaskan, so I can (anecdotally, of course) vouch for the fact that up in rural Alaska, part of the basic food supply involves taking a rifle or a shotgun and killing some animals, and that occasionally a bear comes too close to a human cabin and needs to be shot. I grew up around guns and learned very early on that they're dangerous and need to be kept safe.
And I'm of the opinion that we should institute mandatory licensing and training before someone is deemed competent to own a firearm. (In the country of Thomas Jefferson, requiring a "legitimate reason" to own a gun ain't going to fly, and I don't think it should.) Complete a training course, prove a certain level of accuracy on the range, pass a written examination ("Question 1: What does "keep that fucking thing pointed down range" mean?") pass a background check, and you can have a license that allows you to own firearms (shall-issue, needs to be renewed every couple of years).
Guns are useful tools and recreational devices, but they're also dangerous. You know, like cars. But, because there's no constitutional right to drive, we regulate cars like nothing else. I think that a little more regulation on guns won't break anything except the NRA's little hearts, but I'm not in favor of bans.
What. Studying causes of gun violence is good, but I hardly think that's the job of the CDC of all things. Then again a study by a weird agency is better than no study at all, I guess.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.

So...is everyone just forgetting the fact that a bomb was used as well? Like, I don't think gun control could have possibly have stopped that.
Let's see if you can get past my Beelzemon. Mephiles, WARP SHINKA!