Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Mormolyce]

It would be a Constitutional right. Come on, ask me a hard one.

So a legal right, not a natural one.

See, you can tell the difference.

[Ghostpanther]

So a legal right, not a natural one.

See, you can tell the difference.

I never was arguing it was anything but a Constitutional right as far as exercising it. lol! I mean, one could consider the right to defend yourself is a natural right and all. ( I believe it is ) But even that is not the case in several countries around the world. It just so happens in the US we have that right and it is connected to the Second Amendment to the extent of what we can use to accomplish it.

[Mormolyce]

I never was arguing it was anything but a Constitutional right as far as exercising it. lol! I mean, one could consider the right to defend yourself is a natural right and all. ( I believe it is ) But even that is not the case in several countries around the world. It just so happens in the US we have that right and it is connected to the Second Amendment to the extent of what we can use to accomplish it.

The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to self defence.

Anyway if you'll recall, I stated that presuming gun ownership to be a right is begging the question, and some 20 posts later the question is still being begged.

[lockedout]

What would be an event big enough to cause US politician to commit a political suicide and start really advancing a gun ban?

(Only for the ban to be revoked after the other party takes the office after them.)

You can't enact a gun ban.

[RaoBurning]

What would be an event big enough to cause US politician to commit a political suicide and start really advancing a gun ban?

(Only for the ban to be revoked after the other party takes the office after them.)

1) Black people arming themselves in record numbers and making it damned well known that they're doing it. It's lubricated the legislative process before.
2) Someone shooting up a powerful Senator's kid's school (heaven forbid. I've had enough school shootings to last a thousand lifetimes), since shooting at the law makers themselves obviously didn't do it.
3) Somebody assassinating Mr. Rogers. But he's already dead, so :\ Nobody would want to do that, anyway. Everybody loved Mr. Rogers.

[Kellhound]

You really need the difference between a legal and natural right explained?



Seriously?



I'm not entirely sure if you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just deliberately decided to creatively interpret in a way conducive to your prejudices.

If you go with the definition of a natural right as a political theory that individuals have basic rights given to them by nature or God that no individual or government can deny, there really are no natural rights (of the social type, physical laws and such are different), as a government can deny its subjects life, liberty, property, etc.

[Deletedaccount1]

I'm not entirely sure if you didn't read it, didn't understand it, or just deliberately decided to creatively interpret in a way conducive to your prejudices.

There is a chapter in the report about the effectiveness of gun control laws based on a survey of available data.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/6#99

We have documented what is known about how people obtain firearms for criminal activities and identified the weaknesses of existing evaluations of interventions. There is not much empirical evidence that assesses whether attempts to reduce criminal access to firearms will reduce gun availability or gun crime.

[Rudkobing]

Hmm, I've never posted in this thread before.

[-aiko-]

How would that solve anything? Universal or personal ban, they'd just get them through illegal channels.

So the solution is...?

[Lahis]

So the solution is...?

I suppose there is none.

Just duck and cover if you hear shots. Or fight back if you have your own gun.

[Mormolyce]

There is a chapter in the report about the effectiveness of gun control laws based on a survey of available data.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/6#99

Which attempts? Internal to the United States? Because the pissweak nibbling at the edges that goes on in the US is not gun control. Of course those watered down half-measures do nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

If you go with the definition of a natural right as a political theory that individuals have basic rights given to them by nature or God that no individual or government can deny, there really are no natural rights (of the social type, physical laws and such are different), as a government can deny its subjects life, liberty, property, etc.

I personally do not believe in natural rights, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy in Knadra's argument.

[Stormdash]

Saying no right can be a natural right because someone (including the sainted and holy government) can violate it rather misses the point -- injustice exists, after all.

[Ghostpanther]

The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to self defence.

Anyway if you'll recall, I stated that presuming gun ownership to be a right is begging the question, and some 20 posts later the question is still being begged.

It is to the extent of what the Government will allow rights to be exercised by the people. It is recognized universally here that a citizen has the right to self defense. Does not mean they have to use the Second as a means to exercise that right. They can choose to use a baseball bat, axe, kitchen knife, hands or scream, etc. We can presume here in the US that gun ownership is a right under our Constitution. So there is nothing wrong or incorrect about stating that gun ownership and using one for self defense is a right here in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

So the solution is...?

To look at the root cause of why such shootings happen. Not the tool being used. Of course you need some gun controls. But as long as we have the right to keep and bare arms ( firearms ) here, we will have higher amount of shootings than those countries which do not. But I would never want to not have that right.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose there is none.

Just duck and cover if you hear shots. Or fight back if you have your own gun.

I think you may be getting it.

- - - Updated - - -

Which attempts? Internal to the United States? Because the pissweak nibbling at the edges that goes on in the US is not gun control. Of course those watered down half-measures do nothing.

- - - Updated - - -



I personally do not believe in natural rights, I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy in Knadra's argument.

That is not true. From 1998 - 2014 , 1,081,496 applicants to purchase a firearm in the US, was denied due to failure to pass a background check. http://www.guns.com/2014/02/15/top-1...past-15-years/

You can personally not believe something, but that in itself does not mean it is right. There is no fallacy to Knadra's argument. It is a natural right to defend yourself. Of course even that right can be denied by tyranny.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying no right can be a natural right because someone (including the sainted and holy government) can violate it rather misses the point -- injustice exists, after all.

Exactly. Which history will prove that.

[Mormolyce]

It is to the extent of what the Government will allow rights to be exercised by the people. It is recognized universally here that a citizen has the right to self defense. Does not mean they have to use the Second as a means to exercise that right. They can choose to use a baseball bat, axe, kitchen knife, hands or scream, etc. We can presume here in the US that gun ownership is a right under our Constitution. So there is nothing wrong or incorrect about stating that gun ownership and using one for self defense is a right here in the US.

Remember when I pointed out to you that the courts recently ruled that fixed bladed knives like kitchen knives are not covered by the Second Amendment?

Your right to self defence argument has no bearing on the Second Amendment at all. Maybe you should think about the fact that the right to self defence is not anywhere in the Bill of Rights, for example. Different issue entirely.

That is not true. From 1998 - 2014 , 1,081,496 applicants to purchase a firearm in the US, was denied due to failure to pass a background check. http://www.guns.com/2014/02/15/top-1...past-15-years/

You can personally not believe something, but that in itself does not mean it is right. There is no fallacy to Knadra's argument. It is a natural right to defend yourself. Of course even that right can be denied by tyranny.

Background checks are not gun control, that's just basic sanity. And you continue to beg the question.

[lockedout]

Background checks are not gun control, that's just basic sanity. And you continue to beg the question.

It's a form of gun control. In controls who can and cannot legally acquire a firearm.

[shimerra]

As a trainer and a Breeder of K9 Protection dogs for over 20 years I can tell you with 100% certainty that you are full of shit. A k9 is not better then having a firearm for defense. The two actually go together as it is the K9s job to deter the assialiant long enough for you to get away or get armed. The Dog usually pays with his life .And as a cost comparision it can easily cost you over $20k for a decent protection animal by the time you add in the years and years of training required and time investment.

Then you're an idiot who totally missed the point. Yup, double checked you are.


The overwhelming, we're talking 85-88%, of home invasions/breaks ins take place while the owner isn't home. Want to know why? Because most people trying to break into your home aren't going in there to kill you they're there to take your stuff and get the fuck out. Even having you there at all let alone fighting you is the last thing you want because that completely fucks with their ability to complete their primary objective: stealing your shit. Having a gun does exactly fuck all in this situation BECAUSE YOU AREN'T THERE TO USE IT TO DEFEND YOUR HOME and your person isn't there to require defending.


Now let's take a dog in that situation. The mere presence of any dog in your home has been shown to significantly reduce your chance to be home invaded. Why? They often bite intruders but more importantly they typically make a fuck ton of noise and the last thing someone trying to sneak into your home to sneak out with your stuff wants is noise attracting attention to what they're doing. And guess what? Unlike your gun which is gonna do fuck all while you're gone most people leave their dogs at home for regular outings like work, going to the store etc. Another fun fact? Breed matters very little. The little noisy shits are almost as valuable as the big scary German Shepherds, of which I have one myself, because in the long list of possible targets two comparable houses the one without the dog is the smarter choice to go for. And finally the gun fails as a deterrent because For 99% of gun owners there's no huge I have a gun sign outside their home and as I said since they're trying to rob you when you're not there anyway you owning own is largely just another nice thing to steal. So a gun is a massively useless item for home protection in the overwhelming majority of places it would need it.


Of the remaining percentage of break ins where people do happen to be home well over half of those the thief gets the fuck out the second they realize someone is home. Again, scary barking dog helps with the decision to gtfo before a fight occurs. No altercation of any kind even occurs between the home owner and the criminal. Of the remaining percentage where a physical altercation does occur for most of us if you store your gun safely and properly you're probably not going to be able to get at it before the thief either leaves or you're in the altercation.

Now what do we have here? Dog that reduces your chance of being broken into in the vast majority of cases where a criminal tries to break into your home while you're not there, a situation the gun is 100% ineffective, and means the dangerous encounter which could potentially be fatal for you never occurs in the first place. Or a gun, which is only useful once the thief is in the home and only in the small small percentage of cases where the thief doesn't automatically try and book it.

Most people who break into homes with intent to harm you are people you know. Friends, family, associates. Even before accounting for the situations where someone in that group wants to harm you you're vastly more likely to use the gun on them, or yourself, intentionally/accidentally than ever successfully use it in self-defense. And the person most likely to break in to harm you intentionally? Someone in one of those three groups.

So again to recap: The dog deters the thief from ever choosing to enter your home in the first place. The gun does not. The gun even for the safest of owners presents a statistical risk to the live of yourself and family members either through intentional use to harm them or accident. Dog bite from a poorly trained dog defiantly beats a gun shot wound. You're also much less likely to have your dog maul someone to death by accident or your command. The dog is also effective in scaring the invader out if they do choose you, probably about as effective if not more than screaming you have a gun. So it boils down to dog: a life long loving companion that science has shown has many mental and physical health benefits for possessing vs gun: a lethal weapon you're more likely to use to harm the very people you were trying to protest or to harm yourself.


It's absolutely zero contest which is the more effective home defense solution for the overwhelming majority of situations and people. So unless you're an asshole constantly pissing people off to the point where they want to murder you by breaking into your home the dog's the smarter and better choice. Own your guns all you want, but stop deluding yourself into thinking it's this great home defense god send.

[Mormolyce]

It's a form of gun control. In controls who can and cannot legally acquire a firearm.

Meaningless.

[Stormdash]

Meaningless.

Any regulatory impediment is a form of control subject to constitutional scrutiny for any textual civil liberty. Hell, the infamous "penumbral" right is treated with even more kid gloves in that regard.

BTW, it is binding precedent in all federal courts and settled law that the right of self-defense is implicated in the 2nd Amendment. Just more of you pretending Heller didn't happen.

[Ghostpanther]

Remember when I pointed out to you that the courts recently ruled that fixed bladed knives like kitchen knives are not covered by the Second Amendment?

Your right to self defence argument has no bearing on the Second Amendment at all. Maybe you should think about the fact that the right to self defence is not anywhere in the Bill of Rights, for example. Different issue entirely.



Background checks are not gun control, that's just basic sanity. And you continue to beg the question.

Of course the kitchen knife is not covered in the Second. But you could still use one in self defense if attacked in your home and no court is going to convict you of a crime here in the US.

Wrong. Our Supreme Court has ruled a citizen can use the Second Amendment as a grounds for self defense.

It is still a form of gun control to the extent it kept over 1 million people who should not have guns, from having them legally.

[Dystemper]

Then you're an idiot who totally missed the point. Yup, double checked you are.


The overwhelming, we're talking 85-88%, of home invasions/breaks ins take place while the owner isn't home. Want to know why? Because most people trying to break into your home aren't going in there to kill you they're there to take your stuff and get the fuck out. Even having you there at all let alone fighting you is the last thing you want because that completely fucks with their ability to complete their primary objective: stealing your shit. Having a gun does exactly fuck all in this situation BECAUSE YOU AREN'T THERE TO USE IT TO DEFEND YOUR HOME and your person isn't there to require defending.


Now let's take a dog in that situation. The mere presence of any dog in your home has been shown to significantly reduce your chance to be home invaded. Why? They often bite intruders but more importantly they typically make a fuck ton of noise and the last thing someone trying to sneak into your home to sneak out with your stuff wants is noise attracting attention to what they're doing. And guess what? Unlike your gun which is gonna do fuck all while you're gone most people leave their dogs at home for regular outings like work, going to the store etc. Another fun fact? Breed matters very little. The little noisy shits are almost as valuable as the big scary German Shepherds, of which I have one myself, because in the long list of possible targets two comparable houses the one without the dog is the smarter choice to go for. And finally the gun fails as a deterrent because For 99% of gun owners there's no huge I have a gun sign outside their home and as I said since they're trying to rob you when you're not there anyway you owning own is largely just another nice thing to steal. So a gun is a massively useless item for home protection in the overwhelming majority of places it would need it.


Of the remaining percentage of break ins where people do happen to be home well over half of those the thief gets the fuck out the second they realize someone is home. Again, scary barking dog helps with the decision to gtfo before a fight occurs. No altercation of any kind even occurs between the home owner and the criminal. Of the remaining percentage where a physical altercation does occur for most of us if you store your gun safely and properly you're probably not going to be able to get at it before the thief either leaves or you're in the altercation.

Now what do we have here? Dog that reduces your chance of being broken into in the vast majority of cases where a criminal tries to break into your home while you're not there, a situation the gun is 100% ineffective, and means the dangerous encounter which could potentially be fatal for you never occurs in the first place. Or a gun, which is only useful once the thief is in the home and only in the small small percentage of cases where the thief doesn't automatically try and book it.

Most people who break into homes with intent to harm you are people you know. Friends, family, associates. Even before accounting for the situations where someone in that group wants to harm you you're vastly more likely to use the gun on them, or yourself, intentionally/accidentally than ever successfully use it in self-defense. And the person most likely to break in to harm you intentionally? Someone in one of those three groups.

So again to recap: The dog deters the thief from ever choosing to enter your home in the first place. The gun does not. The gun even for the safest of owners presents a statistical risk to the live of yourself and family members either through intentional use to harm them or accident. Dog bite from a poorly trained dog defiantly beats a gun shot wound. You're also much less likely to have your dog maul someone to death by accident or your command. The dog is also effective in scaring the invader out if they do choose you, probably about as effective if not more than screaming you have a gun. So it boils down to dog: a life long loving companion that science has shown has many mental and physical health benefits for possessing vs gun: a lethal weapon you're more likely to use to harm the very people you were trying to protest or to harm yourself.


It's absolutely zero contest which is the more effective home defense solution for the overwhelming majority of situations and people. So unless you're an asshole constantly pissing people off to the point where they want to murder you by breaking into your home the dog's the smarter and better choice. Own your guns all you want, but stop deluding yourself into thinking it's this great home defense god send.

There is a whole lot of talk for someone who does not know what the fuck they are talking about. Violent home invasions are becoming a real threat. They dont care if you are home or not and there is a growing trend in this activity to actally wait until the owner is home. Why? Because they can get more money, for the shear terror they can inflict or because its a thrill kill. They dont care if you have a dog. Especially in a rural area where the Police can be 45 minutes away. A dog can be easily dispatched with a quick shot or poisoned meat. As I said I trained PRotection dogs for over 20 years, almost impossible to train a dog not to eat something it finds on the ground, And home invasions are increasingly being done by groups of 3 or more. Again the dogs becomes nothing more then a alarm that gives its live so you can take action.

A firearm is a fforce multiplier tool. A well trained Protection dog is also that. But your not always allowed to have one. Many homeowner insurance plans ban you from owning certain breeds and especially Trained protection dogs. So before vomiting your mental diarrhea all over the page, actually know what the fuck you are talking about from first hand experience not just your feelings