• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Guns and Violence, A Logical Perspective

arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

A few - hopefully - not-so-random thoughts...

The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.

The problem I have with the "individual constitutional right" argument is that that makes it impossible to legally take a gun from anyone - including someone committing a crime: a armed robber confronted by police can claim that it's his "individual constitutional right" to have a gun. Even if he survives the ensuing shoot-out, his gun can't be removed without breaching that right; when he goes to court - armed - he can't be prevented from entering the court with his weapons, nor sent to prison without them - assuming there wasn't a shoot-out during the sentencing - etc, etc, ...

The confusion inherent in the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment is that the "right" to keep and bear arms is mistaken for the "natural right" to preserve life and limb.

These are not the same thing at all.

The Second Amendment per se is not the issue here - it's the confusion over rights.

Further, due to this confusion, it makes it difficult to remove guns from those law-abiding citizens who subsequently develop mental health problems associated with violence, as police in the US acknowledge.

It should be noted that the ban on those with mental health problems from owning guns is also a problem - not all those with mental health problems are violent: strange as it may seem, the majority are less violent than "normal" people. There are, however, a minority whose mental health problems are associated with violence - it is these who need to be kept away form weapons, not just guns.

Because of the blanket ban, anyone with a mental health problem will remain silent on their condition lest their weapons be taken from them - this failure to seek help is a recipe for disaster for those whose problem is associated with violence.

A further aspect of this is those who take anti-malaria (prior to going on holiday, for example) or other medication associated with mood-swings - such individuals have on occassion committed suicide (with or without the use of guns). Should their doctor first check that they don't have guns and/or should such people have their weapons temporarily removed from them just in case?

Another aspect to the prevalence of gun violence in America is that the higher rate of gun crime is due to the easy access to guns rather than a inherently more violent society (perhaps just a more stressful one!?) - if there weren't guns, this would not necessarily reduce/end violence, just that other means would be used: knives, poison, etc.

I think the main cause of gun violence in the US is - strange as it may seem to some - due to the fact that people in the US rely on guns for home safety rather than secure entry-points.

In the US, statistics show that 85% of home invasions occur through the front door - in Europe this would be unthinkable.

In the US, the attitude appears to be that since no-one in their right mind would break into a house where the home-owner is likely to have a gun, there's little/no need for secure front and back doors or windows.

Also, police response times play a important part in the likelihood of home invasions - slow response times are associated with higher rates of home invasions.

Many think that encouraging businesses to move into run-down neighbourhoods will reduce crime - in fact the opposite needs to happen: communities need to address crime rates in order to encourage businesses to move into the neighbourhood.

They won't come if there're high crime rates.

The lack of community policing - police officers on the street talking to citizens - in favour of police driving past/through neighbourhoods in cars, does little to help reduce crime. With officers visibly on the streets, ne'er-do-wells are less likely to commit crimes.

If there was a concerted effort to improve secure entry-points (to keep would-be intruders out until the police arrive) and reduce police response times, the incidence of home invasions would decrease - thus, in turn, reducing the need for guns for home defence.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Inferno"/>
DraganGlas said:
The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.

I disagree. Many European countries have a militia and some of them are even good militias and none of them take their guns home. Granted, the Swiss do, but they build cuckoo clocks, so what do they know.

I mostly agree with the rest, but will point out that the US police seem (at least to an outsider) to be doing worse than their European counterparts.I understand police training is very short and the police have a lot of rights European police do not have. If someone could confirm that...
 
arg-fallbackName="tuxbox"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

A few - hopefully - not-so-random thoughts...

The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.

The problem I have with the "individual constitutional right" argument is that that makes it impossible to legally take a gun from anyone - including someone committing a crime: a armed robber confronted by police can claim that it's his "individual constitutional right" to have a gun. Even if he survives the ensuing shoot-out, his gun can't be removed without breaching that right; when he goes to court - armed - he can't be prevented from entering the court with his weapons, nor sent to prison without them - assuming there wasn't a shoot-out during the sentencing - etc, etc, ...

The confusion inherent in the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment is that the "right" to keep and bear arms is mistaken for the "natural right" to preserve life and limb.

These are not the same thing at all.

The Second Amendment per se is not the issue here - it's the confusion over rights.

Further, due to this confusion, it makes it difficult to remove guns from those law-abiding citizens who subsequently develop mental health problems associated with violence, as police in the US acknowledge.

It should be noted that the ban on those with mental health problems from owning guns is also a problem - not all those with mental health problems are violent: strange as it may seem, the majority are less violent than "normal" people. There are, however, a minority whose mental health problems are associated with violence - it is these who need to be kept away form weapons, not just guns.

Because of the blanket ban, anyone with a mental health problem will remain silent on their condition lest their weapons be taken from them - this failure to seek help is a recipe for disaster for those whose problem is associated with violence.

A further aspect of this is those who take anti-malaria (prior to going on holiday, for example) or other medication associated with mood-swings - such individuals have on occassion committed suicide (with or without the use of guns). Should their doctor first check that they don't have guns and/or should such people have their weapons temporarily removed from them just in case?

Another aspect to the prevalence of gun violence in America is that the higher rate of gun crime is due to the easy access to guns rather than a inherently more violent society (perhaps just a more stressful one!?) - if there weren't guns, this would not necessarily reduce/end violence, just that other means would be used: knives, poison, etc.

I think the main cause of gun violence in the US is - strange as it may seem to some - due to the fact that people in the US rely on guns for home safety rather than secure entry-points.

In the US, statistics show that 85% of home invasions occur through the front door - in Europe this would be unthinkable.

In the US, the attitude appears to be that since no-one in their right mind would break into a house where the home-owner is likely to have a gun, there's little/no need for secure front and back doors or windows.

Also, police response times play a important part in the likelihood of home invasions - slow response times are associated with higher rates of home invasions.

Many think that encouraging businesses to move into run-down neighbourhoods will reduce crime - in fact the opposite needs to happen: communities need to address crime rates in order to encourage businesses to move into the neighbourhood.

They won't come if there're high crime rates.

The lack of community policing - police officers on the street talking to citizens - in favour of police driving past/through neighbourhoods in cars, does little to help reduce crime. With officers visibly on the streets, ne'er-do-wells are less likely to commit crimes.

If there was a concerted effort to improve secure entry-points (to keep would-be intruders out until the police arrive) and reduce police response times, the incidence of home invasions would decrease - thus, in turn, reducing the need for guns for home defence.

Kindest regards,

James


The Bill of Rights does indeed speak to individual rights. The First Amendment is all about individual's right to assemble for peaceful protests, right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, and freedom of the press. If that amendment is based on individual rights, then if follows that the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well. Especially since it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Wikipedia, also adds “The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices." Furthermore, Americans have owned firearms since the founding of this nation. So if follows that the First Amendment does indeed apply to individuals. Otherwise they would have been disarmed long ago.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Bill of Rights, “...these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.” As I have mentioned in other posts, the Bill of Rights protects individuals and in some cases the States from the Federal Government.

When Thomas Jefferson was drafting the Virginia Constitution he added these to the first three drafts,

First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"

They were never adopted for reasons unknown, but it does show his mindset on the issue.


I agree with the other points that you have made. :)

My personal opinion is that I would rather own an American Bulldog or some other protective breed for home protection than a firearm.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
Inferno said:
DraganGlas said:
The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.

I disagree. Many European countries have a militia and some of them are even good militias and none of them take their guns home. Granted, the Swiss do, but they build cuckoo clocks, so what do they know.
Since Americans already had guns as a means of self-defence as they travelled across the country to set up home-steads, as well as for hunting, their ownership of guns pre-dates militias - hence the unspoken assumption in America that in calling up a militia, one didn't have to provide guns to said militia-men.

A number of states had already drawn up their constitutions before the US constitution - most notably Georgia - which made it clear that the keeping of guns was a right.

My contention - contra the gun lobby - is that this is not a "natural" right: you are not born with a right to a weapon, merely a right to preserve life and limb.
Inferno said:
I mostly agree with the rest, but will point out that the US police seem (at least to an outsider) to be doing worse than their European counterparts.I understand police training is very short and the police have a lot of rights European police do not have. If someone could confirm that...
I think that both police forces have different rights which the other does not.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
tuxbox said:
The Bill of Rights does indeed speak to individual rights. The First Amendment is all about individual's right to assemble for peaceful protests, right to free speech, the free exercise of religion, and freedom of the press. If that amendment is based on individual rights, then if follows that the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well. Especially since it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Wikipedia, also adds “The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices." Furthermore, Americans have owned firearms since the founding of this nation. So if follows that the First Amendment does indeed apply to individuals. Otherwise they would have been disarmed long ago.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Bill of Rights, “...these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.” As I have mentioned in other posts, the Bill of Rights protects individuals and in some cases the States from the Federal Government.

When Thomas Jefferson was drafting the Virginia Constitution he added these to the first three drafts,

First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."
Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"

They were never adopted for reasons unknown, but it does show his mindset on the issue.


I agree with the other points that you have made. :)

My personal opinion is that I would rather own an American Bulldog or some other protective breed for home protection than a firearm.
I wasn't claiming that they didn't apply to individuals, rather that it makes it difficult to disarm someone who is unfit to keep arms, although the Supreme Court's decision included the point that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government (via LEAs) from disarming a individual.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="tuxbox"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,


I wasn't claiming that they didn't apply to individuals, rather that it makes it difficult to disarm someone who is unfit to keep arms, although the Supreme Court's decision included the point that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government (via LEAs) from disarming a individual.

Kindest regards,

James

My apologies for the misunderstanding. LEAs can only disarm someone who is in the act of committing a crime, have committed a crime recently or in the distant past, but it has to be a felony. Or if they have purchased a firearm illegally, which is also a felony. In some cities they require a permit to own a firearm and if an individual owns one without getting a permit, then that firearm may be confiscated. Latter is usually a felony as well, depending on the city.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,
tuxbox said:
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,


I wasn't claiming that they didn't apply to individuals, rather that it makes it difficult to disarm someone who is unfit to keep arms, although the Supreme Court's decision included the point that the Second Amendment does not prevent the government (via LEAs) from disarming a individual.

Kindest regards,

James

My apologies for the misunderstanding. LEAs can only disarm someone who is in the act of committing a crime, have committed a crime recently or in the distant past, but it has to be a felony. Or if they have purchased a firearm illegally, which is also a felony. In some cities they require a permit to own a firearm and if an individual owns one without getting a permit, then that firearm may be confiscated. Latter is usually a felony as well, depending on the city.
No problem - I apologize if I wasn't quite clear. :)

By the way, regarding a guard dog - in Ireland certain breeds come under stricter laws so that the owner has to have them on a lead and muzzled in public at all times. Not much use for protection out in public! :roll:

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="tuxbox"/>
Dragan Glas said:
Greetings,

No problem - I apologize if I wasn't quite clear. :)

I read your post again and you were pretty clear. It's on me for the misunderstanding. :)
Dragan Glas said:
By the way, regarding a guard dog - in Ireland certain breeds come under stricter laws so that the owner has to have them on a lead and muzzled in public at all times. Not much use for protection out in public! :roll:

Kindest regards,

James

Yeah, a muzzled guard dog is not much protection, but then again it might make a would be attacker think twice.

Check this out: :) hehe
 
arg-fallbackName="Visaki"/>
As a small sidenote on the conversation that explains my finnish outlook on the matter.

Finnish police has just shot one poor person to death again. Last time was in 2009. That right, the last time the finnish police shot someone to death was 5 years ago. This in a population of over 5 million and 3-5th on the number of guns per capita in the world. Reason was that the man had killed two people with an axe and attacked the police, again with an axe, in an appartment when they came to arrest him. Luckily the police suffered only light injuries thanks to a helmet.

Clearly we are doing something right in the gun control business.
 
arg-fallbackName="bernardwinston"/>
Visaki said:
As a small sidenote on the conversation that explains my finnish outlook on the matter.

Finnish police has just shot one poor person to death again. Last time was in 2009. That right, the last time the finnish police shot someone to death was 5 years ago. This in a population of over 5 million and 3-5th on the number of guns per capita in the world. Reason was that the man had killed two people with an axe and attacked the police, again with an axe, in an appartment when they came to arrest him. Luckily the police suffered only light injuries thanks to a helmet.

Clearly we are doing something right in the gun control business.

I may asked should a Finnish police has the right to kill or shot a person to death without no reason? If he do so is there any punishment for what hea has done to a certain person?
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Then again, the amount of violence carried out with guns will drastically decline. In my book, lives should be saved and royally fuck the second amendment. From memory, few countries have as high a homicide rate as the US. That is, in large part at least, due to the gun laws.
Other forms of violence would increase. The violent crime rate currently in my locale is 3 times than it typically is and primarily are not traced to firearms as the method even though firearms sales and ownership is peak.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
For some background on my gun oppinion; I'm Finnish and Finland is, depending on the study, on the places 3-5 on guns per capita in the World. Per capita we have a bit over half the guns that the US, which is by far the clear leader, has. Still our rate of homicides is a third of the USs and homicides using guns about a tenth. I wonder why that is.

Most of our guns are (bolt action) rifles and shotguns for hunting (self loading ones are rare and automatic weapons are banned) , pistols are rare. You need a licence to buy a gun and licences for pistols, specially anything heavier than a .22, are hard to get. Most finnish males have attended the concription based army and handled weapons (an assault rifle and a LMG for me) there and to get a licence for a hunting weapon you need to pass a test on hunting laws and gun safety. Our police have this year used their guns about 40 times. "Used" means that they have taken a gun out and either fired it or used it as a threat. Half of those are putting down some pigs that were so maltreated that they were euthanized and only handfull of cases have the officer firing his weapon as a warning shot or at a person. So the bar for even taking ones gun out of the holster is pretty high for the police here. (Sidenote; I think a big difference in police work, in the light of the recent police shootings in the US, is that our police always work on pairs and that brings a lot of options to the table when dealing with violent but not gun using aggressors.)

I really don't see why some of the suggested regulations aren't implemented in the US. Mandatory back ground checks or even mandatory gun registration isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws banning full automatic 100 round drum magazine assault rifles, 50 BMG sniper rifles or 30 round clips for hand guns aren't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner. Laws mandating that you have to report who you sold your gun to (or if you lost it or it was stolen) isn't a threat to the regular law abidin gun owner.

I'm a bit puzzled on the American's fervor about their 2nd amendment. For an outsider like me it's quite straight foreward; The founding fathers thought that a standing army is a threat to democrasy so they wanted a citizen militia as the armed force of the US. Militia needed arms so the ownership of arms for that militia wasn't to be prohibited. Of course these days the US has not only a large standing army, but a "well regulated militia" in the national guards as well so the premise behind the 2nd amendment is obsolete. But that's just my outsiders oppinion on the matter. I'm sure people who sell guns for a living like the NRA know better.
I would have to argue that Americans are composed of many countries and several of them being from the 3rd world. The 3rd world isn't exactly know for being non violent. We have social issues such as no incentive to remain law abiding as the rates of repeat crime is higher than most countries I know of.

Background checks are corrupt and incompetent here. I literally work for a gun dealer which means I have run background checks on law enforcement officers with credentials and the system flags them on occasion. Likewise myself being a certified firearms instructor, work at a gun dealer to sell firearms to other persons, maintain a carry permit and the system has flagged me as a prohibited person as well.

I have NO trust with background checks as they flag completely non prohibited persons and frankly I rather sell a firearm to a prohibited person rather than deny a person their right to own or possess or transfer or use a firearm.

Registration has been used to confiscated firearms by type under the NFA and the further amendments offered by the GCA. To claim that the government taking property without permission is NOT a threat to the law abiding or citizenry is simply not the case. That is basically legal theft and I will not support it or comply with registration on non NFA items (any further). Also it has been misused by the U.S. government to be released to the public and then as a result homes were targeted and firearms stolen and the houses of those owners were attacked. Why should I trust the management skills of the U.S. government on firearms let alone other topics?

The premise of the second amendment is for a security of a free state. If that means against government or as an individual basis is vague. I know for one thing that not having the types of firearms that are heavily restricted or banned would be of BENEFIT in both examples as they are more powerful firearms by default and if used properly can be definitely be used for both. giving them up however would just further make worse the difference in power and give MORE reason not LESS in order to be tyrannical.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
I agree with Visaki. The situation is similar in Austria. Merely unholstering your gun as a policeman requires an incredible amount of paperwork later on.

I believe, though I can not prove it, that police gun use is proportionate to what society does with guns, with causal connections going both ways. Reduce one and you're likely to reduce the other.

Now, as for tuxbox's points:


Doesn't matter. Ban ammunition. I remember that Chris Rock sketch: If a bullet is so crazily expensive that nobody can buy them, or alternatively if bullets are banned from being sold, then there may be some residual violence at first, but soon the ammo will run out. Once bullets run out, you can start taking back the guns.


Point being?


There are ways, though I might not know them all. I'm curious: How did the Australians do it? They bought them back, they gave them incentives to relinquish their weapons. I'm sure most Americans wouldn't mind a bit of extra $$$.
U.S. citizens stockpile ammunition. Thousands of rounds of ammunition able to sold or transferred regardless of legality assuming you ban such behavior. It already happens.

Noting the general attitude of Americans you would likely cause a civil war ironically increasing violence not reducing it. Remember people buy firearms specifically to use them against people and more specifically potentially use them against politicians and the government.

Even when we take a look at Australia you honestly consider 1/3 of prohibited firearms being recovered a great success? Now imagine the compliance of AMERICANS let alone the whipped beta males of Australia whom have no thought of possibly using firearms against their own government.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Even when we take a look at Australia you honestly consider 1/3 of prohibited firearms being recovered a great success? Now imagine the compliance of AMERICANS let alone the whipped beta males of Australia whom have no thought of possibly using firearms against their own government.

Whipped beta males of Australia - who actually talks like that? - regardless, it seems like you're mistaking the ability to buy a gun with male virility or penis length.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
By the way, don't expect a reply from Inferno or Visaki consider their posts you're replying to were written 7 years ago and neither have been here for many, many years.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
Other forms of violence would increase yes after a ban. We see it in Brazil and Mexico for a variety of reasons. Even Australia you see increase of other form of violence once other methods are barred. Just because you address the method doesn't mean you address the behavior.

mistaking the ability to buy a gun with male virility or penis length.
No I am not. I am simply arguing that giving up something with the unfounded notion that you are going to be safer for it is ridiculous. Mass shootings still happen in Australia and about the same rate even after the 1996 gun control scheme Australia implemented. Also we see data manipulation when these shootings aren't reported by the news. We also see definitions being changed in order to favor other countries. 3 vs 4 shot and considering public vs private seems arbitrary reasoning to me. It doesn't seem like Australia's gun control helped.

Shootings in Australia post 1996 gun legislation:
1. Wright St Bikie murders 8 October 1999 Adelaide, Australia 3 dead 2 injured Hell's Angels feud (mass shooting).
2. Monash University shooting 21 October 2002 Melbourne 2 dead 5 injured Mass shooting attack by Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang. Perpetrator was acquitted due to mental illness, is in permanent psychiatric care.
3. Oakhampton Heights Shooting 20 March 2005 Hunter Valley, New South Wales 4 dead Mass shooting attack and familicide. Sally Winter uses a firearm to kill her husband, two children, and herself.
4. 2011 Hectorville siege 29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia 3 dead 3 injured Siege shotgun attack where Anthony Carbo murdered three people and injured three more including two police officers.
5. Hunt family murders 9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales 5 dead Murder-suicide, mass shooting, familicide. Geoff Hunt killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself.
6. Wedderburn shooting 23 October 2014 Wedderburn, Victoria 3 dead Mass shooting, stabbing, siege. Ian Francis Jamieson who shot a husband and wife, after stabbing their son to death then initiated a siege.
7. 2014 Sydney hostage crisis 15–16 December 2014 Sydney, New South Wales 3 dead 1 injured Monis is shot dead, a hostage is fatally injured from accidental fragmentation and three other hostages suffered injuries due to the police raid, alongside one of the sieging officers whom suffered moderate injuries.
8. 2015 Parramatta shooting 2 October 2015 New South Wales 2 dead Following the murder, Farhad entered a shootout with the police, shortly being shot dead by two Special Constables.
9. Port Lincoln murders 4 January 2016 South Australia 3 dead Murder-suicide, familicide. Father shot his two sons, then himself, while driving car into the sea.
10. 2017 Brighton siege 5 June 2017 Brighton, Melbourne 2 dead 3 injured Khayre entered a shootout with police, injuring 3 Specialist Officers, before being shortly shot dead.
11. Osmington shooting 11 May 2018 Osmington, Western Australia 7 dead A grandfather shot his four grandchildren at their home, his daughter, his wife, and then himself.
12. Hills District murders 5 July 2018 West Pennant Hills, New South Wales 3 dead Estranged husband John Edwards, 68, shot his two children (Jack, 15, and Jennifer, 13) at their home, then returned to his nearby home (Normanhurst NSW) and shot himself.
13. Melbourne triple shooting 1 March 2019 Melbourne 1 dead 2 injured 3 men were shot outside the Melbourne Pavilion in Kensington.
14. 2019 Darwin shooting 4 June 2019 Darwin, Northern Territory 4 dead 1 injured Four people were killed and one person was critically injured in the leg in a mass shooting allegedly carried out with a prohibited pump-action (Category C) shotgun.
15. Melbourne nightclub shooting 14 April 2019 Melbourne 2 dead 4 injured man sprayed bullets from a car outside Love Machine nightclub.

Also the general violent crime rate was already in decline before implementation of the 1996 gun scheme. What explains the decline PRIOR to the legislation or enforcement of said legislation?

 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
No I am not. I am simply arguing that giving up something with the unfounded notion that you are going to be safer for it is ridiculous.

You were arguing the above when you wrote this...

Now imagine the compliance of AMERICANS let alone the whipped beta males of Australia whom have no thought of possibly using firearms against their own government.

?

Then no wonder you're struggling to understand that guns represent an escalation of power, the ability to kill a larger number of people in a very short period of time comparative to knives or other weapons. And that's not even taking into account all the accidents of children finding loaded guns, of troubled teens having access to guns letting them get 'revenge' for the shit they faced in school, or how comparatively successful suicide attempts are with a gun.

Guns don't make you safe - that's clearly a bullshit notion when the majority of the world doesn't possess guns and unsurprisingly doesn't need to when they never have to face living in a culture with a fetish for gun violence.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

I would have to argue that Americans are composed of many countries and several of them being from the 3rd world. The 3rd world isn't exactly know for being non violent.
This seems to place the blame for crime rates on immigrants - which is not the case, as studies have shown that they are less likely to commit crimes, if only so as not to draw attention to themselves.

We have social issues such as no incentive to remain law abiding as the rates of repeat crime is higher than most countries I know of.
Agreed, If it were up to me, I think the justice system in America needs to change to promote behavioural changes in those incarcerated before they're allowed to return to society.

Megan's Law is, in my view, a missed opportunity.

Three paedophiles were imprisoned - two went through programmes, one didn't. On being released after an eighteen month sentence (as I recall), they took a house opposite where a little girl called Megan lived. Two sought, and found, work, one of them didn't. Then Megan went missing, only to be found in the attic of the house where the three ex-felons lived.

Any guesses which of them was the culprit?

The one who hadn't gone through any programme - the one who didn't seek work.

The investigation showed that he'd spent his time surfing the internet for child porn.

If you don't go through - and successfully complete - relevant programmes, in my view. you shouldn't be released.

That would "incentivise" those in prison to change - otherwise, they'll stay inside until they do.

Background checks are corrupt and incompetent here. I literally work for a gun dealer which means I have run background checks on law enforcement officers with credentials and the system flags them on occasion. Likewise myself being a certified firearms instructor, work at a gun dealer to sell firearms to other persons, maintain a carry permit and the system has flagged me as a prohibited person as well.
Have you enquired into why the system flagged you?

I have NO trust with background checks as they flag completely non prohibited persons and frankly I rather sell a firearm to a prohibited person rather than deny a person their right to own or possess or transfer or use a firearm.
That's a rather worrying sentiment to express for a FFL.

I understand your concerns, and frustration, with both NICS, and your state's own ICS, nevertheless wouldn't this be better addressed through fixing those systems?

Given that you need such systems in place to tell if someone is "safe", if you don't know whether someone is legitimate or not, how can you sell them a gun? How would your community feel if they knew you'd do that? What about a civic duty-of-care to the community?

Wouldn't this result in your losing not just your FFL but also possibly your other gun-related licences?

What would your ethical - not to mention, legal - position be if a gun you sold to someone under those circumstances was subsequently used in a crime?

It reminds me of news repost I saw of a FFL in NC who, when Obama was elected, gave guns to anyone who entered his gun store. In my view, this was not just negligent but criminally so.

Registration has been used to confiscated firearms by type under the NFA and the further amendments offered by the GCA. To claim that the government taking property without permission is NOT a threat to the law abiding or citizenry is simply not the case. That is basically legal theft and I will not support it or comply with registration on non NFA items (any further).
Again, this would be in breach of your duties as a FFL, with legal consequences.

Also it has been misused by the U.S. government to be released to the public and then as a result homes were targeted and firearms stolen
By whom?

and the houses of those owners were attacked.
Again, by whom?

Why should I trust the management skills of the U.S. government on firearms let alone other topics?
That's what civics, political engagement, and democracy are for, and about.

The premise of the second amendment is for a security of a free state.
Agreed,

If that means against government or as an individual basis is vague.
That is simply not the case.

No state condones treason - any state that does, negates its very right to exist.

If you look at the US - and/or your own state's - constitution, you'll see that the primary reason for losing your 2A right to keep arms is treason.

I know for one thing that not having the types of firearms that are heavily restricted or banned would be of BENEFIT in both examples as they are more powerful firearms by default and if used properly can be definitely be used for both. giving them up however would just further make worse the difference in power and give MORE reason not LESS in order to be tyrannical.
The whole point of a democracy, along with political engagement, is for the people to decide what happens. A republic, which is what America actually is, is to mitigate against popularism, and fascism (where special interest groups vie for power). Over the latter half of the 20th century, various institutions have been weakened, resulting in such special interests gaining more sway, such as corporations and billionaires.

It's ironic that Americans talk about "Big Gubmint" but fail to see that there are three dangerous "Bigs" - Big Government, Big Corporation, and Big Citizen.

The tyranny is more subtle than physical oppression through violence.

Look at how African-American's have been oppressed - even without the use of outright violence.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
you're struggling to understand that guns represent an escalation of power
No I understand perfectly. I am for the escalation of power against criminals that is the point.
world doesn't possess guns and unsurprisingly doesn't need to
That depends on reasons OTHER than firearms. Also that depends on the country as some are more dangerous with more gun controls.
 
Back
Top