Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    He has no right to even comment, since Canada has no stake in America's gun laws. Maybe he could move to California, get an illegal ID and vote?

    Since Canada now has hate speech laws, maybe we could report him to the RCMP? He's guilty, obviously.

    "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    If people like you insist on having the ability to create and implement the "law" as you please, there's no point in having laws, they become meaningless bits of paper. Traditions mean nothing, we don't tolerate sacrificing virgin daughters, burning witches or stoning people to death anymore. There's no need in a democracy to overthrow legal authorities who've been empowered and sustained by democratic means, so there's no reason to give people the right to do so. If enough people are pissed off like you, you have the power to overthrow whoever you want well before it comes to armed mobbery, so who are you scared of?

    I can't stand Communists, nor any other type of personality that likes to assume authority for themselves by undemocratic means. And yes I have the right to comment, it's an international forum and I'm a registered member in reasonably good standing. Go complain to the RCMP for all I care.

    BTW I've loaded and fired a handgun and an SMG, did it at a shooting range a couple years ago. I enjoyed the experience and I'd do it again if it didn't cost hundreds of bucks for 10 minutes of effective range time. I'd love to have gun rights just for myself, but I would trust very few others with them, and I'd be frightened of having swarms of criminals walking around streets and neighborhoods with cheap widely-available firearms of all sizes. Much happier not having to sleep with a gun under my pillow, apparently unlike yourself.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Do you not get the reference to Joe McCarthy? Why are you proud that you've loaded and fired a handgun? I've had a firearm of one sort or another since I was 12, and haven't killed anyone yet.

    You're a fool if you think gun laws will disarm criminals, and you're a fool if you don't protect yourself and family from said criminals. Do you think banning knives in London will stop knife murders?

    Edit: Hundreds of dollars for ten minutes of range time? Jesus, have they got you people snookered. Did you have to give a DNA sample when you signed in? A mental health check? No?

    Did they have armed guards protecting the other shooters from a possible massacre, or are you only allowed wax squibs for your target practice? What SMG? Was it select fire or semiauto? Did Justin hold your hand?

    I'm done. You don't want facts or reason, you just want to spread bullshit and signal your "wokeness". You're an asshole and an idiot.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I mistook your reference, because you yourself sound a lot like Sen. McCarthy, accusing me of leftism and all. I'm not interested in a dick waving contest with you about who's more militant. I'm clarifying that I'm not afraid of guns or theoretically responsible people having them, I'm only afraid of criminals and hotheads like you having them. You only need to lose your temper just once, after all, and you sound like you're just itching for someone to give you the excuse one day.

    I think banning knives in London would be huge, would have loved to have that in place last time I was there. No it won't stop knife murders, but it'll be a lot harder to be able to have one out for any length of time and not get spotted and arrested, and there will be a huge deterrent effect if the penalties for getting caught with one are stiff and the penalties for using one are even stiffer.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, I'm pointing out that the people of the US have a right to keep and bear arms suitable for being called into service in a well-regulated militia, should the circumstance arise.
    They can't be "considered" State militia, because they are not militia. They are not "considered" military reserves, they are legally and formally and explicitly established and organized and paid and trained and armed and commanded as a standing force of US Army Reserves. They are defined to be reserve forces of the US Army. That means they are not a militia. They are a branch of the Army. The US Army is not a militia, it is a military force.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_weekend_a_month,_two_weeks_a_year
    They may or may not be militia - I don't even know what that refers to. There's an official State military force in Texas that calls itself a "militia", which afaik is unique - Texas is special in so many ways - and is of course different from the Texas Army National Guard, which is (as you can read here) the same as other members of the National Guard, a different and nationally affiliated military force: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard.
    Here's a picture identified as Texas Army National Guard soldiers deployed in Iraq: https://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/oneweekendamonth.asp These are not militia.

    Apparently many people think that anything organized at the State level is a militia, as if States could not have armies. That is a confusion.

    There are unarguable militia active in Texas, and if you read their information pages they regard the State run "militia" as a regular military force, not a militia like themselves. http://www.texasstatemilitiacentral.com/about-us/ http://www.texasstatemilitia.com/about.html
    http://www.texasmilitia.info
    http://texascitizensmilitia.com (requires the purchase of an "AR-15 or comparable" firearm)

    Most of the militia in the US - afaik all of them, actually, with the possible exception of the official Texas State Guard - are "unorganized", in the bureaucratic run-around language of the National Guard Acts.

    And we still have the relevance problem. The US citizenry has Constitutional rights by the fact of being the US citizenry. They don't have to join the National Guard to receive them, as if they were some kind of earned privilege. They can even be old, crippled, wheel-chair bound, etc, and enjoy protection from arbitrary search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms, and all the others.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And people find the intransigent opposition to the political agenda of gun control advocates a mystery.
     
  10. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    How can you judge whether I'm a hothead or not? How can you know that I've never voted for a Republican candidate before? What business is it of yours if I get angry at morons and not shoot them?

    You are a fool: "Banning knives in London would be huge..."

    Carpenters, cooks, painters, carvers and Muslim terrorists will just stop their trade just because Khan said so? As I said, you're a fool.
     
  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Well no, I don't think it's any secret that millions of Americans want to see gun ownership and usage severely restricted outright, and there's no reason for them to hide this desire, even if it frightens existing gun owners. If there was a middle ground both sides were interested in, that could be pursued, but it's not worth engaging in dishonest politics only to pull a bait and switch later. Among first world nations, America is a severe outlier in gun ownership, incarceration and murder rates, so it seems the "guns for everyone makes us safer" logic keeps running into the brick wall of reality.
     
  12. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    You were just telling me how tough, manly and fearless you are with your mighty cannons to fight off any evil-doers who dare come your way, while I have to hide behind Justin Trudeau's kitchen apron as he strokes me with his milk-softened fingers and protects me from the bad guys.

    No, terrorists will be more cautious and sparing about conducting their trade, because they will frequently be caught with knives even when they're not in the process of using them or planning on their immediate use, and the penalties will be severe before they've even had a chance to martyr themselves.
     
  13. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Yeah, right. You're a fool.
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  14. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    If a small minority of Americans in a small minority of states are able to prevent meaningful dialogue and change regarding current American gun policies, and mass shootings keep occurring as they do or increasing as more people become inspired, I don't see why states like New York and California can't just impose whatever state-level policy their voters feel is appropriate, and ignore whatever rulings come down from federal courts to the contrary. Let Alabama and Texas team up to kick them out of the union if they want, with Trump in charge enough of them want to leave as is.
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Hurr durr durr to you too.
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It also frightens a substantial fraction of the reasonable majority, whether they own guns or not, splitting the majority vote in many elections. Which goes a long way toward answering the question in the OP.
    You would be surprised, I think, at what voters in New York and California find appropriate along the lines of ignoring the Federal Courts, rewriting the Constitution, etc.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  17. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Ok, well if you think there's a reasonable middle ground approach which would gain enough support to make it into legislation, why don't you go ahead and spell it out?

    I don't know exactly where voters in those states stand on any of these issues, but I don't think they should be or will indefinitely allow themselves to be held hostage by an intransigent minority. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time federal authority has been openly flouted by individual states, and I'm also sure that whether sections of the constitution contradict one another or which section overrides the other, depends on which judge you ask.

    My only interest is to see the American majority ultimately have its way on gun legislation in their own jurisdictions, if a clear majority in favor of one position or another ever emerges.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    For the fifteenth time here?
    They're being held hostage by two intransigent minorities.
    A clear and well-known majority in favor of several gun control measures has long existed.
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I've seen you mention "reasonable policies" like a dozen times here, I haven't actually seen you outline any such policy. Maybe just give me a post # for reference so I can go look it up myself?

    Like I say, I haven't seen any thus far, but if you can reference a post then I'll go take a look. The way I see it, anything that permits average Joes to have assault weapons around the house and out in public isn't going to make a substantial difference, but maybe you can surprise me.
     
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Why be competent at shooting a target other than fear of missing an attacker?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And we are supposed to take that seriously, do work to inform you of what has with complete certainty passed before your eyes at least a half a dozen times on this forum alone, and in the outside world is common knowledge?
    Let's just throw in background checks, magazine restrictions, and special restrictions on "assault rifles" however they are identified. You never saw such proposals, you claim.

    But you want to throw out the US Constitution because it interferes with laws you want to pass, and have London ban knives from its city limits.
     
  22. Xelor Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    208
    • Because people prefer to use ranged weapons more so than to have no alternative but to engage in "up close and personal" combat. That preference applied to assailants and defenders.
      • Because many people are neither fit nor skilled enough to defend themselves adequately in an "up close and personal" situation, and they know it.
      • Because many people aren't fit enough to effectively flee from assailants who might chase after them, and they know it.
      • Because firearms are less expensive than are home security and other defensive systems than can stop all but the most determined, prepared and prescient of would-be assailants.
      • Because one must expend fewer resources overall to buy a gun and some bullets than it does to develop oneself to be very adept at "up close and personal" combat.
    • Because the other ranged weapon alternatives require a measure of skill and stealth/surprise that is difficult to achieve.
    • Because bullets are more easily transported than stones and arrows.
    • Because certain firearms are far more concealable than are bows.
    • Because there's a multibillion dollar industry that depends in part on anyone and everyone having the money and will to do being able to buy as many firearms as possible.
    • Because the 2nd Amendment debate has been framed in terms of stopping gun violence rather than reducing it.
    • Because "gun control" has been framed as "taking away your guns" rather than as "controlling the impetus for, incidence and means of undertaking gun violence." (That's pure marketing skill. The former is a pithy "tagline," whereas the latter has no similarly catchy and personal oversimplification.)
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  23. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No, the active military was composed of the militia and its existing arms. There was no difference, nor was there any indication there was intended to be.
    If anything, the changing circumstances would only lead the founding fathers to demand more parity with the standing military, not less. To say otherwise ignores everything we know from the Federalist Papers.
    There is zero evidence that militia is intentionally distinct from the people or the military, since the militia is given as justification for an armed populace, and could be called upon to serve the nation and form the military (select militia).
    Again, the Federalist Papers and the anti-federalists leading up to the ratification of the Constitution argued against putting the people at the mercy of the standing military.
    An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.

    A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
    So roughly 1 out of every 4 burglaries.
    If you're home, to do any defending at all, it is your life and property (castle doctrine) you're defending.
    As shown above, about 1 in every 4 burglaries.
    Gun owner doesn't mean knowledgeable gun owner.
    What are you talking about? As far as I know, only large amounts of extra gunpowder were stored elsewhere. And British troops trying to take these is know as the Gunpowder Incident. All prior to the Constitution.
    A panic room that many people do not have the space for, cannot build in rental property, and costs way more than a 300 dollar handgun. Obviously not an option for everyone. And in the US, castle doctrine means we have a right to use deadly force to defend our property.
    So you think gun manufacturers and sellers make states enough tax revenue for them to overlook the illegal uses of guns? The only organizations spreading fear and ignorance seem to be ones like Everytown for Gun Safety, who have been called out for their deceptive propaganda, even by the mainstream media.
    What organization "gets paid by the gun sold?" And wouldn't gun accidents discourage new gun sales by making them seem more dangerous?
    Estimates made by the federal government account for 100,000 illegal immigrants who are still residing in Canada.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_Canada#Statistics

    Blacks Canadians 3.5%
    Latin American Canadians 1.3%
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Visible_minority_population


    The most recent estimates put the number of unauthorized immigrants at 11 million in 2015, representing 3.4% of the total U.S. population.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeg...ted_States#Total_number_of_illegal_immigrants

    As of July 2016, White Americans are the racial majority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to an estimated 12.7% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to an estimated 17.8% of the total U.S. population, making up the largest ethnic minority.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

    Population size and composition makes a difference.
    It is legal, so it can't be taking the law into their own hands (vigilantism), and for the very reason that police are rarely on the scene the moment danger arises. And defying the law is already criminal.
     

Share This Page