All Hail the Second Amendment

[TheBeardedDude]

I have to admit that I don't think I would go quite so far as to say that the gun lobby has bought Supreme Court Justices, but I will certainly say that I don't think all of them are the unbiased non-political individuals they are supposed to be.

And to change subjects, the notion that "if there was someone with a gun to shoot that guy then it wouldn't have happened" is fallacious. I could just as easily say that if there were no guns then he would not have been able to commit that act either. It also opens the door to the question of whether or not you give those kids the guns to defend themselves. Because right now in the US, someone who has had absolutely no training with a gun could have been there and tried to stop him, and killed other people in the process.

Let me put it another way, the Navy Yard shooting a few months back was a scene of chaos where there were reports of multiple shooters. The reason for that was because plain clothes policemen were mistaken for bad guys. Now, what if Joe Blow the jackass who has a gun, see a plain clothes policeman and shoots first?


Also, no one has addressed my previous set of questions and concerns.

[Minimalist]

The gun nuts have a simple equation. More guns = safer.

Were that true, the US would be the safest place on earth.

[Minimalist]

It's amazing how these fucking guns keep going off all by themselves!

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.s...hospi.html

A Harrisburg man suffered significant injuries Wednesday night when he accidentally shot himself with a sawed-off shotgun, according to city police.

The 39-year-old man was carrying the shotgun wrapped in a jacket when it discharged, police said.

http://www.kptv.com/story/22420062/deput...ily-member

BEND, OR (KPTV) -

A boy was flown to a Bend hospital after investigators said he was accidentally shot by a family member.

http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/man...nge/nX3x3/

Gray told deputies he was preparing to target shoot off of North Tecumseh Road in Bethel Township when his gun went off while it was pointed at his feet.

I suppose we can strike these bozos from the list of "responsible" gun owners?

[Brakeman]

And to change subjects, the notion that "if there was someone with a gun to shoot that guy then it wouldn't have happened" is fallacious. I could just as easily say that if there were no guns then he would not have been able to commit that act either. ..

Also, no one has addressed my previous set of questions and concerns.

You seem to love to engage in gun "philosophy" instead of gun reality. It's not fallacious, it is really the only way it would have actually occurred.

Its silly to say "what if there were no guns", the current reality is that there are guns, and many of them are in good hands and many of them are in bad hands. If you want to be silly like that why don't you say" what if bullets bounced off good people and only hurt bad people?" It makes only for wasted time discussing whimsy.

Climbing for a more academic level, what do you propose that we do from where we are?

The point of the line from whence this discussion thread came off was it was a pity that someone couldn't have stopped the man, WHO ALREADY HAD a gun, from killing the man and kids. I must take it from the lack of rational responses that the only practical way to have done this is with another gun. Yes, I was referring to the irony.

[Minimalist]

the current reality is that there are guns,

Yes, that is the problem. And too many idiots are waving them around.

[TheBeardedDude]

And to change subjects, the notion that "if there was someone with a gun to shoot that guy then it wouldn't have happened" is fallacious. I could just as easily say that if there were no guns then he would not have been able to commit that act either. ..

Also, no one has addressed my previous set of questions and concerns.

You seem to love to engage in gun "philosophy" instead of gun reality. It's not fallacious, it is really the only way it would have actually occurred.

Its silly to say "what if there were no guns", the current reality is that there are guns, and many of them are in good hands and many of them are in bad hands. If you want to be silly like that why don't you say" what if bullets bounced off good people and only hurt bad people?" It makes only for wasted time discussing whimsy.

Climbing for a more academic level, what do you propose that we do from where we are?

The point of the line from whence this discussion thread came off was it was a pity that someone couldn't have stopped the man, WHO ALREADY HAD a gun, from killing the man and kids. I must take it from the lack of rational responses that the only practical way to have done this is with another gun. Yes, I was referring to the irony.

Gun philosophy instead of gun reality? You didn't understand anything I said, did you?

---

I propose we improve the gun laws and increase the difficulty of attaining a weapon but improve the was with which one can attain training. What do you propose? More guns as a solution to guns?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

You're assuming that adding more guns into the mix would have created a better outcome. Maybe it would, maybe it would have made things a lot worse. Maybe he would have been shot before he could harm anyone. Maybe the he would have shot the hypothetical person with the hypothetical gun before they could do anything. Maybe more people would have been injured in the ensuing gunfight. Maybe he wouldn't have turned up with the shotgun at all if he'd known that they too had guns and would instead have burned the house down while they slept. Maybe, maybe, maybe. It doesn't get us anywhere.

[Brakeman]

Gun philosophy instead of gun reality? You didn't understand anything I said, did you?

Evidently not. It certainly sounded like you were starting at a point before mine. I said it was sad that someone couldn't have stopped him after he had a gun, all of your scenarios posited at a time before he got the gun.

I propose we improve the gun laws and increase the difficulty of attaining a weapon but improve the was with which one can attain training. What do you propose? More guns as a solution to guns?

No, My proposal is to address the glamor and popularity of guns. Take away the social prohibition of showing dead bodies in order to pretend that gun usage in hunting and in crime is not as ugly as it gets. Sanitation of Hollywood's gun play is the first big evil to destroy. If my child is old enough to see a gun in use, she's old enough to see the horror of the real results.

It's not going to happen, I suppose as it would be way too unpopular, but if the man that shot those kids had seen the horrors of murder, maybe his conscience or that of his wife's or friends would have convinced him he didn't need to get involved with "disgusting" guns if his job didn't require it.

Secondly, I would make gun safety equipment, such as a safe, tax deductible because it serves the greater society at large. A gun not stolen is more likely not to fall into the wrong hands.

And lastly, teach young boys that they cannot and should not ever try to force anyone else to do anything. As these boys grow up, their desire for control is the overriding theme in so many of these tragedies.

Your proposal of making them difficult to obtain would generally only annoy law abiding citizens, and they would counter that politically, as they do.

[Tonus]

I propose we improve the gun laws and increase the difficulty of attaining a weapon but improve the was with which one can attain training. What do you propose? More guns as a solution to guns?

I think that stricter penalties may be the only realistic option, particularly for unlawful possession, but also for careless or irresponsible ownership. I don't know where we draw the line regarding tragic events like a child shooting itself or others with a gun carelessly left within reach. I do think that if you wave what you think is an unloaded gun and kill an innocent person, you don't get to plead manslaughter or "I didn't know." And if you have an illegally-obtained weapon in your possession, you should get a long jail sentence, whether you use it or not.

We cannot un-invent the gun, and I don't think we will ever make them illegal in the USA. We are a gun culture and getting rid of all of them just does not seem like it's possible. So far the only efforts at gun control that have gotten anywhere seem to involve how many bullets you can have in a magazine (clip? I never get the terms right). I think that the best we can expect from congress is lip service and half-measures as long as we pretend that we can eliminate gun violence. What we should do is make it extremely unwise to misuse or otherwise improperly handle or care for a gun.

[Walking Void]

..My solution is to equip the populace with non-lethal disarms to defend against any hostiles, including those with lethal weapons. Tasers, spray, infrasonics, photonic weapons, I support the research and development of them all.

Non-leathal weapons provoke a horrific surge in use. This TED talk has a great expose on non-lethal weapons.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_coleman...apons.html

I watched the video, and the TEDX speaker (Mr. Coleman) never dismisses non-lethals but warns about their usage. Something I agree with. Why are police tazing little children and old seniors? Erring in judgement, non-lethal are supposed to be used as often or less frequently than lethal weapons. There needs to be more negotiation than aggressive action. I completely agree with what has been discussed. However, we have not concluded that these types of weapons are as dangerous as lethal weapons- the malpractitioner is at fault with their procedure.