Discussion in 'The Off-topic Lounge' started by blank, Sep 6, 2019.
will you smoke a fatty joint with me then?
I wish more people on both sides would take note of the first four words of the second amendment
That doesn't necessarily mean that the violent crime rate is caused by the lack of gun rights. Correlation does not equal causation. There are many factors which contribute to violent crime, just as there are many factors which lead a nation to choose to either enact gun laws or allow guns in their country.
For example, high violent crime is frequently associated with a high rate of poverty (we also don't know what causes which in this scenario). High rates of poverty are frequently associated with tyrannical/totalitarian leaders, who do what they can to deprive the people of rights. With that being the case, it makes sense that high violent crime exists in places where the people don't have gun rights, and those two facts don't even have to affect each other. Sometimes two conditions exist in a state or country that seem to affect or cause each other, but in reality they do not. It's hard to make that distinction. I am sure the public's access to guns (or lack thereof) affects things. I won't deny that. Finding out what it affects and how, though, is much harder than many people seem to think.
I'm curious what the differences are, in terms of contributing to violent societies and communities, among poverty, relative poverty, and lack of upward mobility.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
or in the common tongue
"Because the State must maintain a National Guard for its own security, the right of the People to keep and bear the same Arms will not be limited."
people are acting like all societies are the same, and there's one big knob called "Gun Control" that cranks the violence up or down.
I'd also add that while correlation is not causation, lack of correlation is lack of causation (or that the correlation is not understood). The lack of correlation between firearm access and violent crime rates means that we can't predict what will happen when we crank on that "Gun Control" knob.
I would think that in states awash with gun crime, stricter laws would only be followed by law abiding citizens, gun crime might escalate.
I doubt the drug gangs and other criminals are buying their weapons and ammo at the local gunshop.
But I am miles away from the situation, so my opinion ain't worth shit captain.
Honestly, I don't know how to feel about the amendment as a part of this conversation. It is law, so yes, currently it should be honored and followed, but I don't generally enjoy citing a law as functional or advantageous to the populace based solely on the fact that it is written and ratified. A constitution is not a perfect document which should cover every new danger and challenge a society faces for centuries. I tend to think that those who approve of the guidelines of the constitution are the first to cite it, because it is a very strong thing to point to, but when we are having a discussion about what the country should do it should be acknowledged but not seen as the beginning and end of the conversation. We've changed it before, and we should change it again if it is determined to be time to do so.
I am not saying that I would abolish the second amendment in any capacity, or even that I favor it. I am just saying that citing the constitution, while it DOES matter within the discussion, is not a discussion ending act.
Do it phaggot.gif
I think it frames the discussion.
Do you believe that groups of people can have rights that individuals cannot?
Is the right to defend yourself and your property a basic human right?
Is the government obligated to provide for your defense if they deny you the right to provide for your own?
I think we jump right in to the "if I was King this is what I would decree under penalty of death..." instead of finding a basic common ground to work from.
Food for thought.
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.
1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.
1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.
1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.
In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.
I think it does help to frame the discussion, and certainly gives a default advantage to those who campaign for gun rights.
I think you pose very good questions, and they actually can be used as an example of why this discussion always breaks down. Some people are willing to work in broad terms such as the ones that you are presenting, while others prefer applying them as a case-by-case basis. I struggle with which I subscribe to, because on the surface it feels like everyone should have the same rights, but it gets more complicated when you bring up the fact that some people have committed actions or exhibited behavior which could reasonably disqualify them for certain rights and privileges enjoyed by the general population. That idea gets messy, though, because who decides what is a disqualifying act or trait, and which rights are alienable enough to strip from a citizen while still claiming to be a free country?
Regarding the second question, clearly it seems as though the right to defend yourself is and should be a basic human right. Where's the line in that, though? I would like my neighbor to be able to defend himself, his family, and his property, but what if his idea of what that takes leads him to buy a rocket launcher? This is obviously an extreme example, but that would be the counter argument here. Where should the line be drawn to where the people have the firepower to protect themselves, but not in a manner which makes the rest of the neighborhood less safe, or even feel less safe? The comfort and perceived safety of our people should be one of the major things considered when making a determination, in my opinion.
Regarding the government being obligated to defend the people, if they are going to disarm the people completely (which I don't condone at all; this is just for a thought experiment), or to any capacity at all, yes I think the government should take measures to protect the people, but once again that is an idea that seems correct on the surface, but gets murky when you talk about the methods which they use to protect the people. I feel like if we were to entrust the government to protect us from more than just foreign armies or terrorism, we would have to give up rights to privacy that many won't be comfortable with.
This is just me working through the questions you pose. I am not assuming your opinion of any of it, and frankly I would have to discuss it with someone and think on it for hours before I could consider any opinion I have to be anything but a weak think-through.
@Andrewsimar Palhardass - that's why these are good discussions. We're both at "seek first to understand", and I'll take a shot (PUN) at aligning my thoughts with what I'm reading from you.
First, I think we agree that due process and equality before the law are critical to any system of gov't. And if someone has been judged to be incapable of defending themselves without putting the public at risk, then I think we can agree that they their rights should be infringed - in the name of our collective rights to life/liberty/et al.
This is where I draw a line to minimize the gray area. I don't believe in thought crimes, and I don't think your rights should be limited because of what you could do or might do. I don't care if my neighbor owns a rocket launcher. Is he out in the street pointing it at cars or low-flying aircraft? Then he should definitely be arrested and we should decide through an agreed process if he gets to retain that property and/or that right.
But we should remember that the courts have already decided that the gov't has no duty or obligation to protect us. We need to add that Constitutional Amendment before we consider changes to the 2nd.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
Completely agree, though I would still say that it is tough to decide what actually puts the public at risk. It being "tough" in my description doesn't mean "impossible" though, so yes I believe that this can be effectively and reasonably determined.
I tentatively agree with you. I, personally, wouldn't freak out if my neighbor had something like that. I don't particularly blame people who would be uneasy about it, though, and as soon as you pass the "people can have rocket launchers" bill and someone dies from one, people will lose their heads saying that you caused it. The public then demands that they be outlawed, and being a public servant, you oblige to the will of the people. It's always how it works. While potential crimes shouldn't be punished, nobody with a gun is a danger until they point it at an innocent person. At that point, it is likely too late to legislate that gun out of the person's hand.
I will read into this. Headline seems to indicate some fuckery happened but I will reserve judgment.
in canada very few people have hand guns and a lot of people have hunting rifles.it is not allowed to carry a gun on you for protection. a hand gun must be transported to and from a shooting range in a locked box with a trigger lock and ammo locked in a separate box. the rules are strict and legal hand gun owners by and large follow them to a tee. BUT the hells angels still have guns,the somali gangs have guns ,the sikhs in vancouver are still doing drive bys like it is LA. none of those guys give a fuck about gun laws.they get hot guns off the street and at least in BC weed gets smuggled in to the USA and they get cocaine and guns in return. gun laws only effect law abiding citizens. the criminal element is armed to the teeth . the average citizen is not armed at all. even in places where the punishment is severe for possessing guns the criminal element remains armed. tougher gun laws are not the answer. i dont know what is but it is probably somewhere along the lines of better mental health care to stop the school shooter types but nothing is ever going to stop the true criminal element .even the yakuza has guns in a non gun society
You couldnt be further from the truth
A good post until you completely ruined it by ending it with a fallacy of the middle argument. Your own earlier reasoning should have stopped you from making such a simplistic and illogical assertion.
I think a better way to get at what you're looking to find out might be to reframe your question.
1) Due to the population size and variability of laws by state, county, and municipality, it's difficult to get a national perspective on the effect of gun legislation. You'd likely have to isolate a specific geographic area that had a specific change in gun laws to see what if any effects there were.
2) You'd have to specify what you're going to measure, e.g. reports of shots fired, aggravated assault, homicides, etc. What might be best is to look at the ratio of gun related assaults to homicides over a long period of time, usually 5-10 years before and after.
3) Once you have your population and measurement set up, you'll need to account for any other variables like violent crime rate and economic circumstances in that 10-20 year period and also factor in what the implementation process of the law looked like.
At present, gun restrictions are tepid at best because of the 2nd amendment, so you also have to factor in the limits of what "restrictive" even means. There's little comparison to the UK or Australia because 2A means there are just many more guns in circulation in the US in general. Also, due to court challenges and changing legislative circumstances, gun laws are dynamic. You'd have to find a specific law that has been relatively unchanged in it's its lifespan and geographic area over your 10-20 year look. Even then, you'd maybe come up with a correlation between the law and the circumstances on the ground, but it would be very difficult to say one caused the other.
There are cruder ways to get at an answer, mostly having to do with uniform crime reporting statistics controlled on a per capita basis, but again, you have to make sure the law stays constant. A lot of gun lobbyists like to invoke Chicago, for example, but both the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago have significantly relaxed gun laws over the past decade. There are also federal court findings that can easily sweep away provisions of gun laws Nationwide.
I come from a city where gun possession sent about a quarter of the population either to prison or the morgue, but luckily my mom got me out of there young. What I found is that stricter gun laws just sent more young low income black men to prison, retrenching them in crime and making them more likely to want or need a gun if and when they got out. Now they have vigils every time there's a shooting and parties everytime the city goes 30 days without a shooting. Some of it's working, but so long as there are scores to settle, blocks to hold down, and product to protect, guns will be part of the culture.
Can you explain? I wasn't necessarily making an argument in the post you quoted, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I appreciate the effort you put in to that and all but I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing.
What I mean is, as far as a contributing factor, poverty, relative poverty and barriers to upward mobility are different "things." And while I'm not suggesting those things are sole predictors for violence in societies or communities, they may affect a person's tendencies towards violence.
I think what you're talking about is more about the original question I had.
If I'm wrong and totally didn't understand what you're getting at then my apologies.
You said that the best policies are always somewhere in the middle of the two political parties. If you had re-phrased it to suggest that the best policies are always at the centre of the left-right political spectrum, it would be a more coherent advocacy of centrism, even though I would argue that centrism is still essentially just based on the same logically fallacious thinking.
Because using the parties themselves ignores that they both radically change quite often. Is the best course of action the middle ground of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul or Joe Biden and Mitt Romney? Donald Trump is a full-blown protectionist, supporter of redistribution and deficit spender - a massive departure from supposed Republican orthodoxy.
And putting that aside, your own argument about the complexities of gun control should tell you that some compromise gun control measure is hardly going to solve gun problems in the US and work the same everywhere.
I don't believe I said "always."
You are actually correct for the most part, and I shouldn't have included that, or I at least should have worded it completely differently.
What I wanted to convey was the fact that current American politics is built around being the polar opposite of what the other side says. Functionality is convenient when things line up, but what actually gets people behind a policymaker has a lot to do with "fighting" against opposing ideologies. Because of this, many of the solutions proposed by partisan politicians are handcuffed by the required optic of opposing the other side. When both sides are so diametrically, and intentionally, opposed, generally the only nuance is somewhere in the middle.
As I said, though, the claim was too simplistic and did present a fallacy. Thank you for pointing that out.
There is some truth to what you say. But if Trump announced sweeping gun control tomorrow, then most Democrats would support him because their constituents would demand it. The polarized politics are the key issue, but they don't necessarily prescribe that the middle position would manifest itself in good policy.
A lot of people are unaware that Australia's gun control legislation was introduced by a right-wing neocon Prime Minister. A left-wing Prime Minister could not have pulled it off for the reasons you point out. And it was good politics - it forced the opposition to support him, and if he hadn't have done it, it would have hurt him badly in the next election. But an American Republican could never pull that off because of the political climate.
The effects of gun control would be different in Australia and the US. And the politics that allow or constrain certain policies are different. So it's not possible to draw an clear line between how partisan politics shape up and what a good policy would be.
Sorry, I was speaking to your original post.