General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[fukarming]

Originally Posted by kyp275

For your information, in the US it IS a right, it's not a privilege or luxury.

If the lessening of potential firearm related violence and death is sufficient reason for you to think the banning of guns, I ask you this.

Should alcohol be banned? or maybe cigarettes? what about unhealthy food? or unclean power source like coal?

The President mentioned during his proposal that if the law can save just one life, then it's worth passing - I couldn't disagree more. It makes for a good soundbite, but in reality it would be crazy, as we'd probably end up banning half the planet.



Well, due to their random nature, there isn't exactly a set number, as it fluctuates.

To be honest, I don't particularly care whether the US ban guns or not as I no longer live there.

My first post address the issue you mention: what do the victims family that own guns think? If all of them think that "I am very sad that my 5 year old kid is dead because of random gun violence but I still believe we should have the rights to own guns" then by all means america should keep the right to own guns.

Otherwise it is just hypocrite (for both pro gun/anti gun parties) to speak on the matter as the ones who want to ban guns will never own guns to begin with and the one want to own guns don't give a shit about gun violence since it didn't happen on them.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by kyp275

two different numbers, one is strictly attacks in school, the other encompasses everything from murder, accidents, suicides, police actions.

and if you really want to use China as an example? we should probably start adding in all the people that gets "disappeared", courtesy of their police.


For your information, in the US it IS a right, it's not a privilege or luxury.

If the lessening of potential firearm related violence and death is sufficient reason for you to think the banning of guns, I ask you this.

Should alcohol be banned? or maybe cigarettes? what about unhealthy food? or polluting power source like coal? In the US, there are over 75,000 alcohol-related, 300,000 obesity-related, and 443,000 cigarettes-related deaths every year, and pollution from coal burning is estimated to attribute to 12,000 deaths per year. Where is the outrage and the call to ban alcohol, cigarettes, and fatty food? (no, I'm not advocating those measures, just pointing out the hypocrisy).

The President mentioned during his proposal that if the law can save just one life, then it's worth passing - I couldn't disagree more. It makes for a good soundbite, but in reality it would be crazy, as we'd probably end up banning half the planet.



Well, due to their random nature, there isn't exactly a set number, as it fluctuates.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174

The supreme court disagreed.

1938 Supreme Court decision supported a federal gun control law

Ruled that independent gun rights had to be connected to citizens' "common obligation" to serve in militias when called

offered no protection to guns that couldn't reasonably be used in militia service

So for 6 decades, guns were regulated in this country. What did you know?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by monir

It's unfortunate, really, cause as far as the NRA is concerned, they could care less how a sensible gun owner may feel about certain issues as long as he/she is a growing number which helps the organization to get its political leverage.

Very true, frankly I'm far more partial to the likes of NSSF, but of course they have far less political clout.

Originally Posted by fukarming

To be honest, I don't particularly care whether the US ban guns or not as I no longer live there.

Well, that makes us even, I don't particularly care whether you care

My first post address the issue you mention: what do the victims family that own guns think? If all of them think that "I am very sad that my 5 year old kid is dead because of random gun violence but I still believe we should have the rights to own guns" then by all means america should keep the right to own guns.

Why does it matter? since when does being the victim of a crime gives you the right to determine the rights of hundreds of millions? Should being the victim of a drunk driving accident give you the right to ban alcohol?

Case in point, some of the families in the Aurora theater are pissed because the theater reopened. As much as I'm sorry for their loss, I think their expectation that the theater be closed forever or bulldozed to make a memorial to be downright stupid. Just because they're still grieving doesn't mean they can go on to ruin the lives of others.

Otherwise it is just hypocrite (for both pro gun/anti gun parties) to speak on the matter as the ones who want to ban guns will never own guns to begin with and the one want to own guns don't give a shit about gun violence since it didn't happen on them.

I can't speak to the anti-gunners, but I own guns, and I certainly care about gun violence.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

The supreme court disagreed.

1938 Supreme Court decision supported a federal gun control law

Ruled that independent gun rights had to be connected to citizens' "common obligation" to serve in militias when called

offered no protection to guns that couldn't reasonably be used in militia service

So for 6 decades, guns were regulated in this country. What did you know?

Stop being asinine. Guns have been regulated in the US for a long time, even before 1938, and it certainly is still regulated now. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's not subject to regulation. Free speech is a right, but it's sure as hell regulated. And while you're looking up case laws, I suggest you look at the 2008 Heller case, which is a hell of a lot more relevant. If you're trying to say that banning guns is legal because of an old overturned SOCTUS ruling, then I guess I can go out and buy me some slaves because it also used to be legal

If you want to participate in the discussion, then at least post something relevant, instead of the random tidbits out of nowhere, and if you're gonna quote me, at least write something that's related to the post you're quoting.

[ArchmageXin]

Stop being asinine. Guns have been regulated in the US for a long time, even before 1938, and it certainly is still regulated now. Just because it's a right doesn't mean it's not subject to regulation. Free speech is a right, but it's sure as hell regulated. And while you're looking up case laws, I suggest you look at the 2008 Heller case, which is a hell of a lot more relevant. If you're trying to say that banning guns is legal because of an old overturned SOCTUS ruling, then I guess I can go out and buy me some slaves because it also used to be legal

That argument cuts both ways. Just because U.S Vs Heller ruled it in your favor, then it is all fair and games if the pendulum swing in pro-gun control in a few years down the road. The supreme court is the ultimate law of the land, but that will never stop another supreme court.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

For your information, in the US it IS a right, it's not a privilege or luxury.

But does that exempt gun usage and ownership to regulation?

Spoiler:

No, it doesn't.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

That argument cuts both ways. Just because U.S Vs Heller ruled it in your favor, then it is all fair and games if the pendulum swing in pro-gun control in a few years down the road. The supreme court is the ultimate law of the land, but that will never stop another supreme court.

...just how little do you actually understand about the US system and laws?

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, NOT the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining the constitutionality of laws, but it is not the "ultimate law of the land". The SCOTUS is not some political pinball machine, it doesn't jump around willy-nilly all over the place(that's the congress's job). Precedents carry a lot of weight in the US court system, and a SCOTUS ruling has the most weight of them all, and is not very easily overturned.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

The SCOTUS have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining the constitutionality of laws, but it is not the "ultimate law of the land".

For now. There hasn't been any precedent that says -- another body of government (or anyone else) has the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions. And my opinion on that: hope that precedent never happens.

===

EDIT: And I just came across this thought:

Using the power of language.

Instead of "gun control", "gun regulation", or even "gun reform". The whole push towards sound gun reform should follow under the banner of:

"Gun Safety"

Safety is a very positive word, that no sane person could ever go against.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

But does that exempt gun usage and ownership to regulation?

Which as I've already said multiple times, as a matter of fact on the post right above yours, it doesn't, just as freedom of speech is also regulated.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that many on the anti-gun side regard gun ownership as a privilege and a luxury, something more akin to owning a yacht, as opposed to being one of the basic rights as an American.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

For now. There hasn't been any precedent that says -- another body of government (or anyone else) has the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions. And my opinion on that: hope that precedent never happens.

While the SCOTUS gave itself that power, it's become something that's as part of the system as anything else. That being said, there are ways to overturn SCOTUS decisions - a subsequent SCOTUS ruling, and a constitutional amendment.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Which as I've already said multiple times, as a matter of fact on the post right above yours, it doesn't, just as freedom of speech is also regulated.

That said, the point I was trying to make is that many on the anti-gun side regard gun ownership as a privilege and a luxury, something more akin to owning a yacht, as opposed to being one of the basic rights as an American.

Personally.

I see the "gun" on a similar level as that of a "car". Not everyone has one. Not everyone wants one. But if people want to possess and use one -- then by all means.

But yea. A gun is certainly not a luxury. At the same time, people can live without a gun just fine -- if they so choose.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Stop being asinine. Guns have been regulated in the US for a long time, even before 1938, and it certainly is still regulated now.

Because people are being denied the Right to Live... tied to gun incidents... the current regulations are not enough. That is why I am on this thread. I demand more regulations -- for the sake of Gun Safety, without impeding on Gun Rights.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

EDIT: And I just came across this thought:

Using the power of language.

Instead of "gun control", "gun regulation", or even "gun reform". The whole push towards sound gun reform should follow under the banner of:

"Gun Safety"

Safety is a very positive word, that no sane person could ever go against.

Too late, they're already trying to change the word from gun control to gun violence

Not that it should matter, the patriot act and SOPA etc. weren't any less of a terrible idea just because they made it sound nicer

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Personally.

I see the "gun" on a similar level as that of a "car". Not everyone has one. Not everyone wants one. But if people want to possess and use one -- then by all means.

But yea. A gun is certainly not a luxury. At the same time, people can live without a gun just fine -- if they so choose.

Perfectly demonstrated my point Not saying your view is wrong at all, it was just an observation.

On the other hand, most people can live just fine without the right to vote too, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think getting rid of that would be a good idea.

Because people are being denied the Right to Live... tied to gun incidents... the current regulations are not enough. That is why I am on this thread. I demand more regulations -- for the sake of Gun Safety, without impeding on Gun Rights.

Certainly, I think ultimately most of us would want less deaths, we simply differ in what is the best way to do it.

Just curious though, if unnecessary death is your ultimate goal, are you as outraged by deaths caused by other means which I mentioned earlier? 12k from coal power, 75k from alcohol, 300k from obesity, 434k from smoking?

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Just curious though, if unnecessary death is your ultimate goal, are you as outraged by deaths caused by other means which I mentioned earlier? 12k from coal power, 75k from alcohol, 300k from obesity, 434k from smoking?

In the case of smoking... it's funny how the numbers remained despite all the regulations and the heavy taxation of it. Apparently, people are so addicted to smoking, such that all that doesn't even matter. Ever seen the prices of cigarettes? I'm sure y'have.

Obesity. We're a nation of food. Sadly enough, even I am gaining weight -- despite years of boasting "look at me, I can eat all I want and not gain weight".

To counter this, there needs to be a drive towards healthy living. We're not at a point where food needs to be rationed. Save that for war time.

Coal power. I'm for green energy as the next generation of energy production. Someday, all these fossil fuels will be no more. And let's just hope, humanity is prepared for that day -- such that the transition does not result in a mad dash for whatever fossil fuel is left.

Civilizations have ended on that premise.

Alcohol. Heavily regulated such that there's an age limit towards buying the product.

===

But yea. ALL those have problems. And they ALL have solutions. It's a matter of working towards them. For all these "other examples", there are either efforts or measures already in existence to at the very least TRY to curb those problems.

In the case of guns -- No.

===

Guns. The only regulation that I am aware of: background checks. And even those are not even followed strictly. If there's more, lemme know.

There exists an organization (the NRA) with the goal of preventing any sort of regulation, for the sake of gun sales.

Also, if it weren't for the school shootings... I'll admit. I would not have been very vocal about them. But, all too often, it takes those kinds of things to "spark" movements.

===

Airplanes. Other than 9/11... I can go a bit over on this too.

===

I'm surprised that y'didn't mention cars. Oh wait, that's too easy. Traffic laws, Safety features. And regulations galore. Yet, we still live by them just fine.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Certainly, I think ultimately most of us would want less deaths, we simply differ in what is the best way to do it.

If background checks are the ONLY thing you have on the table towards the effort of gun safety, you are not doing/thinking enough.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by kyp275

...just how little do you actually understand about the US system and laws?

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution, NOT the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining the constitutionality of laws, but it is not the "ultimate law of the land". The SCOTUS is not some political pinball machine, it doesn't jump around willy-nilly all over the place(that's the congress's job). Precedents carry a lot of weight in the US court system, and a SCOTUS ruling has the most weight of them all, and is not very easily overturned.

Probably more than you do. SCOTUS are political, even if they are not overtly so. And Marbury vs Madison granted SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of the constitution (must to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, btw). And precedent can be revoked or ran over. See: Dread Scott decision (now revoked) and the intense interest of "Roe vs Wade" (As both Republicans and Dems are fighting desperately to put a Supreme court judge in their favor on this law)

So yes, while you can claim the latest Supreme Court decision favor Gun Rights and even allowing hate speech, if the court composition change, we could indeed see a return to U.S vs Miller.

[synaesthetic]

Guns have age limits, too--you can't buy a rifle or shotgun if you're under 18, and you can't buy a handgun if you're under 21. This is in addition to the background check and (in most states) a waiting period of some amount of time.

Additionally, legitimately purchased weapons are quite expensive, especially autopistols, AR clones, semi-auto shotguns and the like.

Criminals buy cheap Saturday-night-specials from the back of a Pinto in an alleyway. Gun control laws will do nothing about this. Gun trafficking laws are what should be doing something about this, but they're not.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

But yea. ALL those have problems. And they ALL have solutions. It's a matter of working towards them.

Well, my point is that all of these causes far more deaths than guns, yet there exists none of the outrage or drive to fix anything.

This isn't aimed at you, but just to illustrate:

20 kids gunned down: "BANZ0R ALL GUNS NAO!!"

1,000 kids born diabetic/dies from obesity related causes: "...meh, Imma go watch more honey boo boo".

There exists an organization (the NRA) with the goal of preventing any sort of regulation, for the sake of gun sales.

and there exists organizations like Brady, with the goal of pretty much banning all modern firearm.

I'm surprised that y'didn't mention cars. Oh wait, that's too easy. Traffic laws, Safety features. And regulations galore. Yet, we still live by them just fine.

Modern transportation is inseparable from modern civilization. Alcohol, cigarettes or junk food? not so much.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Probably more than you do. SCOTUS are political, even if they are not overtly so. And Marbury vs Madison granted SCOTUS as the ultimate arbiter of the constitution (must to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, btw). And precedent can be revoked or ran over. See: Dread Scott decision (now revoked) and the intense interest of "Roe vs Wade" (As both Republicans and Dems are fighting desperately to put a Supreme court judge in their favor on this law)

So yes, while you can claim the latest Supreme Court decision favor Gun Rights and even allowing hate speech, if the court composition change, we could indeed see a return to U.S vs Miller.

To be honest, I've just about had it with you. If you're not gonna have the courtesy to at least read what I wrote, I see no point in talking with you any further.

No one ever said SCOTUS rulings are eternal and unchangeable, as a matter of fact I've mentioned quite a few times that it is, both by itself AND Congress. The SCOTUS may be able to interpret the Constitution, but it sure as hell can't write into it, which is the sole domain of the Congress and the states.

The SCOTUS does not easily disregard precedents like you're implying. Can it change in the future? of course, but it's unlikely to be any time soon.

And wtf is with that hate speech part? what does that have to do with ANYTHING we've been discussing? and FYI, hate speech IS legal in the US, we have this little thing called the FIRST AMENDMENT that protects the right for people to present their opinion, no matter how distasteful or vile. Where it crosses the line is if it starts to actively incites.

The day hate speech becomes illegal in the US is the day when we've lost our freedom of speech, but then anyone who didn't sleep through every class starting from elementary school would know that.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Well, my point is that all of these causes far more deaths than guns, yet there exists none of the outrage or drive to fix anything.

This isn't aimed at you, but just to illustrate:

20 kids gunned down: "BANZ0R ALL GUNS NAO!!"

Also. That's another aspect to human nature. We sit back in complacency... until something dramatic happens! Afterwards, the shockwaves resonate afterwards.

And, this whole gun issue should have been settled way back after Columbine. But we live in a society that ALLOWS these things to happen...

Again... and again... and again... and again... and again.

It just happens. We reached a final line with Sandy Hook.

===

Let's use 9/11.

We remember the 90s. Those were good times. The United States is the sole superpower in the world; and we just went through one of the more prosperous decades in recent history.

And then BAM!

Just as when we as a society lived very complacently and comfortable. Everything was shaken up.

Same deal, with the school shootings. What's really sick -- many of the previous shootings was starting to be viewed as a "norm".

Originally Posted by kyp275

there exists organizations like Brady, with the goal of pretty much banning all modern firearm.

I don't even know who they are.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Well, my point is that all of these causes far more deaths than guns, yet there exists none of the outrage or drive to fix anything.

This isn't aimed at you, but just to illustrate:

20 kids gunned down: "BANZ0R ALL GUNS NAO!!"

1,000 kids born diabetic/dies from obesity related causes: "...meh, Imma go watch more honey boo boo".



and there exists organizations like Brady, with the goal of pretty much banning all modern firearm.



Modern transportation is inseparable from modern civilization. Alcohol, cigarettes or junk food? not so much.



To be honest, I've just about had it with you. If you're not gonna have the courtesy to at least read what I wrote, I see no point in talking with you any further.

No one ever said SCOTUS rulings are eternal and unchangeable, as a matter of fact I've mentioned quite a few times that it is, both by itself AND Congress. The SCOTUS may be able to interpret the Constitution, but it sure as hell can't write into it, which is the sole domain of the Congress and the states.

The SCOTUS does not easily disregard precedents like you're implying. Can it change in the future? of course, but it's unlikely to be any time soon.

And wtf is with that hate speech part? what does that have to do with ANYTHING we've been discussing?

The hate speech was a clear example, in that recent case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro crazies who protested at a Marine's funeral and made inflammatory remarks concerning the boy's death was "Gods will". In prior era, it would fall under the fire-in-theater clause and suffer for it, but now days it is accepted as "Free speech"

So yes, Supreme court can disregard precedents. They don't like to do it, but it happen more than enough times in the history of U.S of A.

You are right they cannot "write" the constitution, but they can "interpret" what the constitution means. So 5-100 years from now on, it may indeed declare anyone who is not part of the national guard to be in illegal procession of firearms.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

The hate speech was a clear example, in that recent case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Westboro crazies who protested at a Marine's funeral and made inflammatory remarks concerning the boy's death was "Gods will". In prior era, it would fall under the fire-in-theater clause and suffer for it, but now days it is accepted as "Free speech"

Until Westboro acts on their speech with violence, their speech is indeed Free Speech, even if deemed inappropriate with many people. Sure, feelings would be hurt and what-not; but people live on.

The "fire in the theater" case.... people can die from that as a mass of people in a panic can actually trample each other.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Let's use 9/11.

We remember the 90s. Those were good times. The United States is the sole superpower in the world; and we just went through one of the more prosperous decades in recent history.

And then BAM!

Actually, if we're going to go there, I would say that we should be even more careful since certain reactions to 9/11 have resulted in a number of rights being sacrificed and infringed on, and beyond that led to some rather costly military campaigns. Whether those actions are justified or not is up to debate, but the consequences are heavy especially when there's no simple off and on switch.

Sure, people want less people dying. We could also fix world hunger too but it's not just an off and on switch, after all. Change for the sake of change isn't always a good idea and certainly if anything our first 10 amendments aren't infalliable but they have worked for a reason, and if they should be subject to modern interpretation to be done through the proper channels and not just reading the latest headlines and just going into a panic.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

And, this whole gun issue should have been settled way back after Columbine. But we live in a society that ALLOWS these things to happen...

Ironically, Columbine took place during the assault weapons ban., just saying

Same deal, with the school shootings. What's really sick -- many of the previous shootings was starting to be viewed as a "norm".

While there is certainly a shock value attached to school shooting, personally I don't consider the lives lost in those manner worth any more than lives that are needlessly lost in other manners. 20 children killed in a shooting is no more and no less tragic to me than 20 children killed by drunk drivers.

I don't even know who they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

Pretty much one of the most prominent anti-gun group in the last 3+ decades. Naturally, they don't want to ban all guns, it's just that their definition of guns that should be banned covers, well, most of them

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

stuff

you're still missing the point, YOU are the one that argued that gun ownership isn't a right because of US v Miller, which is also not true. Miller simply extended the government ability to regulate firearms, it was very much still a right.

Again, the premise behind your original argument boils down to "gun ownership isn't a right, because of this old court ruling which I wrongly interpreted says so, regardless of whatever the current law says"

That's like saying slavery is still legal because there's a chance that one day the SCOTUS can rule that it is

[Bri]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Well, my point is that all of these causes far more deaths than guns, yet there exists none of the outrage or drive to fix anything.

This isn't aimed at you, but just to illustrate:

20 kids gunned down: "BANZ0R ALL GUNS NAO!!"

1,000 kids born diabetic/dies from obesity related causes: "...meh, Imma go watch more honey boo boo".

It's an interesting point you mention. Some causes of death just have a stronger psychological impact then others. The less control we have over events, the scarier those causes become. Obesity, drugs, tobacco and even car accidents all tend to have a large component involving personal choice and avoidability.

Airplane crashes, infectious diseases, terrorism and violent crime in general tend to induce greater fear given the inability of the victims to do anything about it. Even when the total number of deaths due to these causes is relatively low compared to the previously mentioned ones.