Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults

I'm not sure what the point of the bathtub argument is. The pool argument is supposed to provide perspective. The fact is, that if your neighbor has a gun and a pool, the pool is more likely to kill your child. That's absolutely true. The problem is that it's trying to give some perspective of the dangers of a given gun. Your neighbor has a gun and a pool, and all your other neighbors have guns, then the pool is not necessarily the most likely thing to kill your child anymore.

Ultimately, though, Obama's speech was right. He didn't say what he thought the solution is. He may not have made up his mind. After all, he may have already calculated the odds of a ban surviving a Supreme Court challenge with the current makeup and is looking for another solution.

The argument that people should go around armed does not seem to me to be reasonable. People simply don't work that way. None of the gun owners I know routinely carry, and that includes the class-3 guy with the full-auto guns. In fact, I'd put money on a substantial number of Fox News pundits who say that the teachers should have been armed do not, themselves, carry at all, or even keep a gun in their car. So if society simply won't do that, society may make the decision that a ban is the only alternative left to it.

Two things concern me: 1) the second amendment only appears vulnerable to people who do not understand its intent, the point behind the Bill of Rights, and the militia as the Founders understood it. This isn't rambling gun-nuttery, one just has to look at statements made by Samuel Adams, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and Zacharia Johnson (delegate during ratification of the Bill of Rights) - not to mention the writings of what can only be called a gun-nut, Thomas Jefferson. They made categorical statements that defy any interpretation of the second amendment that allows government to disarm citizens.

The preambulatory nature of the militia clause defines the reason, but it also defined the reason in an age when government was unstable and violence in society was not as mortifying. If society judges that the concerns are not sufficiently pressing and the alternative too high a price to pay, then so be it. That brings us to 2) the process by which we move to address the problem. This is really the chief concern and linked to 1): any process used to trump the second amendment is equally capable, in ruthless hands, of trumping the others. Simply circumventing the second amendment because we don't like it and don't have the votes to pass an amendment to nullify its protections is dangerous to the other amendments. Pretending that we can ignore history because it's inconvenient and to make up a story that enables us to do what we want is a path down which madness lay. Yes, there were no semi-automatic weapons in 1791. But neither was there an Internet. Modernity is an insufficient justification for denying a right.

People might suggest that there are limits on free speech and government's role in religious expression, and they're correct. But arms are already far more regulated than either. I don't have to prove I am a citizen before I'm allowed to say something. I don't have to be a resident of VA to be able to say stuff in Virginia. I don't have to have a background check before I'm allowed on the Internet (though some might suggest that perhaps I should).

I would like a solution. I would not even a priori disagree with an assault weapons ban, even though I own one. But I want the process to be correct, because that process is a threat that is more real and more immediate than the tyranny from which the guns are supposed to keep us safe.

Rockstone: clyph: iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.

I keep telling people that the US culture is different than the rest of the world. People just ignore it.

/ it's also why Sweeden's ultra-relaxed jail sentencing system would not work here.

My proposal lifts the Hughes amendment and doesn't involve any bans.

Want to contribute or do you just want to demonize the "libs?"

Rockstone: clyph: iq_in_binary: Do you even know what the NFA does? As outlined in my proposal, the gun control effects would be similar to the laws in, say Austria.

Does Austria have an inner-city gang problem and a highly profitable, prohibition-fueled black market? Does Austria have an economically repressed underclass for gangs to recruit from? No? Then what works in Austria won't work here.

Simple-minded solutions do not solve complex social problems.

Treating the symptom does not cure the underlying disease.

Banning inanimate objects / substances does not change human behavior.

Passing harsher laws does not deter people who don't fear going to prison.

I keep telling people that the US culture is different than the rest of the world. People just ignore it.

/ it's also why Sweeden's ultra-relaxed jail sentencing system would not work here.

No, we addressed it. You just don't like the answers so you ignore them and continue to think your invalid argument is something other than.

Rockstone: Mentat: Rockstone: Accept that the possibility of mass shootings are partially the price we pay to live in a free society.

No. I refuse to accept that 20 dead kindergartners is the price we must pay for freedom. Yes, bad things happen, but we don't have to just blindly accept it. For some reason, the conservative response to everything is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't bother with any solution at all". No. I refuse to be Athens fearfully sacrificing 14 youth a year to the Minotaur so that they can remain at peace. That's not what America is about. There are solutions to this problem. We can fix this.

If you come up with an idea that won't infringe on the rights of people to own firearms, sure.

You claim that accepting this massacre is the price of freedom. That's not freedom. That's surrender, surrender to fear. It's acceptance that nothing can be done except to arm yourself, huddle together in your houses and trust no one. Again, I refuse to accept that. We already live in a culture of fear where the evil federal government is coming to take away your rights, where a pedophile is around every corner waiting to rape your kid, where the Chinese are going to steal all of our jobs. We were once a nation that faced legitimate dangers: dominant foreign nations that dwarfed us in power, an untamed frontier, hostile natives, etc. In our modern age we've conquered most of those dangers. Even a terrorist attack such 9/11 only wounds us. But with those fears defeated, instead of growing as a people, we've turned inward. Without obvious every day dangers to deal with, we create dangers in our heads. Where once we built an intercontinental railroad and sent men to the moon, now we cower at any bad news and say "That's too big to fix." Bullshiat. I don't want your freedom where I have to live in constant fear while accepting that my kid can get blown away in school at any moment. It's time to stop being afraid and start dealing with this.

GhostFish: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: It may as well be the same

Okay, your opinion is that a guy knowing martial arts is just as deadly as this kid with the gun he had. Have a good evening, let's talk when you've had some time to reconsider this postion

How would you quantify "just as deadly"?
And if we're quantifying it, does that mean it does have something to do with the numbers?
Because before you were implying that the numbers are irrelevant and that the intent is what mattered.

How about this, knife attack in China results in zero fatalities (at least the last I'd heard) compared to....

No, pure numbers has nothing to do with it. If I was implying that intent is all that matters, then that's not the impression I was trying to make

Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Rockstone: It may as well be the same

Rockstone: Again, considering that the chances of this happening to you are almost 0, you don't have to live in that fear.

I don't live in fear because I don't accept that we have to sacrifice 20 kindergartners in order to secure our freedoms. You do believe that. And that's not freedom.

Rockstone: Mentat: Mentat: Rockstone: How many mass shootings has there been in the past 20 years? Not too many, maybe 10 or 15 or so. Assuming each killed 30 (which is way, way too high), that's only 450 deaths from mass shootings. Guns are designed to kill, yes, but they're also for recreation.

62 in the last 30 years, including 7 this year.

And 50 in the last 20.

Okay, fair enough. But most only killed around 5 people.
Lets average it out and go higher, maybe 10.
So, 500 people have died from a mass shooting in the last 20 years.
Your point?

My point is that you think 500 dead civilians is a fair price to pay for freedom. I don't.

iq_in_binary: Yeah well I'm stubborn, I haven't heard from you yet, read my proposal. Tell me what you think. I want this thing ironed out and being flooded into the inboxes of every farker with a brain's representatives before the new news cycle starts.

I'm assuming it's the NFA adjustment?

It's a good start. I like the caliber threshold especially--keep the ammo power down to what doctors and trauma centers can successfully treat. I'm not sure about having BATFE be your mental health evaluating agent; it might be better to use your discretionary tax funds to either create a sub-agency within the ATF that would be tasked with being their mental health responders, or assign the duty to an existing arm of the NIH that deals with mental health. (Bearing in mind that either way, the militias are going to resist)

I'd recommend either a tie in or a provision which will allow later tie ins to allow the NFA to later be tied to related laws, such as domestic violence laws, gang laws, etc.; since a vast proportion of gun crimes stem from domestic violence and similar crimes. For instance, if an individual is flagged in a restraining order, he should be immediately flagged through your system (since the funding will now be there) to have his weapons removed for the duration of the TRO.

I definitely like the streamlining concept and making registering and tracking guns and ammo similar to vehicles. Since Americans have a hardon for their guns like they do for their cars, we might as well treat them that way.

Farker Soze: vygramul: On a related issue, yeah - the .223 has a problem with "stopping power". Right.

It depends on barrel length and range. Up close a carbine or rifle are equally effective, but at combat ranges soldiers have been complaining about their 14.5" M4's stopping power. The original M16 was designed around a 20" barrel.

Data is not the plural of anecdote. No study I'm aware of has been able to corroborate the perception that "stopping power" has been a problem.

/Worked for the Department of the Navy as an analyst
//That includes the Marines

vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: I didn't say the CDC was random shiat, the bath tub/pool line is. You can take anything in there, twist it around and pretend it means something but it doesn't. No one takes a bath tub somewhere to kill people. Bath tubs are not designed for that purpose. Pretending accidents are the same to intentional acts is not a solid debate position. However, I'm sure you've won over many people with insults

I'm not sure what the point of the bathtub argument is. The pool argument is supposed to provide perspective. The fact is, that if your neighbor has a gun and a pool, the pool is more likely to kill your child. That's absolutely true. The problem is that it's trying to give some perspective of the dangers of a given gun. Your neighbor has a gun and a pool, and all your other neighbors have guns, then the pool is not necessarily the most likely thing to kill your child anymore.

Ultimately, though, Obama's speech was right. He didn't say what he thought the solution is. He may not have made up his mind. After all, he may have already calculated the odds of a ban surviving a Supreme Court challenge with the current makeup and is looking for another solution.

The argument that people should go around armed does not seem to me to be reasonable. People simply don't work that way. None of the gun owners I know routinely carry, and that includes the class-3 guy with the full-auto guns. In fact, I'd put money on a substantial number of Fox News pundits who say that the teachers should have been armed do not, themselves, carry at all, or even keep a gun in their car. So if society simply won't do that, society may make the decision that a ban is the only alternative left to it.

Two things concern me: 1) the second amendment only appears vulnerable to people who do not understand its intent, the point behind the Bill of Rights, and the militia as the Founders understood it. This isn't rambling gun-nuttery, one just has to look at statements made b ...

I don't agree with your interpretation of 2A. I don't think all guns should be banned but I don't doubt for one minute that reasonable restrictions can and should be enacted. What exactly are they, well, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate (which won't happen). There is not good answer and a part of me is certainly in the "fark it, the genie is out of the bottle" crowd that feels as though nothing can be done

GhostFish: Freedom is inherently dangerous. You don't have to live in fear of that fact, but if you don't accept it then you head down the path towards authoritarianism.

We can not stop murder and atrocity completely. We can reduce its frequency, but we have to be careful in choosing our angle of attack. If we try to reduce the our vulnerability to it rather than the motivation for it then we will necessarily sacrifice freedom and responsibility.

There's a big difference between an acceptable degree of risk and simply surrendering. Over and over again the argument from the right is "We can't find a perfect solution so we shouldn't seek any solution at all." I reject that. Maybe the answer is improved access to mental health care. Maybe it's a new War on Poverty. Maybe it's rethinking the War on Drugs. Maybe it's gun control. Whatever it is, we need to have a national conversation to try and find acceptable solutions to reduce the risk of these types of events happening. If we simply brush this under the rug like we have every other mass shooting, then we are simply surrendering and that's not freedom.

Tea_tempest_Cup: Rockstone: Tea_tempest_Cup: clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: No amount of gays getting married or abortions that occur will increase my odds of getting murdered.

And neither do your chances of getting murdered increase if your neighbors own guns.

Do you believe that, I don't. Neither does this:

My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting murdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many guns does Canada have vs how many guns does the USA have? How many guns did Canada have when they enacted legislation against ownership? 

There are far less guns in Canada when compared to how many there are in the USA.

There are literally hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Plus an entitlement complex towards gun ownership.

That ship is huge and has a lot of momentum. It's going to be hard to turn it around.

I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

OgreMagi: The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

Really? You're going there?

Rockstone: You probably must of also supported the patriot act with open arms then, considering 9/11 caused the deaths of 2800 citizens..

That's an interesting logical leap. But let's apply your logic to 9/11.

"There will always be terrorists and we can never stop terrorist attacks so we should just accept that 3000 dead Americans every few years is the price we pay for our freedom."

Once again, that's not freedom.

Peter von Nostrand: I don't agree with your interpretation of 2A. I don't think all guns should be banned but I don't doubt for one minute that reasonable restrictions can and should be enacted. What exactly are they, well, it would be nice to have a reasoned debate (which won't happen). There is not good answer and a part of me is certainly in the "fark it, the genie is out of the bottle" crowd that feels as though nothing can be done

And perhaps it is reasonable people, like yourself, who are willing to sit in a room and come to a solution that our children depend on. Because we need to do something, and we can't let the shouting of highly emotional people to keep us from talking it out. Surely some of us can come upon a solution that the rest of us can understand and conclude is the best solution. There have to be enough of us to get this done. Someone somewhere has something that is both rational and pragmatic. No offense to people in this thread, but I haven't seen that solution yet, or I haven't understood it.

Mentat: OgreMagi: The price of not having that freedom is much higher.

Really? You're going there?

It's definitional. You have to, or the "guns are there to prevent tyranny" argument would have to be abandoned. At 30,000 gun deaths a year, you'd have to have a Hitler in the US every 400 years or so to match the death camp totals. I'm not confident the frequency is that high.

Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

clyph: Tea_tempest_Cup: My odds of getting murdered in the USA where more of my neighbors would own guns: 4.2 per 100,000

My odds of getting m5urdered in Canada, where less of my neighbours would own guns: 1.6 per 100,000

How many inner city gang members does Canada have vs the US?

Best estimates are that between 60% and 80% of all murders and attempted murders in the US are gang-related or committed by a criminal associate. Do the math and the murder rate for non-gangbangers and non-criminals is about the same as the murder rate in Canada or Europe.

Don't want to get murdered? Don't associate with criminals.

I don't buy this argument line either. The US is not the only country with disaffected youth. The US is not the only country that has people with mental health issues. But the US is one of the only countries that has these issues, along with readily available and loosely controlled guns (in what most would consider the first world). And this probably doesn't account for all the accidental deaths and shootings. It simply can't be denied. The US has a major gun problem, those that continue to deny it are only living in denial

Rockstone: vygramul: Peter von Nostrand: Rockstone: Peter von Nostrand: I bet people in the 50's would have said the exact same thing about smoking

Yet the end of smoking was not caused by the legislature, but rather by the people themselves.

Maybe so but it certainly didn't hurt that people within government were telling them that smoking kills

Also, whatever number you've attributed to quantifying a mass shooting is a bit low. There's no way on earth only 500 people in the US have been affected by mass shootings

Maybe 500 people since 1900 in mass shootings by rifles.

If you assume a mass shooting is 4 or more people, then my number is right, more or less.

I guess I should throw out that I'm being a bit pedantic. I interpret "affected" to mean more than just the people actually, you know, killed in the act. Family, friends, etc.

clyph: Rockstone: Yes it is. Part of the price to pay in a free society is crazy people will do crazy stuff. You can't be protected from every conceivable threat AND be free.

THIS.

If only people got this worked up about the Patriot Act. Most of the hardcore gun people I know are serious right wingers who shouted down anyone that questioned the passage of the PA. If I had a dime for every time I heard "if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about"

The only absolute right to a lot of people is gun ownership. Pretty sad in my opinion