Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 901 of 955 (688637)
01-24-2013 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2013 10:03 PM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
Thank you, Dr. Adequate.
We now return you to your On Topic posts.
Sorry, RAZD...got carried away. We regulate by having a nation-wide registration of all weapons and backgrounds checks on every weapon buyer. We would need to make a huge investment in the inner cities on education, healthcare, jobs and social recreations.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2013 10:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 907 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2013 2:02 PM xongsmith has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1474 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 902 of 955 (688640)
01-24-2013 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 891 by Dr Adequate
01-23-2013 6:25 PM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
Thank you Dr A for bringing some clarity to the issue. The correlations are nothing short of damning for the gun-toting lobby.
Apparently educated, liberal areas with stricter gun laws DO really have a lower level of gun violence. How surprizing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 891 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-23-2013 6:25 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 903 of 955 (688651)
01-24-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 896 by RAZD
01-23-2013 9:57 PM


Re: Problem Solving at its Best -- proposal #2: Gun Registration
Did you see Message 870?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 896 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2013 9:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 904 of 955 (688653)
01-24-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 870 by New Cat's Eye
01-22-2013 7:49 PM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
To me it would read as:
Because a free State is going to have a well regulated Militia, then the People need to be armed too. ...
And yet the congress is charged with arming the militias or the various states ... so any arms needed to fight invasions and insurrections would be standard military issue arms and a standard ammunition for all.
Having a mish-mash of weapons would make it harder to supply appropriate ammunition and more likely to have people get the wrong kind (snafu was a term invented in ww2 to cover this kind of problem).
It is also easier to train a well regulated militia if all the people have the same weapons.
See the way the Swiss Militia (Message 862) is armed and supplied with ammo. I also suspect that all National Guard units use same type weapons and ammunition rather than home guns.
The SCOTUS agrees that the right is an individual one, unconnected to service in the Militia, ...
You mean activist judges have changed the amendment by the way they interpret it?
This is also a recent ruling ...
Proposal #9 would be toast.
So you can't use military grade weapons in the National Guard, and no volunteers would be trained to use them properly in the Guard?
Really?
No, in reality this is the best way to be armed, trained and disciplined in the proper use of such weapons and the best way for them to be well regulated in a society.
The amendment does not say you have a right to ANY weapon.
You have a right to defensive handguns, target guns, hunting guns, no question.
The right to mass-murder weapons is what is in question.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : link

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 870 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-22-2013 7:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 905 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2013 10:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 906 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2013 11:04 AM RAZD has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 905 of 955 (688655)
01-24-2013 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 904 by RAZD
01-24-2013 10:24 AM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
Oh, is that all proposal #9 was for? Then its totally unecessary as all that is already currently the way things are.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 10:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 906 of 955 (688664)
01-24-2013 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 904 by RAZD
01-24-2013 10:24 AM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
The SCOTUS agrees that the right is an individual one, unconnected to service in the Militia, ...
You mean activist judges have changed the amendment by the way they interpret it?
The amendment only makes sense as an individual right. All of the Bill of Rights limits the State in favor of the individual. And there's no need to amend the constitution in order for the State to arm the Militia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 10:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 908 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 907 of 955 (688678)
01-24-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by xongsmith
01-24-2013 1:23 AM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
Thank you, Dr. Adequate.
Sure. Let me know what your friend says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by xongsmith, posted 01-24-2013 1:23 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by xongsmith, posted 01-24-2013 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1484 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 908 of 955 (688690)
01-24-2013 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 906 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2013 11:04 AM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
The amendment only makes sense as an individual right.
Not to me, for then there is no reason for the first phrase.
What I see is the historical need to get the southern states to approve the constitution, and to do this that they had to allow the existing militias, that were used in the south to oppress the slaves, to continue to operate.
... And there's no need to amend the constitution in order for the State to arm the Militia.
Never said there was. Don't know where this red herring comes from, but the constitution is very clear about congress providing arms for the various state militias.
Clearly those arms would be ones used for military operations.
Back when the constitution was written there was not much difference between army rifles and hunting rifles, today there is a significant difference.
Thus we can logically draw a line (or at least a grey area) between military arms and individual arms. We can look at the uses of guns by individuals when the constitution was written and ensure that those uses are still provided.
A person that has a handgun for self defense, a rifle for hunting, and a rifle for target shooting has arms.
A person with a bazooka is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes.
Likewise a person with a machine gun is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes.
There are extremely lethal military type weapons and ammunition that can legitimately be restricted to special cases and restricted from general availability for the general welfare and safety of the general population.
The only real question is where that line is drawn.
As society becomes more dense and concentrated in cities it is rational that more restrictions on socially acceptable behavior arise, including the use of guns.
The population in the US has doubled since I was in High School, and will likely double again in less time. This causes increased social conflict, and guns are not a way to resolve social conflict.
So we draw the line at weapons that can be loaded by quick change clips\magazines and we draw the line at ammunition that is appropriate for hunting.
And we say that anyone that wants to train with and use the more military style weapons can join the National Guard or the armed forces.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 906 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2013 11:04 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 909 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2013 4:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 909 of 955 (688695)
01-24-2013 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 908 by RAZD
01-24-2013 4:05 PM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
The amendment only makes sense as an individual right.
Not to me, for then there is no reason for the first phrase.
I just explained to you a possible explanation:
The first phrase would be saying that because the State is going to have a well-regulated Militia, then the People need to have arms too. Did you watch the < 1 min. video I linked to?
Also, all of the Bill of Rights limits the State's power in favor of the individual. That's the whole point of it. It wouldn't make sense for this one amendment to be granting power to the State instead of the individual.
Thirdly, SCOTUS has ruled that it does refer to an individual right.
What I see is the historical need to get the southern states to approve the constitution, and to do this that they had to allow the existing militias, that were used in the south to oppress the slaves, to continue to operate.
It was influenced by the English Bill of Rights that has practically the same thing in it:
"no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law"
That was identifying a Natural Right that men have, as opposed to a legal right that the kind's Divine Right could grant. In the same vein, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the legal right to arms, it affirms that it is a natural right a command not to infringe it.
Also, the preamble states the purpose:
quote:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
They're further restrictive clauses to prevent abuse of power of the State. It doesn't make sense to have one of them talking about maintaining the power to the State.
... And there's no need to amend the constitution in order for the State to arm the Militia.
Never said there was. Don't know where this red herring comes from, but the constitution is very clear about congress providing arms for the various state militias.
Right, the constitution already provides a means for arming the militia. There's no reason to amend it for that to happen. It'd be a completely unnecessary amendment if it wasn't referring to an individual's rights.
Back when the constitution was written there was not much difference between army rifles and hunting rifles, today there is a significant difference.
What differences are you calling significant?
Thus we can logically draw a line (or at least a grey area) between military arms and individual arms. We can look at the uses of guns by individuals when the constitution was written and ensure that those uses are still provided.
A person that has a handgun for self defense, a rifle for hunting, and a rifle for target shooting has arms.
A person with a bazooka is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes.
Likewise a person with a machine gun is not rationally going to use it for any of those purposes
Bazookas and machine guns are already regulated by the National Firearms Act.
The only real question is where that line is drawn.
The line has already been drawn.
And when interpreting amendments, SCOTUS uses the "normal usage at the point in time" to figure out what it applies to. The First Amendment applies to the Internet even thought it is something that was impossible to imagine when the BoR was written.
Bigger and better guns is a no-brainer. A good measure, in my personal opinoin, of what guns are normal usage at the time is whatever the cops are using for their day-to-day activities. Cops are non-military civilians. They use handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. That's what the people should have the right to keep as well.
According to wiki, the founders' purposes of having individuals have the freedom to be armed were:
"enabling the people to organize a militia system.
participating in law enforcement;
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;"
As society becomes more dense and concentrated in cities it is rational that more restrictions on socially acceptable behavior arise, including the use of guns.
The population in the US has doubled since I was in High School, and will likely double again in less time. This causes increased social conflict, and guns are not a way to resolve social conflict.
Most of the violent crime happens in densly populated areas. Its not the total popluation that causes the crime rate increase, its the density.
So we draw the line at weapons that can be loaded by quick change clips\magazines and we draw the line at ammunition that is appropriate for hunting.
Magazine change-time isn't really an issue. How do you determine what ammo is appropriate for hunting? How can you write legislation that specifies some kind of ammo, when there's so much variety out there?
And we say that anyone that wants to train with and use the more military style weapons can join the National Guard or the armed forces.
That's already the way things are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 908 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2013 4:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by Taq, posted 01-24-2013 5:46 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 910 of 955 (688708)
01-24-2013 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 909 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2013 4:54 PM


Re: Regulation proposal #9 -- Join the National Guard to use military grade arms
Bigger and better guns is a no-brainer. A good measure, in my personal opinoin, of what guns are normal usage at the time is whatever the cops are using for their day-to-day activities. Cops are non-military civilians. They use handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles. That's what the people should have the right to keep as well.
On top of that, if restrictions still allow for the purchase of handguns, rifles, and shotguns then the restrictions do not put unwarranted burden on the 2nd Amendment. This is what the lower courts ruled in 2011 in response to an assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban in DC:
quote:
As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of the quintessential self-defense weapon, to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun.
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/...F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf
This was a ruling made by the US Court of Appeals in DC. It is still possible that the SCOTUS could rule just the opposite, but most insiders think that SCOTUS would rule just the same. Also, this decision was based on the SCOTUS case DC v. Heller (2008) where SCOTUS did rule that longstanding regulations were constitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2013 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 911 of 955 (688720)
01-24-2013 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 907 by Dr Adequate
01-24-2013 2:02 PM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
Dr. A writes
Sure. Let me know what your friend says.
He replied:
Shame on me, but it is undeniable that criminal shooting is a largely urban phenomenon in this country, and that is where the majority of Democratic voters are, the fake map notwithstanding.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2013 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 912 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2013 9:36 PM xongsmith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 364 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 912 of 955 (688738)
01-24-2013 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 911 by xongsmith
01-24-2013 7:00 PM


Re: 2-d covariance math says....wow!!
Shame on me, but it is undeniable that criminal shooting is a largely urban phenomenon in this country, and that is where the majority of Democratic voters are, the fake map notwithstanding.
As 82% of Americans live in cities, practically everything is a "largely urban phenomenon" except cow-tipping, inbreeding, and being called Ezekiel. For example, voting Republican is a "largely urban phenomenon" --- if the GOP got all or even most of their votes from the 18% of Americans who live in the country, they'd get even less of the popular vote than they do now.
However, a look at real non-made up statistics, such as I have posted above, shows that the states with the highest incidence of gun deaths are almost exclusively "red states", that there is a positive correlation between the Republican vote and gun deaths, and a negative correlation between the Democratic vote and gun deaths. Anyone with an interest in actually curbing gun deaths should think about the real statistics, rather than producing easily-debunked lies for partisan ends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 911 by xongsmith, posted 01-24-2013 7:00 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by xongsmith, posted 01-25-2013 11:04 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 913 of 955 (688765)
01-25-2013 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 880 by New Cat's Eye
01-23-2013 12:59 PM


So the latest hook on which to hang your pro-gun hat is the notion that owning guns is a "natural right" is it?
Does this mean that all the previous discussion you were involved in regarding correlation, evidence, deadly weapons exacerbating situations etc. etc. etc. (Message 714 and upthread from that) was all completely irrelevant because you don't actually care about any of these things anyway?
Straggler writes:
I’m saying that where social problems and violence are rife a proliferation of readily accessible deadly weapons will exacerbate, rather than help, such a situation. Do you actually disagree with that?
CS writes:
No.
But apparently this doesn't matter. As long as the "natural right" to own guns is fulfilled it doesn't matter whether this actually results in a worse situation or not.
Frankly CS this "natural right" angle looks like yet another attempt by you to find a justifying argument to support the predetermined position you are going to hold come-what-may.
CS writes:
Natural rights simply are not determined to be allowed on the basis of need.
Do you think I have the "natural right" to wander round London armed with a crossbow? A spear? A samurai sword? Nunchukkas? Poisoned darts? A chainsaw?
Do you have the "natural right" to possess these things as you go about your daily life in St Louis?
Why do "natural rights" apply only to guns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 880 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2013 12:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by Theodoric, posted 01-25-2013 10:04 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 933 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-29-2013 3:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9276
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 914 of 955 (688768)
01-25-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 913 by Straggler
01-25-2013 8:57 AM


I am glad you addressed this whole "natural right" thing. Might keep me from being attacked.
Surprisingly none of the great proponents of "Natural Rights", Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas Paine, had anything to say about guns.
The whole argument, if you understand even the basics of natural rights, is just crazy.
Here is a little something written in The Economist.
quote:
Take this essay by Cliff Stearns, the Republican congressman and (to be reductionist) gun-rights advocate. "Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right," Mr Stearns writes. And then, in the very next paragraph: "Once again we can trace the right to be armed to legal and political events in 17th century English history, this time pertaining to hunting and gaming laws." How does a fundamental natural right lie sleeping throughout the first 6,000 years of recorded history, only to wake to full flower due to conflicts over gaming laws in Regency Restoration England? And what of the benighted 95% of humanity who still do not enjoy the fruits of this natural right, including, rather confusingly, the actual English who supposedly roused it from its primeval slumber?
Perhaps American supporters of gun rights would say that in fact people in every country do have a natural right to bear arms, but their enjoyment of that natural right is denied them by oppressive governments in countries like Britain, France, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan. Meanwhile, the so-called "right" to health insurance enjoyed by citizens of those countries is presumably only a fake right which they do not in fact possess. This just doesn't seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Is the problem that we use the word "right" in two ways, meaning in one sense an inalienable moral consideration which we believe all humans possess regardless of the context of government in which they live, and in another sense an enforceable claim within a country's legal system which commands government and other persons to guarantee certain kinds of treatment to every citizen? Which kind of right would the right to health insurance be? Which kind is the right to bear arms?
I guess refrigeration and having a car is a Natural Right too.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2013 8:57 AM Straggler has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 915 of 955 (688769)
01-25-2013 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 881 by ICANT
01-23-2013 1:11 PM


Re: Problem Solving at its Best -- proposal #1: FOIDs
I can not find a licensed dealer in the state of Florida that will sell and transfer a gun to my posession without me filling out ATF form 4473 and them running a background check.
Every pawn shop I have asked is the same.
So maybe you know something I don't know
You think?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 881 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2013 1:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024