Lots of shootings...

[Randy]

Isn't that how due process works? The arrest (you know, like detaining you in jail) precedes the court proceedings?

But when it comes to arms, you can threaten to kill people and keep the arms while they prove you were going to kill people through a full court case? That's considered a practical thing?

 

[CanserDYI]

The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.

Please for the love of God explain to me what rights have been taken from you and tell me one argument or source that would show that anyone has had their guns stripped from them other than fucking felons. If you are a normal every day citizen that you know, doesn't shoot up schools, then you should have nothing to worry about other than "oh poor me there is a couple day WAIT to go SHOOT STUFF??? FASCISM! TYRANNY!!!"

 

[Glades]

Please for the love of God explain to me what rights have been taken from you and tell me one argument or source that would show that anyone has had their guns stripped from them other than fucking felons. If you are a normal every day citizen that you know, doesn't shoot up schools, then you should have nothing to worry about other than "oh poor me there is a couple day WAIT to go SHOOT STUFF??? FASCISM! TYRANNY!!!"

We are talking about red flag laws bud

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Isn't that how due process works? The arrest (you know, like detaining you in jail) precedes the court proceedings?

But when it comes to arms, you can threaten to kill people and keep the arms while they prove you were going to kill people through a full court case? That's considered a practical thing?

This.

The state removes children from homes when there are claims of sexual or extreme physical abuse all the time, but you don't hear advocates talk about leaving kids in those situations until due process, because the potential for harm far outweighs the alternative.

I don't see why it should be that different for firearms.

 

[CanserDYI]

We are talking about red flag laws bud

I can't understand why any rational thinking human being wouldn't want some sort of safety net protecting society from people who are obviously worrying those around them. People don't just "get worried" JUST because someone owns a gun.

 

[Randy]

I can't understand why any rational thinking human being wouldn't want some sort of safety net protecting society from people who are obviously worrying those around them. People don't just "get worried" JUST because someone owns a gun.

This is exactly what led to my post earlier that triggered what's his name that went nuclear on me and ducked out. When someone starts telling you they don't want any policies in place that monitor behavior to preemptively remove weapons from dangerous people "on principal", ask yourself why. Then run.

We're supposed to assume bad guys know they're bad guys, crazy people know they're crazy and will therefore self report (someone legit suggested this earlier) or abstain from owning a fire arm. Self policing!

Oh btw, "bad" and "crazy" are subjective designations, and also completely fluid.

 

[Mike_R]

This is exactly what led to my post earlier that triggered what's his name that went nuclear on me and ducked out. When someone starts telling you they don't want any policies in place that monitor behavior to preemptively remove weapons from dangerous people "on principal", ask yourself why. Then run.

Not sure who went nuclear on @Randy.

If you are trying to imply that I suggested that there should be no policies to address threats from violent people, you might want to read what I said. I've quoted it here for your convenience:

A more actionable and specific target here centers on appropriately responding to known threats. One common feature in several mass shootings is that the individuals carrying out the attacks had already indicated a desire to commit a mass shooting and/or murder people that were known to law enforcement and/or the public:

The Buffalo shooter had already been interviewed by police after saying he wanted to commit a mass shooting:

The Buffalo suspect had threatened his high school last year, police say

Authorities in Buffalo say the alleged gunman had threatened a shooting at his school in 2021. He was then sent for a mental health evaluation that lasted a day and a half.

www.npr.org

The Parkland shooter had been reported to the FBI:

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida — FBI

The FBI issued a statement concerning the shooting in Parkland, Florida.

www.fbi.gov

The Uvalde shooter indicated his intentions ahead of time, too:

'Know the Signs' Could Have Saved Lives in Uvalde

Shooter at Robb Elementary School exhibited warning signs, nobody took action.

www.sandyhookpromise.org

I think that harm reduction for mass shootings should start with identifying and addressing known threats instead of stripping 100m+ people of what I believe to be a natural right.

Peaceful people have a right to self defense. Is threatening a mass shooting peaceful? No.

I think the big difference we have here is that you seem to think most people who choose to own a gun are dangerous, at risk people. I don't agree with that.

 

[Mike_R]

But, I'd also argue that I don't think things like "assault rifle" bans or high capacity magazine bans ARE akin to prohibition - I think they're harm reduction. It is technically possible, as I understand, to buy a fully automatic weapon in parts of the US, it just requires an incredibly stringent licensing process, and the reason for that is that the ability to fire dozens of rounds with a single pull of a trigger is considered pretty damned harmful, so in the interest of mitigating that harm we've put a lot more controls in place. I see no reason why applying those same standards to any gun capable of firing at high muzzle velocities for similar reasons wouldn't be a sensible step to mitigate harm.

I think there's a lot of room to restrict gun ownership in ways intended to mitigate harm, that are nowhere close to full prohibition...

Bans aren't prohibition?

Again- I don't expect you to agree with me, but the National Firearms Act of 1934, which created a tax/registration scheme for automatic weapons and several forms of concealable weapons, wasn't done for "harm mitigation" in the sense you are suggesting. It was another hook created to be able to go after organized crime (that itself was made extremely profitable by prohibition of alcohol).

Even the attorney general drafting the law acknowledged that banning the guns would be unconstitutional. The AG felt a loophole that they could use was to add an obscene tax (at the time, $200- now, that's a tank of gas in some places) that would ensure only the wealthy could own the restricted items.

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one, but that is OK.

If you are curious about the effects of "assault weapons bans", there are studies on the US Federal ban (from 1994 to 2004), Australia's ban, and various state implementations. If you want a spoiler alert, they generally don't seem to have a statistically significant effect on reducing gun violence. Some fact checking outlets will do some mental gymnastics to avoid rating Biden's claims on this one as "false", but most primary sources will tell you there was no effect on overall gun violence.

 

[StevenC]

The government taking away rights and property away from its citizens without due process does not sound like tyranny at all.

You and irony aren't on speaking terms, are you?

 

[CanserDYI]

I'm still baffled at the comments saying we are stripping 100m plus people from rights.

Not one single person I've heard argue sanely is saying "line up and disarm yourself and submit to the US government". They're saying something INCREDIBLY simple to understand:

"Bruh, there are more guns than humans here. There are too many people that don't know how to use a gun responsibly. Let's make them just a BIT harder to get so you know Johnny Psychopath doesn't get his hands on one, ESPECIALLY not same day so he can go make an aggressive impulsive decision without a cooldown. And hey, since you can only use one gun at a time anyways, and more guns don't make you kill stuff deader faster, why don't we only have a couple, you know? Oh yeah, and a bump stock isn't useful in hunting or sport, it's only useful in gunning people down."

Responsible gun owners are fucking fine. It's these asshole conservative "they're taking our rights" dudes that believe a gun should be as accessible as a pack of smokes to almost anyone that is insane to me.

 

[Mike_R]

I'm still baffled at the comments saying we are stripping 100m plus people from rights.

Not one single person I've heard argue sanely is saying "line up and disarm yourself and submit to the US government".

Responsible gun owners are fucking fine. It's these asshole conservative "they're taking our rights" dudes that believe a gun should be as accessible as a pack of smokes to almost anyone that is insane to me.

If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?

What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?

It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.

Cigarettes kill over 10x more people than guns in the US, BTW. Mostly self inflicted (which gun violence is too) but the CDC says second hand smoke is directly killing over 15,000 people per year between strokes and lung cancer only. If you include heart disease it's 34k people per year, which is far higher than the gun violence homicide rate and orders of magnitude above the mass shooting rate. But that should be easy, right?

 

[CanserDYI]

If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?

What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?

It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.

Holy shit this is such a shit take I don't even know where to start, I can spend all day arguing, but if you are comparing gun restrictions that are being proposed to 1800s communications technologies, this conversation has lost all dynamic and it will be two opposing forces yelling into the void.

I really hope you can read this and feel your own reaching.

 

[StevenC]

If somebody in 2022 has a right to free speech, and you restrict them to mid-1800s technology (no internet, no phones, no radios, no typewriters), do you still say they have a full right to free speech because they could walk over and talk to their neighbor?

What if instead of doing that to one person, you do it to an entire country?

It is possible to be responsible and believe that peaceful people have a right to self defense that potentially includes the last 170 years of technology.

Cigarettes kill over 10x more people than guns in the US, BTW. Mostly self inflicted (which gun violence is too) but the CDC says second hand smoke is directly killing over 15,000 people per year between strokes and lung cancer only. If you include heart disease it's 34k people per year, which is far higher than the gun violence homicide rate and orders of magnitude above the mass shooting rate. But that should be easy, right?

Hey, nice try. That would be a great analogy if incitement wasn't also an exception to free speech on the internet.

The Second Amendment hasn't kept up with technology the way the First has, because the wording of the First naturally extends to modern venues (like, go read it and tell me what limit is placed on it) whereas the wording of the Second is very explicit about why there is a right to bear arms (seriously, go read it). The justification for the Second, as it is written, does not exist anymore.

 

[Mike_R]

Hey, nice try. That would be a great analogy if incitement wasn't an exception to free speech on the internet.

The Second Amendment hasn't kept up with technology the way the First has, because the wording of the First naturally extends to modern venues (like, go read it and tell me what limit is placed on it) whereas the wording of the Second is very explicit about why there is a right to bear arms (seriously, go read it). The justification for the Second, as it is written, does not exist anymore.

I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).

Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here. This thread is 35 pages. I shouldn't have interrupted everyone clubbing the horse here that is clearly dead.

I'm gonna go flip on an amp and let you all continue without further interruption from my end.

 

[CanserDYI]

 

[narad]

I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).

Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

This is silly. Of course you have a right to defend yourself -- treating this as a discrete things is clearly doing no justice to the argument. It's that obviously there should be bounds on what tools you use to defend yourself, if such tools wind up doing more harm than good. We make those value judgements all the time. Why don't I get to own a full automatic? I could imagine a situation in which a full automatic would better protect me from a horde of potential threats, and now you say I can't have it? Can't I have a grenade to defend myself against an aggressor pinning me in a bad spot from a fortified position? Don't peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

From my pov, a lot of currently legal guns and accessories are similarly preposterous. Things that could be used to protect yourself, but are way over a reasonable spec to do so, and when used for evil have disastrous consequences.

 

[StevenC]

I've seen you argue different elements of this throughout the thread. Whether you believe the prefatory clause in the 2A is an introduction or a qualifier I don't really care (I know how you feel about it BTW).

Is self defense a human right? Do peaceful people have a right to defend themselves?

I'm not going to keep beating a dead horse here. This thread is 35 pages. I shouldn't have interrupted everyone clubbing the horse here that is clearly dead.

I'm gonna go flip on an amp and let you all continue without further interruption from my end.

There's no interpretation necessary. It's one line without semicolons. The First Amendment includes semicolons because there are different freedoms being outlined between them.

So then you have to argue that it's just dressing and not relevant to the right being enshrined. Except then you'd need some other example of that, but the words are chosen very carefully in the Bill of Rights and those examples don't exist.

So now you're just left with either accepting the Second Amendment isn't about personal self defense, but national defense against tyranny; or the Bill of Rights is so incompetently written that it should be disregarded.

You're arguing a different point entirely based on emotional attachment to guns. The right to self defense may or may not exist. The question is where is it mentioned in the Second Amendment?

 

[Hollowway]

So I just read that sig sauer has a gun that fires bullets at twice the kinetic energy of an AR 15. Meaning it will puncture bullet proof vests. This is an honest question for the 2nd amendment supporters. (@Mike_R , @Glades , etc) Is this a good thing? I’m curious, because I have a hard time understanding (meaning that I just don’t understand - not meant as a slight) the positive relationship between the 2nd amendment supporters and the police and military, but also their need to protect themselves from the police and military, should they turn on them.

In other words, I know that 2nd amendment guys believe all guns should be legal, BUT don’t believe citizens should have access to RPGs, etc. So with this Sig Sauer, do you see it as A) a good thing, because if Biden declared martial law, and conscripted the police and military to enforce it, you could do use such a gun to shoot them through their vest, or B) a bad thing, because now the police are even more defenseless against criminals? (I’m asking honestly, so please don’t be snide. I’m for gun control, mainly based on the success of other countries, but I’m also skeptical of the government overreaching, and see the potential need for defense against that. I would hope that we never need to storm the Bastille, as it were, but you never know.)

 

[tedtan]

There are quite a few rounds that will penetrate most body armor; is there a specific Sig Sauer gun/caliber you’re referencing?

For what its worth, the AR15 and its 5.56 NATO round are only high powered when compared to handguns. It’s nothing of note when compared to other rifles in typical calibers. When I was growing up, it was even illegal to use for hunting deer (in Texas) as it was considered to be underpowered to make a clean kill, though that has since changed. And it is still illegal for deer hunting in the UK; they require a .240 caliber or larger (the 5.56 NATO is .223) even for the small Roe deer that only get up to around 75 pounds.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

There are quite a few rounds that will penetrate most body armor; is there a specific Sig Sauer gun/caliber you’re referencing?

For what its worth, the AR15 and its 5.56 NATO round are only high powered when compared to handguns. It’s nothing of note when compared to other rifles in typical calibers. When I was growing up, it was even illegal to use for hunting deer (in Texas) as it was considered to be underpowered to make a clean kill, though that has since changed. And it is still illegal for deer hunting in the UK; they require a .240 caliber or larger (the 5.56 NATO is .223) even for the small Roe deer that only get up to around 75 pounds.

I feel like minutiae like this separates what the real world effects of firearms on the human body are.

The kids in Uvalde were unrecognizable because that "measly .223" absolutely destroyed their bodies.

It just reeks of the chodes on firearm forums that "won't go anywhere without" a 10mm or .357 because they have absolutely no idea and think the real world is Call of Duty or some shit.