Guns and terror watchlists

[musterion]

Ask a meaningless question...get ignored. That's how it works. I could waste a lot of time trying to explain to Nick, or to you, how the question doesn't make any sense, but I don't feel like that would be a productive use of my time.

Wasn't a meaningless question, just an inconvenient one.

 

[rexlunae]

Wasn't a meaningless question, just an inconvenient one.

Ok then, what do you think the relationship between what I want and gun free zones is?

 

[musterion]

Ok then, what do you think the relationship between what I want and gun free zones is?

That's not what he asked you.

 

[rexlunae]

That's not what he asked you.

He demanded that I justify my position with a comparison to a policy that isn't especially similar to it.

 

[musterion]

He demanded that I justify my position with a comparison to a policy that isn't especially similar to it.

No, you lying jackwagon, that is not what happened. You told K our capacity for self-defense is somehow diminished due to wide availability of firearms. That's when he challenged you to,

Demonstrate it by showing the safety of gun free zones and state and cities with strict gun control laws.

Which you won't even try to do because you can't. You're all mouth.

 

[rexlunae]

You told K our capacity for self-defense is somehow diminished due to wide availability of firearms.

Right. But a gun-free zone does fairly little to change the availability of guns unless it is, in some way, secured.

 

[musterion]

Right. But a gun-free zone does fairly little to change the availability of guns unless it is, in some way, secured.

Dodging the challenge again. Punk.

 

[rexlunae]

Dodging the challenge again. Punk.

Be honest for a moment, Musty, you and Nick were never interested in what I had to say. Fair, or not fair? And you wonder why I ignore you?

 

[musterion]

On this one, we're VERY interested. Answer his point.

 

[rexlunae]

On this one, we're VERY interested. Answer his point.

Why do you think gun free zones are in any way relevant to what I said? What, specifically, is the connection supposed to be?

 

[annabenedetti]

Dodging the challenge again. Punk.

It amuses me to see people like you talking like this, directly above the scripture in your signature.

I respect rexlunae for being civil even when the 'Christians' he interacts with are not. You could learn a thing or two from him.

 

[Crucible]

Most mass shootings occur in gun-free, high traffic areas.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

And

Banning or restricting handguns is pointless.

-All that will do is up the trade of other firearms, and then they'll all get stolen and sold on the street too.
-It would put police who carry handguns, paradoxically, in danger
-Criminals will just become more crafty and, dare I say,
aim better :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

Why do you think gun free zones are in any way relevant to what I said? What, specifically, is the connection supposed to be?

Punk.

 

[rexlunae]

Most mass shootings occur in gun-free, high traffic areas.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

I honestly don't know, and I haven't been able to find any reliable data on the subject, perhaps because Congress doesn't allow gun violence to be studied as a public health concern. However, I certainly see the logic of your argument, and I agree that it seems potentially bad to be the least armed place in an area with pervasive firearms ownership. That said, there's also a large potential in these settings for the guns that people might bring into them to be a significant hazard. What happens when you allow guns to be carried inside schools filled with volatile and impulsive children? It seems like we'd have to accept a certain level of incidental violence before a single mass shooting could ever be stopped. And it is so rare that a random, untrained person actually stops a mass shooting that I'm not prepared to concede the net outcome without better evidence.

Furthermore, one of the reasons, you have to admit, that mass shootings occur in schools, is that schools are the focus point of the lives of children, who are objectively less able to handle the routine stresses of life than adults are. What do you suppose that fact contributes to the violence on school grounds?

Banning or restricting handguns is pointless.

-All that will do is up the trade of other firearms, and then they'll all get stolen and sold on the street too.

That clearly isn't "all that it will do". You yourself list three bullet-pointed effects. But certainly, if guns are not being manufactured and sold legally, it will be much harder to get them, and law enforcement can start removing them from circulation. There's no plausible way that the black market can expand to replace all of those weapons. And that's just the determined, career criminal. Casual acts of passion tend to be committed with whatever tools are handy, and without widely available guns, it's hard to see that being nearly as lethal.

-It would put police who carry handguns, paradoxically, in danger

How, exactly?

-Criminals will just become more crafty and, dare I say,
aim better :chuckle:

Um, you can say that. But can you explain it? You don't think that criminals currently devote their full craftiness to their arts?

 

[kmoney]

The Old West come back to live in our city streets.

No, not really. You can't see any scenarios where other security isn't around? Cops and guards aren't omnipresent.

I think it's changed as much as it can while the United States remains a violent, heavily-armed society. There's a reason some countries don't see many attacks with guns.

And what do you think we can do to change it?

Well, of course there are possible sporting purposes for guns. So then, we have to decide if those uses are as important as preventing violence, and also what measures can be taken to make them safer within those bounds.

Yes that's a big element in having guns. I'm not sure that's a justification for the 2nd Amendment though.

No. It never was really an effective mechanism as imagined.

Certainly not in our modern era could it be a primary way of national defense. But perhaps still a secondary factor. You mention the reserves below.

I'd say join the reserves.

So join the reserves in order to have a gun?

Why? Because we don't like to see people blown apart by rockets, but being shot isn't so bad?

Because there isn't a case that those other weapons would actually improve security, as you said. There can be a case that guns do.

I think that you've been inured by the culture of gun violence in which we marinate.

Perhaps. But I am speaking as someone who doesn't have a gun myself and comes from a family that has no guns. So while the greater culture may influence me I'm not speaking as someone who is immersed in a gun environment.

What if they surprise you? Or if they care less about the safety of you and people around you than you do? Doesn't really seem like an even playing field to me.

Of course. There are numerous factors in any given situation. I was talking about the level of weapons.

Well, most gun violence comes from handguns because they're legal and easy to get. Do you think mass shooters would refrain from machine guns if they were widely available?

Of course not.

There was evidence the shooters in San Bernadino tried to convert their weapons into fully automatic but failed. Isn't that evidence that the ban on privately-owned fully automatic weapons potentially saved some lives?

Sure, you'd have a decent case. But my point so far hasn't really been to defend people having fully-automatic weapons. I'm just talking about a general right to have guns, which you appear to be willing to get rid of.

Proving fitness means that you have to meet some set of conditions before you are allowed to own a gun. Proving that you have no mental health issues. Proving that you can safely keep the weapons. Proving that you aren't a dangerous felon.

Sounds fine. Though the devil may be in the details. How much difference do you see between that and what we have now?

 

[musterion]

Interesting comment someone posted elsewhere. He used it in reference to Hillary but it could be any leftist in power. Eventually none of this will be impossible.

Hillary can use the Government and its followers to ruin your life with no face to blame, no identity to confront. Child Services takes your kids while you are at work to keep them 'safe'. You are fined for noncompliance and a lien is put upon your house and car. The IRS joins in. SEIU and BLM begin character assassination on Social Media which is broadcast by the local media. Your employer cannot keep you because he is losing business for employing a 'terrorist.' Obamacare drops you. The mob outside, paid in part by your taxes, calls obscenities at you and as you look out the window of your soon to be auctioned house. You see your children in the mob, reeducated now and calling for the death penalty for breaking the law. The forces of your destruction are never named and only innocent bystanders present a target for your frustrated wrath.

[But] you are one of the 70 rolling attacks to set an example of what happens to gun holders, enough for an instructive moment but not enough to start rebellion. So no one cares and, suddenly, life yawns ahead of you like a great black chasm until, too weak at heart, you use a gun upon yourself. The Server in the bathroom notes one more for the Beast in the White House.

 

[kmoney]

That clearly isn't "all that it will do". You yourself list three bullet-pointed effects. But certainly, if guns are not being manufactured and sold legally, it will be much harder to get them, and law enforcement can start removing them from circulation. There's no plausible way that the black market can expand to replace all of those weapons. And that's just the determined, career criminal. Casual acts of passion tend to be committed with whatever tools are handy, and without widely available guns, it's hard to see that being nearly as lethal.

I agree with this part and it's one area that don't agree on with the pro-gun side. Yes, if someone is determined enough they will try to kill with whatever they have, but guns make it easier. You can't just say, "but they'll use a knife, should we ban knives now too?"

 

[rexlunae]

No, not really. You can't see any scenarios where other security isn't around? Cops and guards aren't omnipresent.

Of course, many of them. But the threat that the guns could hypothetically protect us against increases with the loose availability of unaccountable weaponry. So, in the context where there is effective security provided by an accountable legal infrastructure, we need to question what the purpose of having supposedly defensive weapons in unaccountable hands actually could be.

The bottom line is, given the chance to put my faith in meaningful democratic rule of law, and my ability to fight my way out of a situation, I'll take democratic rule of law any day. Gun owners often describe guns as "the great equalizer", but really, it just amplifies the level of conflict. If everyone has guns, all are equal, and quite lethal, but if no one has guns, all are still equal.

And what do you think we can do to change it?

Ideally? Ban guns from private ownership, or at least handguns. Initiate a mandatory buy-back. But, of course, there are a lot of measures short of a complete gun ban that could be quite effective as well. Universal background checks and waiting periods, universal firearm registration, regular inspection and verification to prevent weapons from being illegally modified and diverted to the black market, essentially, every firearm having a verifiable paper trail just like every car does.

Yes that's a big element in having guns. I'm not sure that's a justification for the 2nd Amendment though.

No, and it's not even the purpose of the Second Amendment.

Certainly not in our modern era could it be a primary way of national defense. But perhaps still a secondary factor. You mention the reserves below.

It wasn't effective in 1812, whether you want to call that a part of our modern era.

So join the reserves in order to have a gun?

In order to use a gun. I'm not sure I'd let you take one home.

Because there isn't a case that those other weapons would actually improve security, as you said. There can be a case that guns do.

I don't think it's any more true for guns than it is for bazookas. There are certainly cases where, say, you're under attack by multiple mobile targets in vehicles. A drive-by shooting, say. A bazooka could make you safer, in that context. Of course, if you need such a thing, that represents a failing of the legal social order, which is exactly what I'm suggesting is the status quo with guns.

Perhaps. But I am speaking as someone who doesn't have a gun myself and comes from a family that has no guns. So while the greater culture may influence me I'm not speaking as someone who is immersed in a gun environment.

You're also speaking as someone living in a country where gun violence is so routine that it doesn't even necessarily make the local news. You can't help but be influenced by it. On average, someone dies of guns in every county in the country every four days. Of course, it isn't evenly distributed, but do you recall hearing about it that often?

Of course. There are numerous factors in any given situation. I was talking about the level of weapons.

But the point is, it's better to avoid the arms race if you can than it is to try to win it. It was true of the US and Soviet nuclear arms race, but it's also true on smaller scales. Arms races have an advantage to the most reckless actors.

Sure, you'd have a decent case. But my point so far hasn't really been to defend people having fully-automatic weapons. I'm just talking about a general right to have guns, which you appear to be willing to get rid of.

The one has a clear implication for the other. If you can buy a weapon commercially, it doesn't take a lot of sophistication to use it. Of course, there's always a chance that there will be a bad actor with the sophistication to get past the limits, but it's far less likely. And really, all risk management is about mitigation.

Sounds fine. Though the devil may be in the details. How much difference do you see between that and what we have now?

Vast. Right now, there is a right to buy firearms. Some states have waiting periods, but it's a patchwork. And there are a lot of ways around it, by going to different states, or by going through private parties. Of course, there will still be violence from firearms as long as they are on our streets, but I think there will be far less.

 

[kmoney]

Of course, many of them. But the threat that the guns could hypothetically protect us against increases with the loose availability of unaccountable weaponry.

Are you talking about our current gun laws? Or no matter how they are regulated?

So, in the context where there is effective security provided by an accountable legal infrastructure, we need to question what the purpose of having supposedly defensive weapons in unaccountable hands actually could be.

What's an accountable legal infrastructure do for you when someone breaks into your home?
What are 'unaccountable hands'?

The bottom line is, given the chance to put my faith in meaningful democratic rule of law, and my ability to fight my way out of a situation, I'll take democratic rule of law any day.

What's the rule of law do for you when someone breaks into your home?
Do you mean rule of law to prevent people from having guns?

Gun owners often describe guns as "the great equalizer", but really, it just amplifies the level of conflict. If everyone has guns, all are equal, and quite lethal, but if no one has guns, all are still equal.

It's an equalizer, but it also gives some people the edge who could otherwise not defend themselves. And I don't think I'd say that people without guns are equal in the same way as people with guns. Are most people capable of defending themselves? I think two people with guns are more equal than two people with knives or two people with no weapons at all.

Ideally? Ban guns from private ownership, or at least handguns. Initiate a mandatory buy-back.

So maybe keep hunting rifles?

But, of course, there are a lot of measures short of a complete gun ban that could be quite effective as well. Universal background checks and waiting periods, universal firearm registration, regular inspection and verification to prevent weapons from being illegally modified and diverted to the black market, essentially, every firearm having a verifiable paper trail just like every car does.

I think I'd take all that. Trigger locks is another thing commonly mentioned.

It wasn't effective in 1812, whether you want to call that a part of our modern era.

No I didn't mean that as the modern era. I don't know enough about how the militias worked to comment.

In order to use a gun. I'm not sure I'd let you take one home.

Then I'm not sure what the point is for our discussion. I'm talking about the ability to keep arms.

I don't think it's any more true for guns than it is for bazookas. There are certainly cases where, say, you're under attack by multiple mobile targets in vehicles. A drive-by shooting, say. A bazooka could make you safer, in that context.

Explosives aren't proportional and it would significantly increase the potential for collateral damage. And how often are people under attacks like you describe? :idunno:

Of course, if you need such a thing, that represents a failing of the legal social order, which is exactly what I'm suggesting is the status quo with guns.

What does the legal social order do for you if someone breaks into your home?

You're also speaking as someone living in a country where gun violence is so routine that it doesn't even necessarily make the local news. You can't help but be influenced by it. On average, someone dies of guns in every county in the country every four days. Of course, it isn't evenly distributed, but do you recall hearing about it that often?

:idunno:
Do you have stats on those deaths? Suicide vs homicide. Organized/gang violence vs individuals

I wish I had more info. How many attacks take place? How many lives are saved by guns? How many situations are escalated by guns? How many situations are deescalated by the use of a gun?

But the point is, it's better to avoid the arms race if you can than it is to try to win it. It was true of the US and Soviet nuclear arms race, but it's also true on smaller scales. Arms races have an advantage to the most reckless actors.

You can't avoid an arms race. You're only picking a level to start from. What you propose would most likely put the starting level at knives. What we don't know is how many people would still end up with guns if there was a ban on private ownership.

Vast. Right now, there is a right to buy firearms. Some states have waiting periods, but it's a patchwork. And there are a lot of ways around it, by going to different states, or by going through private parties. Of course, there will still be violence from firearms as long as they are on our streets, but I think there will be far less.

ok.

 

[Nick M]

It amuses me to see people like you talking like this, directly above the scripture in your signature.

You are of your father the devil.