Guns and terror watchlists

[patrick jane]

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:

Yep, guns would be more valuable than gold.

 

[rocketman]

You are of your father the devil.

Or a recent convert...

 

[Nick M]

Or a recent convert...

I just wanted her to know how the Lord Jesus Christ speaks to the wicked. This is not to be confused with those that don't know. Much like the same people on TOL making the same point in favor of perversion over and over. Like her.

 

[rexlunae]

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

Both. Regulations can help, but there will always be some risk from them as long as they're around. Maybe some amount of regulation can make them a greater ward than hazard, but if so, we haven't figured out how yet.

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

It comes to arrest and punish them, and defend you against violence.

What are 'unaccountable hands'?

Anyone who doesn't have to justify their actions to someone else.

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?

It arrests and prosecutes the guilty.

People think of this as a totalizing example, but it really needs to be understood in the context of the risks and how they can be mitigated. Sure, there's a small chance that you'll be able to shoot or scare away an intruder. There's also a chance that the intruder will have a gun, and that you'll get shot yourself over a home intrusion that would otherwise have been a property crime.

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.

People who do violence will always have the advantage of premeditation. You can't know, as a peaceful gun owner, when an attack will occur. So, far from being equal, it affords the attackers a means of gaining an advantage that most people won't be prepared to match, even if they could theoretically do so legally.

So maybe keep hunting rifles?

Maybe. It's ultimately a political question that I can't dictate. I don't think anyone should. The question should be, how much risk are we, as a society, willing to accept? But laws like the Second Amendment override that political decision with law written before any of our grandparents were born.

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

Sure. But, you know, trigger locks only help you when the gun is possessed for legal and just purposes.

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

Well, up until that war, the US relied pretty heavily on irregular militias to defend the country, and used them to invade Canada and defend Washington. And, as the White House burned, we realized that was not going to work from then on. And given that this was really the first full-scale war the US engaged in with a major power, that should really tell you something. From the late War of 1812 on, the US has had a regular military which has had the primary responsibility for defense of the country.

But this is why the Constitution limits appropriations for the Army to 2 years. And this is why there's that goofy verbiage in the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated militia". The Founders were more afraid of a standing army and centralized state power than they were of outside actors. The defense philosophy changed within 40 years, but the laws designed to support it are still there. The interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms is actually an ahistorical distortion of the intent.

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

Well, what's the reason for letting people actually take weapons home with them?

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:

Proportionality is always relative to the risk that it's intended to counter. You can't declared explosives disproportional without considering what it is opposing, and there certainly are conditions in the world right now where it would be a proportional, or even modest response to a threat that exists. The same is true of guns, but the main difference is that we allow the threat to persist on our streets.

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

This is the third time you've asked in the same post. Why are you so afraid of it?

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

Not offhand. And the NRA has worked pretty hard to avoid accurate accounting of such things. Though, there certainly are statistics out there.

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?

All valid questions, and there is some information to be had. But I think we're still establishing the principles of the discussion. And it would help if the CDC were allowed to study the health risks of gun violence.

You can't avoid an arms race.

You can. It involves process, negotiation, legislation.

You're only picking a level to start from. What you propose would most likely put the starting level at knives.

Arms races aren't inevitable. There's no guarantee that knives would trigger an arms race. It's not just possessing a weapon that leads to an arms race, but the mentality that tells people that they need weapons.

What we don't know is how many people would still end up with guns if there was a ban on private ownership.

We don't need to know. What we do know is that they'd all be criminals, subject to the consequences of the law.

 

[musterion]

"Give up MY guns? You crazy?"

 

[TomO]

We don't need to know. What we do know is that they'd all be criminals, subject to the consequences of the law.

:e4e: Thank you for reminding me to send another check to the N.R.A.

 

[annabenedetti]

You are of your father the devil.

Or a recent convert...

Thanks rocketman, for showing how much like Nick you can be. It's good to know.

 

[jgarden]

1. The largest benefactors of the 2nd Amendment in America are the mentally unstable who can use automatic weapons to fulfill their violent fantasies. The other group is potential terrorists who may be be just as disturbed but have a common cause.

2. The idea that an armed militia could stand against a trained military force may have been true in 1777 but had been totally repudiated by the end of the Civil War.

3. Despite 300 million guns in private hands there is no proof that gun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. America has 4% of the world's population but an estimated 25% of its prison population. The availability of firearms appears to promote, not deter, crime.

4. The proliferation of firearms promotes a climate of fear rather than fostering one of public safety. The police fear civilians, civilians fear the police, civilians fear other civilians at school, in theaters, during Christmas celebrations and even in church.

5. The NRA claims that guns can stop mass shooters but there have been no examples of this being put into practice. In a confusion of a mass shooting, there is the distinct likelihood of the wrong individuals being shot and the possibility of the police mistaking someone with a gun as one of the shooters.

6. Israel, which has had a long history of terrorism, has rejected virtually every claim made by the gun lobby and has a gun related homicide rate that is approximately 1/4 that of their American counterparts.

 

[kmoney]

Both. Regulations can help, but there will always be some risk from them as long as they're around. Maybe some amount of regulation can make them a greater ward than hazard, but if so, we haven't figured out how yet.

So why don't we try to improve the laws instead of banning guns. In reality, that's the most you can hope for.


I'm going to re-arrange your post a bit to group together some common things. Hopefully it is clear enough. I asked 3 similar questions and you gave responses. Here is my initial question with all 3 of your responses.

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

It comes to arrest and punish them, and defend you against violence.

It arrests and prosecutes the guilty.

This is the third time you've asked in the same post. Why are you so afraid of it?

To start with the last, I actually have had home security trouble so there is a reason I used that example but I actually am not 'so afraid'. Partially because I now have a security system and partially because I know that the chances of getting a home intruder is low.

Now for the rest. We're mostly talking about self-defense. The authorities coming after the fact to arrest and punish the intruder does nothing for self-defense. At most you could claim deterrence is a means of defense. If someone comes into your home I highly doubt you will be comforted by the thought that the cops might be able to catch and punish them. So to repeat what I said before, you are sometimes the only means of defense, whatever the cops do later on. I have a security system but beyond that I don't do much for self-defense/security. I don't even arm the system at night when the greatest concern about needing self-defense would be. I have a bat and a knife that could serve defense purposes if needed, but that isn't the reason I have them. However, the reason I don't have a gun or any other way of defending my home has nothing to do with an 'accountable legal infrastructure'.

The 2nd time I asked this question I also added a 2nd one about relying on laws to prevent people from having guns. You left that alone but I wish you had said that's what you meant. You could say that you want laws to prevent private gun ownership and that even though criminals may still acquire them the resulting attacks/deaths
would be better than what we have now with so many guns in circulation causing even more attacks/deaths. I'm not saying I'd agree with you, but I think I'd have to consider it. And I do think that's part of your overall argument, but to this particular question you are resting in whatever the authorities do once you're already hurt/killed which I think completely misses the mark.

Anyone who doesn't have to justify their actions to someone else.

Aren't we all accountable to the laws? But I assume you mean someone like a police officer who would be held accountable by their superiors if they use their gun and the use of a gun is authorized for their position. Unless I'm misunderstanding your position, I find it a little odd that you don't seem comfortable with the laws in place to hold gun-owners accountable but you are content with the laws to hold intruders/attackers/etc accountable.

It arrests and prosecutes the guilty.

People think of this as a totalizing example, but it really needs to be understood in the context of the risks and how they can be mitigated. Sure, there's a small chance that you'll be able to shoot or scare away an intruder. There's also a chance that the intruder will have a gun, and that you'll get shot yourself over a home intrusion that would otherwise have been a property crime.

I responded to the first statement above so I'll just respond to the last. Of course there are things that can go wrong. I'm recalling a story where someone shot a family member because they thought they were an intruder. And I agree with the concern about using a gun or escalating the situation when the intruder never intended any personal/bodily harm at all. I even started a thread a while back questioning if property loss can justify killing someone. I don't think it does. I wouldn't say that someone with a gun should come out blazing at first sounds of someone breaking in. But I can certainly understand the reluctance to give up that means of defending yourself and your home. You're asking responsible people to give up something based on the negligence of someone else. That's not easy to swallow.

People who do violence will always have the advantage of premeditation. You can't know, as a peaceful gun owner, when an attack will occur. So, far from being equal, it affords the attackers a means of gaining an advantage that most people won't be prepared to match, even if they could theoretically do so legally.

It's a fair concern.

Maybe. It's ultimately a political question that I can't dictate. I don't think anyone should. The question should be, how much risk are we, as a society, willing to accept? But laws like the Second Amendment override that political decision with law written before any of our grandparents were born.

Maybe one day you can get the 2nd Amendment repealed. Have you started a petition on Change.org yet?

Sure. But, you know, trigger locks only help you when the gun is possessed for legal and just purposes.

Of course. But it might cut down on bad things done with someone else's gun.

Well, up until that war, the US relied pretty heavily on irregular militias to defend the country, and used them to invade Canada and defend Washington. And, as the White House burned, we realized that was not going to work from then on. And given that this was really the first full-scale war the US engaged in with a major power, that should really tell you something. From the late War of 1812 on, the US has had a regular military which has had the primary responsibility for defense of the country.

But this is why the Constitution limits appropriations for the Army to 2 years. And this is why there's that goofy verbiage in the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated militia". The Founders were more afraid of a standing army and centralized state power than they were of outside actors. The defense philosophy changed within 40 years, but the laws designed to support it are still there. The interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Second Amendment as an individual right to bear arms is actually an ahistorical distortion of the intent.

I agree that the plain reading of the amendment seems disconnected from an individual right to have guns, but I think there was some greater context to clarify the issue that is more supportive of an individual right.

Well, what's the reason for letting people actually take weapons home with them?

Defense, what we've been talking about for a while now.

Proportionality is always relative to the risk that it's intended to counter. You can't declared explosives disproportional without considering what it is opposing, and there certainly are conditions in the world right now where it would be a proportional, or even modest response to a threat that exists. The same is true of guns, but the main difference is that we allow the threat to persist on our streets.

I was responding to the scenarios you gave, in which I wouldn't consider a bazooka to be proportional. In theory there are situations in which a bazooka could be proportional but is that likely? I'm not trying to make legislation based wild and rare scenarios.

Not offhand. And the NRA has worked pretty hard to avoid accurate accounting of such things. Though, there certainly are statistics out there.

All valid questions, and there is some information to be had. But I think we're still establishing the principles of the discussion. And it would help if the CDC were allowed to study the health risks of gun violence.

What prevents the CDC?

You can. It involves process, negotiation, legislation.


Arms races aren't inevitable. There's no guarantee that knives would trigger an arms race. It's not just possessing a weapon that leads to an arms race, but the mentality that tells people that they need weapons.

I'll grant what you say here to some extent. However, I don't think it's gone completely. There will always be bad actors out there and a right/need for defense. The question is what are the baddies attacking with and what are the victims defending with.

We don't need to know. What we do know is that they'd all be criminals, subject to the consequences of the law.

I think it's important. :idunno:

 

[kmoney]

3. Despite 300 million guns in private hands there is no proof that gun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. America has 4% of the world's population but an estimated 25% of its prison population. The availability of firearms appears to promote, not deter, crime.

How many prisoners are in there because of guns? I usually see that statistic used in the context of drug laws.