Study shows gun control would prevent mass shootings

[Holdek]

 

[Hummingbird]

What really sucks is that it seems nearly impossible to have a conversation about this subject anywhere without it devolving into hostility. I understand that people's opinions about this subject are severely polarized to two very important concerns. On one hand you have those who are concerned that their right to defend themselves from crime and tyranny is in jeopardy due to a reactionary public and political agendas, on the other hand you have those who are concerned about innocent people being murdered en masse with weapons that are easily obtained and designed to kill or injure multiple people efficiently at range. Those concerns are both dire, and don't really lend themselves to compromise, but I wish people on both sides could find a way to approach this subject with their vitriol dialed down a couple of notches. Otherwise it's not a conversation that's ever going to go anywhere, and I think it really needs to.

Hard-core gun nuts can be just as bad as their anti-gun counterparts. There's something creepy about the ones that act like there are evil people behind every tree, ready to shoot you with their semi-automatic rifles the second you step out of your house so you need a loaded Ak-47 with you at all times. Having that much paranoia is just not healthy.

 

[AnOminous]

Hard-core gun nuts can be just as bad as their anti-gun counterparts. There's something creepy about the ones that act like there are evil people behind every tree, ready to shoot you with their semi-automatic rifles the second you step out of your house so you need a loaded Ak-47 with you at all times. Having that much paranoia is just not healthy.

I know these people. They're hilarious. But they have guns. So when you laugh at them to their face you're slightly worried.

I'm thinking of a specific relative. He always has his "concealed" gun always on his person. He constantly wails that Obama is coming to take his guns. What the fuck? Seriously, dude, if he was gonna do that, he'd have already done it.

This guy is nowhere near the menace that gun control nuts use as the excuse for the very kind of gun-grabbing that this idiot uses for his own insane behavior, but wtf?

I'm not complaining about this specific guy, even though his gun control ideas are moronic. He's more or less a sane person and has taught trigger discipline and other good ideas to family members. He also actually approves of ideas like keeping absolutely crazy people from getting guns.

Why can't we all agree on shit that we actually all agree on?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I know these people. They're hilarious. But they have guns. So when you laugh at them to their face you're slightly worried.

I'm thinking of a specific relative. He always has his "concealed" gun always on his person. He constantly wails that Obama is coming to take his guns. What the fuck? Seriously, dude, if he was gonna do that, he'd have already done it.

This guy is nowhere near the menace that gun control nuts use as the excuse for the very kind of gun-grabbing that this idiot uses for his own insane behavior, but wtf?

I'm not complaining about this specific guy, even though his gun control ideas are moronic. He's more or less a sane person and has taught trigger discipline and other good ideas to family members. He also actually approves of ideas like keeping absolutely crazy people from getting guns.

Why can't we all agree on shit that we actually all agree on?

Because that would be inconvenient.

 

[TowinKarz]

It's part of their overall mindset, that siege mentality, that you cannot compromise one little bit, because agreeing with "the enemy" is the first step to them getting close enough to eventually disarm you...... I'm willing to bet these people are like this in all of their life matters. They probably are suspicious of every institution they cross paths with, way more than is necessary. It shows up the most caustically when gun politics are involved, but it would not surprise me if they're also that kind of person who insists on holding up the checkout line while they total everything up on the receipt, sure that the retailer will try and add on extra charges, or constantly harass their bank or phone provider over alleged billing irregularities, convinced in their heart of hearts that unless they are forever vigilant, they'll be taken advantage of.

 

[SlayerOfTyranny]

The 2nd amendment is the sacred right of the people to protect themselves from tyrannical authorities.

The government already bans assault weapons under the reasoning of "you don't need assault weapons to hunt,etc,etc"

However that's not the reason for people to possess assault weapons.

People have a right to assault weapons in the event that american patriots are forced to resist and combat a government that has become corrupted to it's core and no longer serves the interests and needs of the people but rather gorges itself on the the very citizens it is supposed to empower and protect.

Screw with that at your own peril.

 

[Vitriol]

The 2nd amendment is the sacred right of the people to protect themselves from tyrannical authorities.

The government already bans assault weapons under the reasoning of "you don't need assault weapons to hunt,etc,etc"

However that's not the reason for people to possess assault weapons.

People have a right to assault weapons in the event that american patriots are forced to resist and combat a government that has become corrupted to it's core and no longer serves the interests and needs of the people but rather gorges itself on the the very citizens it is supposed to empower and protect.

Screw with that at your own peril.

Easy on the rhetoric, it's hardly 'sacred'.

I'm not at all convinced access to assault weaponry would enable effective resistance to a modern army intent on 'tyranny'.

The American public never really resisted a full on tyranny in the past despite the national mythology. The British authorities didn't use the full complement of oppresive powers to try and subjugate the colonies- there were no roman style mass crucifictions or deportations or boer death camps or mau mau style razing of every village suspected of sheltering an enemy fighter. The political will just wasn't there with the war being opposed by some in parliament from the beginning and only growing more unpopular as it progressed. Further that enemy was operating at the end of over extended supply chains and against an enemy supported by the direct intervention of France's professional millitary.

So in the past to successfully resist an empire that was half hearted in its attemp to suppress the rebellion the US had: the same technology as their opponent, the advantage in numbers, the advantage in ease of supply and communication, and the support of the professional army of a major world power. In the modern world against an enemy whose home ground is shared by the defenders, who has access to modern communication and supply networks,whose will to genocide is stronger, whose advantage in arms is vastly greater and whose possession of nuclear weapons is going to seriously discourage foreign intervention it is hard to imagine being able to own automatic weapons is going to tip the odds in the citizens favour.

 

[Splendid]

Easy on the rhetoric, it's hardly 'sacred'.

I'm not at all convinced access to assault weaponry would enable effective resistance to a modern army intent on 'tyranny'.

The American public never really resisted a full on tyranny in the past despite the national mythology. The British authorities didn't use the full complement of oppresive powers to try and subjugate the colonies- there were no roman style mass crucifictions or deportations or boer death camps or mau mau style razing of every village suspected of sheltering an enemy fighter. The political will just wasn't there with the war being opposed by some in parliament from the beginning and only growing more unpopular as it progressed. Further that enemy was operating at the end of over extended supply chains and against an enemy supported by the direct military intervention of France's professional millitary.

So in the past to successfully resist an empire that was half hearted in its attemp to suppress the rebellion the US had: the same technology as their opponent, the advantage in numbers, the advantage in ease of supply and communication, and the support of the professional army of a major world power. In the modern world against an enemy whose home ground is shared by the defenders, who has access to modern communication and supply networks,whose will to genocide is stronger, whose advantage in arms is vastly greater and whose possession of nuclear weapons is going to seriously discourage foreign intervention it is hard to imagine being able to own automatic weapons is going to tip the odds in the citizens favour.

I've never seen a Brit be so butthurt about the Revolutionary War that they started engaging in historical revisionism. The British literally couldn't afford to spare anymore men because of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars, and ask the French, a major American ally in the RW, if Britain was going easy on us.

 

[AnOminous]

Easy on the rhetoric, it's hardly 'sacred'.

The Constitution is about as sacred as any foundational document a country has.

However, the purpose of the amendment was to guarantee the security of the States.

You can tell by actually reading it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people who wrote the document establishing a new government would laugh themselves silly at the idea that it was intended to allow seditionists to shoot at them. Indeed, George Washington personally put down the Whiskey Rebellion, by the time's equivalent of militia idiots.

 

[Vitriol]

I've never seen a Brit be so butthurt about the Revolutionary War that they started engaging in historical revisionism. The British literally couldn't afford to spare anymore men because of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars, and ask the French, a major American ally in the RW, if Britain was going easy on us.

Oh I dont dispute that the British were doing their best but there were no deathcamps, mass crucifictions, forced deportations, resettlements, enslavement etc. All of which bar crucifictions were tactics used in other colonial wars- im afraid compared to Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa, india and to a lesser extent Ireland the US did have it easier. As you say the British were at their limit and this might not have been by choice but the fact remains that when armed militias do not have a successful track record of resisting modern industrial nations on their own turf. The American example is an exception precisely because of the intervention of the French, the logistical difficulties in fighting so far abroad, the lack of political will to follow the French and Spanish in implementing conscription to raise large armies and a lack of brutality compared to what they would later show. The British did not crucify the continental army at charleston and then raze the city and deport its inhabitants into slavery as the Romans did Jerusalem.

My point was that against a government that is willing to commit atrocities and is not fighting multiple wars across the world at the same time an armed populace isn't actually effective at resisting tyranny.

An example might be the Irish and their IRA and various other paramilitaries which over centuries were unable to successfully resist a regime that absolutely was willing to commit tyrannous actions. Even as late as the 1980s a heavily armed militia was not able to beat a modern industrial military on its home turf without substantial foreign intervention.

I didn't mean to sound at all butthurt and I apologise if my post reads that way but to claim that an armed populace is an effective means of resisting a tyrannical government is just not true, and the American revolution which is the main event held as an example of this theory just doesn't measure up when examined as an example of a resistance successful because of the widespread private ownership of military firearms.

 

[Splendid]

Oh I dont dispute that the British were doing their best but there were no deathcamps, mass crucifictions, forced deportations, resettlements, enslavement etc. All of which bar crucifictions were tactics used in other colonial wars- im afraid compared to Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa, india and to a lesser extent Ireland the US did have it easier. As you say the British were at their limit and this might not have been by choice but the fact remains that when armed militias do not have a successful track record of resisting modern industrial nations on their own turf. The American example is an exception precisely because of the intervention of the French, the logistical difficulties in fighting so far abroad, the lack of political will to follow the French and Spanish in implementing conscription to raise large armies and a lack of brutality compared to what they would later show. The British did not crucify the continental army at charleston and then raze the city and deport its inhabitants into slavery as the Romans did Jerusalem.

My point was that against a government that is willing to commit atrocities and is not fighting multiple wars across the world at the same time an armed populace isn't actually effective at resisting tyranny.

An example might be the Irish and their IRA and various other paramilitaries which over centuries were unable to successfully resist a regieme that absolutely was willing to commit tryranous actions. Even as late as the 1980s a heavily armed militia was not able to beat a modern industrial millitary on its home turf without substantial foreign intervention.

I didn't mean to sound at all butthurt and I apologie if my post reads that way but to claim that an armed populace is an effective means of resisting a tyrannical government is just not true, and the American revolution which is the main event held as an example of this theory just doesn't measure up when examined as an example of a resistance successful because of the widespread private ownership of military firearms.

Tell all of those militias in Africa that they're unsuccessful. Sure, they usually fail, but some of them actually succeed, despite western/Russian/Chinese backing. Same deal in South America, although that's more of a historical example nowadays.
Also, most of the insane militia people expect at least part of the army to desert and bring their toys with them, and given the existence of militia groups like the oathkeepers (an all ex-military militia) that's not an unfounded expectation.

 

[Vitriol]

Tell all of those militias in Africa that they're unsuccessful. Sure, they usually fail, but some of them actually succeed, despite western/Russian/Chinese backing. Same deal in South America, although that's more of a historical example nowadays.
Also, most of the insane militia people expect at least part of the army to desert and bring their toys with them, and given the existence of militia groups like the oathkeepers (an all ex-military militia) that's not an unfounded expectation.

I don't know i think my point stands- there is a reason these revolutions tend to only be successful when fighting against underdeveloped nations and governments. I don't believe it is possible to successfully wage a war against am modern state with a fully developed intelligence network and modern technology without substantial foreign backing. I suppose the closest thing to what happens when such a militia meets a modern developed nation would be the Rhodesian bush war where despite the state being an international pariah and the rebels being heavily funded by the USSR a something like 2% of the population was able to remain in power for over twenty years and was never actually conquered. If they had had normal international relations and the resultant lack of political pressure to change I think its entirely possible they would have hung on.


I just don't think the argument that gun rights are necessary to prevent tyranny holds water- if a large enough body of people to actually make a difference want to wage war on their own government they don't seem to have any trouble locating weapons regardless of the legality.

likewise the expectation that members of the armed forces might revolt might well be correct but that is not an argument against gun control. If you are relying on defections to win an insurrection then you are relying on said defections not the layman and his rifle.

Then if one wishes not to rely on defections or substantial foreign aid one would have to relax restrictions untill they are on par with the military, at which point one risks wealthy oligarchs amassing a private armies capable of defeating the state and remaining populace at which point you have created a greater threat to liberty than before.

There is the argument that the presence of large groups of armed men keeps the government from acting rashly as they don't want the risk of initiating a painful conflict, however this gives armed groups with less to lose than the government disproportionate (and completely unaccountable) power and allows them to act against the will of the majority a situation which again is less liberal not more. An example of this is the bundy fiasco where, in order to avoid a waco style shoot out, the govt was unable to force bundy to move his cattle off public land that he has been profiting off for over a decade without paying the dues the other raunchers pay.

I do think there are legitimately strong arguments in favour of gun ownership but I don't think being essential for resisting a tyrannous government is one of them.

 

[TowinKarz]

The argument that the citizen militia is necessary these days shouldn't even be advanced, it hurts the cause by its extreme distant (if any) relevancy for the reasons stated above, and it just as bad as those on the opposite side who feel that every gun owner is a potential murderer. I hate the way the argument always retreats to these extreme and mutually unresolvable options when I think, at heart, there's no real good reason that a law-abiding person can't own a gun, even a very powerful one, and I don't think it's tyranny to expect them to have to fill out paperwork the same as you'd be expected to deal with if you bought a car, house, real estate, business or anything else that enables you as a private citizen to wield a bit more influence than the guy/gal who doesn't have one. But that's nothing new, just venting my frustrations.

 

[Pikimon]

Not taking sides here, but the thought of armed militias with regular guns going up against the US government which has access to drones is kinda funny.

 

[autism420]

As a gun owner I believe that anyone who wants to own a firearm should undergo mental screening, no joke. Maybe even every few years. I don't give a shit if it costs $100 more dollars to get a rifle. Anyone who is a gun owner and not for something like that is a fucking idiot.

 

[Asandy31]

Yeah, it's just common sense that controlling guns more tightly would stop mass shootings, but what about mass killings, it's possible for Islamic to still highjack airplanes. You take away guns, you're only making human beings smarter and more discrete in their methods of mass torture and murder. This is Christian Chandler logic Obama, and most people are not biting.

 

[SlayerOfTyranny]

I think the fundamental issue here to consider is that you are talking about the independence of the people versus the power of the government.

It's about the government not being in charge of everything.

For example a person should be given the right to self protection.Gun control would remove that right.You might make the argument that the government then is responsible for protecting that people and will do so,so why would that person need a gun but hopefully one can see why that would be a bad idea.

The problem is that in the world and in any population of humans you always have corrupted evil people who if unchecked will exert power and authority for their own selfish gain rather than using power and authority for the greater good (the right and correct use of power/authority).This a perennial problem of humanity and not just about one specific individual in history either.

Gun control is just one thing in a string of aggressions with the end goal of total control and subjugation by corrupted evil individuals.

You might take one issue and say it's not that huge of a deal but when the totality of the issues comes together it is a big deal.

Quite literally the underlying notion of gun control is that the people cannot resolve an issue on their own so the government must step in and take control to right the situation.

But that is one hell of slippery slope because you must understand that there are always predators who exist who will exploit such situations and systems for evil.They always exist always have and always will so long as human beings exist.

That is the fundamental problem.

Thus at it's core the issue is about the rejection of excessive control by an authority who will end up corrupted and selfish.

Any situation where there is not a balance of power and a single or small entity becomes the ruling authority with the sole or overwhelming monopoly on the power will end up in corruption and tyranny.

It would be an exceptionally rare human being of the likes of Jesus Christ or other highly abnormal individuals (if they even truly existed) who would not be corrupted under those conditions.

Perhaps in a modern world you are correct and conditions have changed to an extent but the underlying point is still about keeping a balance of power and avoiding a monopoly on it.

The current situation is worrying because a monopoly on power is coming closer and closer to fruition and that power is not a benevolent one.That is the ultimate danger to be considered.

You are arguing about the means of the balance of power but the fundamental need for that balance of power remains constant as a law of humanity.

 

[TowinKarz]

Not that I advocate the abolition of gun rights, but, if the only thing preventing the government stepping on your rights is an armed populace, well, then, why hasn't continental Europe become a fascist police state again? None of those countries allow a heavily-armed populace, but none of them, last I checked, are several "steps" into totalitarianism if banning private weapon ownership is the first one.

Yes, me having a gun is a final check against the creep of power against me, but, too many people see it as the FIRST and ONLY. Have we forgotten there's a BALLOT BOX between me and those allegedly trying to get in power?

 

[Some JERK]

Not that I advocate the abolition of gun rights, but, if the only thing preventing the government stepping on your rights is an armed populace, well, then, why hasn't continental Europe become a fascist police state again? None of those countries allow a heavily-armed populace, but none of them, last I checked, are several "steps" into totalitarianism if banning private weapon ownership is the first one.

Yes, me having a gun is a final check against the creep of power against me, but, too many people see it as the FIRST and ONLY. Have we forgotten there's a BALLOT BOX between me and those allegedly trying to get in power?

I'm not exactly on board with the notion that gun ownership was enshrined in the constitution to give us the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. It makes far more sense to me that it's there because the people are citizens of a "free state" where the government isn't doting over you like a shepherd over his flock, with a military presence in every town. (indeed on more than one occasion the courts have ruled that the government bears no specific duty to defend your life in particular, stating clearly that that responsibility falls to you.)

In other words, the 2nd amendment was written for the benefit of the people, so that they could enjoy a free state, with the understanding that a free state comes with a responsibility for each citizen to protect it from outside aggressors, and they need weapons to do that.

 

[AnOminous]

In other words, the 2nd amendment was written for the benefit of the people, so that they could enjoy a free state, with the understanding that a free state comes with a responsibility for each citizen to protect it from outside aggressors, and they need weapons to do that.

It's also important to contextualize it to the time of the framing, when it was understood that there was to be no standing federal army, and each state was essentially responsible for its own freedom.

Additionally, the states had all kinds of regulations and laws forbidding gun ownership by certain people since before and after the Constitution. For instance, Catholics, Irish, black people, women, etc. The Second Amendment would never have stopped states from passing firearms laws. Only after the Reconstruction Amendments (13-15) and subsequent developments in the Supreme Court were the provisions of the Bill of Rights actually applied to the states. Prior to this, they only limited the federal government in its activities, because it was the federal government that was seen as presenting the greatest threat to liberties.

It's pretty clear now that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, but to what degree gun ownership can be regulated hasn't been addressed. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, though, are pretty clear that simply forbidding it or pulling stunts like requiring a permit for gun ownership but then simply refusing ever to issue any permits doesn't pass muster.