kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 28, 2015 12:29:05 GMT -5
Is the AR-15 not for all intents and purposes an M-16? Can you give me a legitimate purpose for which civilians need this weapon that would override the immense amount of killing it can do when in the wrong hands? Would you agree that in a country where these weapons are easy to procure and are VERY common, they will inevitably fall into the wrong hands? Or do you think someone's right to have fun at the gun range with a weapon useless for hunting or home defense is more important as long as you can cloak it in an absurd notion of maintaining a well armed militia in the age of drones? No, they're not the same. The M-16 is fully automatic; the AR-15 is not. Internally, they are different too (trigger mechanism, bolt carrier, lower receiver, etc.). Curious, why would you say the M-16 is useless for hunting? Also, the shooter in Roanoke used a Glock 19. He also passed background checks, including the standard federal NICS background check administered by the FBI, and the more extensive VCheck system. This more extensive system was implemented after the Virginia Tech shootings. The Navy Yard shooter from a few years ago passed these same checks. Terry McAuliffe's ranting aside, maybe more regulations won't be that effective?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,836
|
Post by thebin on Aug 28, 2015 13:01:41 GMT -5
Well I'm sure I could make an argument that I would like an M1 Abrams tank to hunt a herd of bison if I wanted to try to bag several at a time. Doesn't mean there is a compelling reason for it to be legal for purchase.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 28, 2015 15:17:44 GMT -5
Well I'm sure I could make an argument that I would like an M1 Abrams tank to hunt a herd of bison if I wanted to try to bag several at a time. Doesn't mean there is a compelling reason for it to be legal for purchase. I'm not trying be a dick, but it's clear you know nothing about hunting.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,836
|
Post by thebin on Aug 28, 2015 15:47:19 GMT -5
Well I'm sure I could make an argument that I would like an M1 Abrams tank to hunt a herd of bison if I wanted to try to bag several at a time. Doesn't mean there is a compelling reason for it to be legal for purchase. I'm not trying be a dick, but it's clear you know nothing about hunting. I'd be far more insulted if you thought I was the type to kill mammals for sport. I don't care if others do it if the animal is being consumed, but its the last godamn thing I'd do in my spare time.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,572
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 29, 2015 14:45:09 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem of tossing about this nebulous concept of a "hate crime." No such thing as a "hate crime" anyway (or maybe, ALL murders are "hate crimes"). I've hardly ever heard of anybody killing someone because they really liked them a lot. Few terms are created or maintained in an exact or consistent way, unfortunately, especially when they deal with heinous things. The work that the term is supposed to be doing is to describe violence that is less organized or coherent than outright terrorism but that is nonetheless committed with the intent to intimidate and coerce a particular identity group. To say that most killers aren't particularly fond of the people they kill misses the point, because it is not about the specific dynamics between the perpetrator and the victim, it's about the actions of the perpetrator in relation to society and the body politic. There is the crime against the person, and then there is the crime against the people. In a democratic society, especially one as pluralistic as ours, it is understood that violence, intimidation, and targeting of people on the basis of their identity is especially damaging and undermines the functioning of our system. It throws a wrench in democracy, so democracy is particularly invested in preventing and punishing it. This is the same logic that explains why not hiring someone because you didn't like them in an interview is perfectly ok, but not hiring someone because they're black and you don't like black people is illegal. It's not about whether you like someone or not, it's about what impact your actions have on our society and system of government.
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Aug 29, 2015 14:52:39 GMT -5
Therein lies the problem of tossing about this nebulous concept of a "hate crime." No such thing as a "hate crime" anyway (or maybe, ALL murders are "hate crimes"). I've hardly ever heard of anybody killing someone because they really liked them a lot. Few terms are created or maintained in an exact or consistent way, unfortunately, especially when they deal with heinous things. The work that the term is supposed to be doing is to describe violence that is less organized or coherent than outright terrorism but that is nonetheless committed with the intent to intimidate and coerce a particular identity group. To say that most killers aren't particularly fond of the people they kill misses the point, because it is not about the specific dynamics between the perpetrator and the victim, it's about the actions of the perpetrator in relation to society and the body politic. There is the crime against the person, and then there is the crime against the people. In a democratic society, especially one as pluralistic as ours, it is understood that violence, intimidation, and targeting of people on the basis of their identity is especially damaging and undermines the functioning of our system. It throws a wrench in democracy, so democracy is particularly invested in preventing and punishing it. This is the same logic that explains why not hiring someone because you didn't like them in an interview is perfectly ok, but not hiring someone because they're black and you don't like black people is illegal. It's not about whether you like someone or not, it's about what impact your actions have on our society and system of government. It's also supposed to be used when the crime itself isn't one that carries much of a punishment but the intent is psychological fear. For instance cross burning on someone's yard is likely only a fine for trespassing but since it's used as a threat of violence.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Aug 29, 2015 19:10:02 GMT -5
Here's Howard again: ""I don't come here with any lectures," he said. Australia started with a much lower gun death rate, he said, and "we don't have constitutional guarantees in relation to these things." "However," he added, "that doesn't alter the fact that our murder rate using guns has fallen and there's not much doubt in my mind that it's the availability of guns that causes such a high rate of murder using weapons." Its beyond frustrating to us coastal elites that the NRA and its backers will not recognize the common sense link between the availability and subsequent extremely high number of guns in private hands and the rate of gun violence. You shouldn't have to explain this linkage to a chimpanzee but gun rights advocates just plow on pretending this is a fallacy and pretending that they are primarily using their guns to protect their loved ones and property rather than for recreation. The latest trope brought out after a regular massacre is that we'd all be safer if everyone was armed to the teeth so that we could combine the law and order of the OK Corral with 21st century military weapons so long as the right people (read: white Christians) are more well armed than anyone else. Thus the domestic arms race continues..... - military-grade weapon
- mouth breathers
- never having left North America
- possessing at best a 4th grade knowledge of world history and geography
- black helicopters
- military grade assault rifles
- weekend pretend warfare
- linkage to a chimpanzee
- OK Corral
- white Christians
Congratulations! You just won "I'm better than you" BINGO. Way to go. You didn't even need to use the free space in the middle of your card. The way you use the term "military grade weapon" makes me question whether you have even held a firearm. I would really like to see this discussion continue without resorting to nonsense. Bin - I believe you are a libertarian, or at least espouse many libertarian beliefs. I find it interesting that you are pro gun control. KC - more to a subsequent post of yours -- so is your argument that background checks and waiting periods didn't work in the instances you cited, so they are useless? You don't think some controls are called for even though we all know that they won't be able to prevent all gun violence?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,702
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 29, 2015 21:10:26 GMT -5
- never having left North America
- possessing at best a 4th grade knowledge of world history and geography
- white Christians
Has the ghost of Gore Vidal taken over this thread? What's next, an argument for the metric system? One does not have to be a citizen of the world to be civilized. Most Democrats, as is most Republicans, have never set foot in Europe and likely never will. And that's perfectly OK. mic.com/articles/28780/why-64-of-americans-have-never-left-the-u-sAs to the gun issue, it's as simple as this: Republicans see this kind of violence as a failure of individual responsibility. Democrats see this kind of violence as a failure of government responsibility. Neither side will admit the other has a point.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,572
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 29, 2015 21:56:47 GMT -5
As to the gun issue, it's as simple as this: Republicans see this kind of violence as a failure of individual responsibility. Democrats see this kind of violence as a failure of government responsibility. Neither side will admit the other has a point. That's a pretty major oversimplification - you would have to go very far down the spectrum of orthodox structural materialists before you got to someone who literally would not admit that murder constitutes a failure of individual responsibility. In no way is that a common Democratic view. To the extent that it's a simple issue, the division is over how much government restriction of individual freedoms is appropriate in furtherance of promoting the general welfare and what the criteria for such restrictions should be. A subsidiary question is whether such restrictions are, in fact, effective in a particular instance.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,836
|
Post by thebin on Aug 30, 2015 7:43:33 GMT -5
Fido- you are correct that i hold hold many libertarian beliefs. But my personal idea of libertarianism centers on the freedom to do just about anything that would not bring harm to others such as prostitution and drugs etc. I see those largely as victimless crimes which I generally believe is a contradiction in terms. In fact in my younger days I was largely anti-gun control. The proliferation of weapons that I will continue to call military-grade assault weapons as opposed to the hunting shotguns and rifles that used to be at the corner of gun rights has changed the facts greatly and when that happens one must be open to changing one's stance. As a libertarian my chief concern is that people be allowed to live their lives without interference from the government or others as far as pragmatic which is always going to be limited to some extent. And the numbers of gun deaths in the USA vs every other free and rich country on earth, even large angle-saxon common law countries like Australia and Canada, speaks too loudly to ignore.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 30, 2015 8:33:21 GMT -5
We are, unfortunately, now at the public school moment of American civilization.
That is to say the rules and standards must be set to account for the lowest common denominator. We must completely restrict weapons because we have a Miscreant population that can not act in a civilized manner and will use them to kill.
We have to account for the lowest of the low in our society even if it means restricting the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of our society who are law-abiding and civilized.
Sad but true.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 30, 2015 8:45:53 GMT -5
KC - more to a subsequent post of yours -- so is your argument that background checks and waiting periods didn't work in the instances you cited, so they are useless? You don't think some controls are called for even though we all know that they won't be able to prevent all gun violence? I'm not saying they are useless. However, i think our future debates/actions should be informed by an analysis of how effective past regulations have been. Instead, this past week saw a number of Democrat politicians reflexively calling for more background checks and more regulations.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,702
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 30, 2015 9:14:51 GMT -5
|
|
Thomas
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 341
|
Post by Thomas on Aug 30, 2015 10:33:54 GMT -5
Great Point!! Mass shootings make up a small amount of gun homicides(less than 1%) as your link indicates, but it's such a HUGE story when they happen that some people believe mass shootings occur all the time, and think the simple answer is to get guns away from "crazy" people as Alison Parker's father said on a couple TV shows last week. I put crazy in quotes because a number of "sane" people end up using their gun to harm themselves or someone who is close to them, not to take out the Bad Guys or to hunt!!
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Aug 30, 2015 11:09:21 GMT -5
These discussions must distinguish between suicide and homicide. Suicide accounts for two-thirds of gun deaths in the US. If your goal is to prevent only murders, and you turn a totally blind eye to suicide, maybe you distinguish. However, why wouldn't you also want to prevent suicides?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,572
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 30, 2015 14:12:39 GMT -5
We are, unfortunately, now at the public school moment of American civilization. That is to say the rules and standards must be set to account for the lowest common denominator. We must completely restrict weapons because we have a Miscreant population that can not act in a civilized manner and will use them to kill. We have to account for the lowest of the low in our society even if it means restricting the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of our society who are law-abiding and civilized. Sad but true. The equation of public schools with "lowest common denominator" is a tad distasteful and carries a whiff of the haughtiness that makes so many dislike private schools. In any case, there's a more fundamental question than just 'a few bad apples ruin it for everyone.' Your quote touches on it: WWe must completely restrict weapons because we have a Miscreant population that can not act in a civilized manner and will use them to kill. So what you're saying is that these Miscreants are using the tool for its sole intended purpose. Because that is the sole intended purpose of the weapons we're talking about - to kill people. That is the more fundamental question here - are tools whose sole purpose is killing people the sort of thing we want to be freely and widely available? Presumably there is a line somewhere, since few would advocate allowing public ownership of bazookas, mortars, anthrax, etc., no matter how responsible they are. There is very little to be gained and much to be lost by allowing that sort of 'freedom.' On the flip side, cars can also be extremely deadly and in fact constitute America's other public health epidemic. But they have other, highly productive uses, and so we've determined that it's worth letting the public (up to and including 15 year olds in some states) own and operate them as a result, even though they can easily be used to kill and injure. The same is true for countless other potentially deadly things. The anti-gun argument holds that whatever value there is in private ownership of non-hunting firearms - and it is presumed to be minimal, beyond looking cool and letting you kill or threaten to kill yourself or others more easily - it pales in comparison to the costs. The pro-gun side perceives much greater value in private ownership of firearms. Those kinds of value judgments are highly personal, and so you most often end up with people talking past each other. Ironically, you see a very similar argument play out in reverse on drugs, with conservatives generally finding there to be no value in allowing drugs to be freely and publicly available, no matter how responsibly they may be used, while liberals find much greater value in the freedom to self-medicate.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 30, 2015 14:19:54 GMT -5
We are, unfortunately, now at the public school moment of American civilization. That is to say the rules and standards must be set to account for the lowest common denominator. We must completely restrict weapons because we have a Miscreant population that can not act in a civilized manner and will use them to kill. We have to account for the lowest of the low in our society even if it means restricting the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of our society who are law-abiding and civilized. Sad but true. The equation of public schools with "lowest common denominator" is a tad distasteful and carries a whiff of the haughtiness that makes so many dislike private schools. In any case, there's a more fundamental question than just 'a few bad apples ruin it for everyone.' Your quote touches on it: WWe must completely restrict weapons because we have a Miscreant population that can not act in a civilized manner and will use them to kill. So what you're saying is that these Miscreants are using the tool for its sole intended purpose. Because that is the sole intended purpose of the weapons we're talking about - to kill people. That is the more fundamental question here - are tools whose sole purpose is killing people the sort of thing we want to be freely and widely available? Presumably there is a line somewhere, since few would advocate allowing public ownership of bazookas, mortars, anthrax, etc., no matter how responsible they are. There is very little to be gained and much to be lost by allowing that sort of 'freedom.' On the flip side, cars can also be extremely deadly and in fact constitute America's other public health epidemic. But they have other, highly productive uses, and so we've determined that it's worth letting the public (up to and including 15 year olds in some states) own and operate them as a result, even though they can easily be used to kill and injure. The same is true for countless other potentially deadly things. The anti-gun argument holds that whatever value there is in private ownership of non-hunting firearms - and it is presumed to be minimal, beyond looking cool and letting you kill or threaten to kill yourself or others more easily - it pales in comparison to the costs. The pro-gun side perceives much greater value in private ownership of firearms. Those kinds of value judgments are highly personal, and so you most often end up with people talking past each other. Ironically, you see a very similar argument play out in reverse on drugs, with conservatives generally finding there to be no value in allowing drugs to be freely and publicly available, no matter how responsibly they may be used, while liberals find much greater value in the freedom to self-medicate. So you understand my "public school " reference. In private and parochial schools, those who can not behave are removed rather than accommodated, I for one am perfectly willing to forego gun ownership for the greater good of preventing death. However, the fact that I have to because idiots can't behave is offensive.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,572
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 30, 2015 15:43:14 GMT -5
So you understand my "public school " reference. In private and parochial schools, those who can not behave are removed rather than accommodated, I for one am perfectly willing to forego gun ownership for the greater good of preventing death. However, the fact that I have to because idiots can't behave is offensive. Suspensions and expulsions are much more common at public schools than private ones. It's not so much a question of accommodation than of the socioeconomic makeup of the student body and the requirement of due process (which private schools are under no obligation to provide). Anyway, this is what I'm referring to by "personal value judgment." To someone who sees minimal value in personal gun ownership, you may as well say "the fact that I can't have my very own high explosives/pet rhinoceros/proton ray gun because idiots can't behave is offensive." They're not going to understand the source of the offense, unless it comes from a general philosophical conviction that people should be able to possess whatever they want, no matter how dangerous... which most people do not subscribe to.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Aug 30, 2015 16:44:16 GMT -5
Or perhaps the offense is generated in the logical opposition to having my rights constrained because of the inability of others to act in a civilized manner.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Aug 30, 2015 17:24:33 GMT -5
Or perhaps the offense is generated in the logical opposition to having my rights constrained because of the inability of others to act in a civilized manner. This is a bit abstract, isn't it? That kind of logic can just apply to any sort of compromise anyone makes to live in society. There are a lot of things that individuals may be able to handle well that we ban as a society because the aggregate effect is too much. My frustration with the gun control debate is that the pro-gun side generally seems to just be opposition. It's an incredibly complex subject, and it's easy to just sit back and point out why certain efforts to reduce gun violence aren't the perfect solution. So then what do we do? Are we okay with our insanely high rate of gun violence? If not, what do pro-gun advocates suggest we do? I also don't find the 'it's a right' argument very convincing. So what? Are we not allowed to debate it? I have no clue what the solution should be, but at least one side is trying.
|
|