Today's shooting in America thread

FogBlueInSanFran said:
Anyhow, I am a believer in the fundamental right to own a weapon. I am also a believer in the fundamental power of the legislature to regulate ownership. The problem is the latter, and the core of that problem is gun owners themselves whose freedom is more important than the lives of the innocent, and who, more cynically, simply don’t want to be bothered to be part of the solution because it inconveniences them.
Click to expand...
The Second Amendment: 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.

It is the basic language of 2A, and the requirements for change of same, that make it virtually impossible to achieve your goals today.

After the lack of real progress following JFK, RFK, Reagan, and Sandy Hook, it’s hard to see what will effect the change you seek.

It is certainly not happening with a Republican House and a majority of Republican Governors.
 
KS55 said:
The issue is:
What should a government do about a moral hazard, if relevant legislation is likely to cause serious social disruption?
Not an easy question but my post was about that issue, not gun law per se.
The implication of your post is:
The answer is to do nothing because the reaction to legislation would be unsettling. Well, it’s an answer, but not one holding out much hope for innocent victims of the moral hazard.
Purely in terms of US gun law, I believe about 75% of the electorate favour legislation, even in Southern states. Should potential disruption by a minority hold the rest hostage?
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with the point you make about me implying they do nothing.

I did say, "but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there."

If an effort was made to do that, then as you say, 75% would support it. A start has to be made somewhere, but banning altogether would bring huge resistance.
 
Slipper One said:
I have to disagree with the point you make about me implying they do nothing.

I did say, "but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there."

If an effort was made to do that, then as you say, 75% would support it. A start has to be made somewhere, but banning altogether would bring huge resistance.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
The problem isn’t that you can’t purchase a handgun. The problem is that you think that it’s a problem if you can’t purchase one. Because you’re a “good guy.”

Until you aren’t.

And that’s what I freak out about. Those non-criminals who become mass murderers because they fool the system into thinking they’re “good guys” and obtain guns.

Those of us who aren’t armed have to trust those who are armed legally to obey the law. That’s what you ask, right? But over and over and over again, every day, that trust is broken. And the consequences are hundreds — thousands — of dead innocents.

But gunowners don’t give a fuck. Not one single fuck. As always the argument is, “Fuck it. Let’s not have a law. The bad guys won’t comply anyway.” It is literally the stupidest argument in the universe of possible arguments regarding law. ANY law.

Until gun owners demand the harshest possible sentences for gun crimes, demand the strictest possible regulations for ownership, demand the highest taxes paid on the product, demand random spot checks on licensed owners to make certain storage and carrying are done precisely with legal bounds, their perspectives on this topic are pointless.

And the reason guns deserve this special treatment is because they have no societal utility whatsoever except to deliver lethal or near-lethal force. No other consumer good should be regulated as strongly because no other consumer good has such a singular, solely destructive purpose. The “good feelings” — safety, security, protection — derive from the fundamental purpose of the good, which is to harm its target.

Anyhow, I am a believer in the fundamental right to own a weapon. I am also a believer in the fundamental power of the legislature to regulate ownership. The problem is the latter, and the core of that problem is gun owners themselves whose freedom is more important than the lives of the innocent, and who, more cynically, simply don’t want to be bothered to be part of the solution because it inconveniences them.
Click to expand...
Good points FogBlueInSanFran.

My first point would be one of culture. Although we have a fair number of guns in our society, unlike you, we don't live in the constant fear of being shot. Firearm ownership is very well regulated and not prevalent in shopping malls or the streets, unless in criminal hands.

Although we're not totally immune to gun violence up here, I'd suggest the question to follow your comment, "non-criminals who mass murder" is, why is it so prolific in the US and not anywhere else in the civilized world?

When I hear of a shooting on the news, I think drug deal gone wrong or drug/gang related and I'm rarely wrong. In the US, that doesn't even get to be news. I may be wrong, but it seems unless it's a massacre then it's not news worthy.

"Gun owners don't give a fuck". I can assure you the vast majority do. Perhaps that should be directed to your respective government representatives who won't take the issue it on.

“the reason guns deserve this special treatment is because they have no societal utility whatsoever except to deliver lethal or near-lethal force”.

That much depends on what a person has a firearm for doesn't it. I have a couple of guns and use them for target shooting or popping crows and the occasional coyote if they have been killing sheep........the coyotes that is, not the crows.

“I am also a believer in the fundamental power of the legislature to regulate ownership.”

“The problem is the latter, and the core of that problem is gun owners themselves whose freedom is more important than the lives of the innocent, and who, more cynically, simply don’t want to be bothered to be part of the solution because it inconveniences them.”

I also believe in the power of legislation to regulate ownership, and as KS55 mentioned, 75% of gun owners in the US would also agree.

Gun owners want the choice to be able to own a gun if they wish and the majority would have no problem being part of the solution if some sort of legislation or control was put forward. They are as abhorrent of the shootings as non-gun owners and it’s quite wrong to suggest otherwise.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.