Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Scomagia]

Scomagica, I AM demonstrating a desire to be civil. Unfortunately, the outlook is bleak on you ALLOWING me to demonstrate civility. You are all caught up in a big caricature of me that I am doing everything I can to prove false.

I have no "caricature" of you. I'm quite done with this petty squabbling. If you'd like to get back on topic, fine. Otherwise, we're quite through here. I've grown quite weary of this off topic back and forth.

[Sevvania]

Also, consider this: I am the only person who has dared to stand constantly against the stream of guns rights advocates. I am being expected to answer every counterargument when my opponents outnumber me enormously.

Just because you take a contrary opinion doesn't make you right or admirable.

Please rise above the brutishly primal infighting so that we may return to the debate of whether or not the Second Amendment should be repealed. I don't think it should be, because violent crime, including gun crime, has been on the decline for decades, even after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. "Assault weapons" are the least likely to be used in a gun crime, and gun control efforts such as those implemented in Australia have been proven to have had little or no effect on crime by multiple studies.

I agree with you but, for the sake of completeness, could we see those studies?

I've posted them a number of times throughout the thread, but to save you the effort of having to hunt them down:
This table shows that violent crime has been declining in recent years, and that rifles of any type, including so-called "assault rifles," account for fewer deaths than those inflicted by bare hands.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This chart shows that violent crime has been declining since 1992.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I would model gun control off of the Australian model

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives". Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."
....
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.
....
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."

tl;dr: It's been pretty well documented that the Australian model of gun control didn't really accomplish much.

[Rhubenstein]

Also, consider this: I am the only person who has dared to stand constantly against the stream of guns rights advocates. I am being expected to answer every counterargument when my opponents outnumber me enormously.

You chose to do this though, no? No one forced this hand on you.

On top of that, I am typing on a slow-ass phone that can't handle half of NationStates's features. I find it difficult to argue on one of the most controversial debates in the country under these conditions. Still I press on.

Your phone has little bearing on your arguments.

Give me some slack for cutting my explanations down to save time. Don't expect me to be perfect, especially when your arguments are just about as watertight as mine.

But you need to show why these other arguments aren't watertight. People will believe you when you say your argument isn't watertight but the burden is on you to show why their argument is also just as full of holes. You've just completely handicapped yourself with this statement.

You have the easy part: rerunning the same lines that you have your rights and guns aren't so bad. I have to find strong evidence and then pray you won't just ignore it.

Holding a position isn't "the easy part". Maybe it just looks easy because others are more confident and coherent in expressing their beliefs? I've read through this thread and I have yet to see an actual point you're trying to make. I'm not saying that to be mean, I honestly can't find one.

[Wallenburg]

And with a lull in attacks on my character, I will restate that I honor gun privilege while I do not consider it a right. I just want to see loopholes closed that allow dangerous people to own mini-arsenals. I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

[Rhubenstein]

And with a lull in attacks on my character, I will restate that I honor gun privilege while I do not consider it a right. I just want to see loopholes closed that allow dangerous people to own mini-arsenals. I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

What loopholes do you wish closed?

[Sevvania]

I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

You also claim that gun restrictions only work on law-abiding citizens. If you were to ban guns in the civilian population and systematically cleanse the civilian population of guns, then all civilian owned firearms would be illegal, making all gunowners criminals.

This may be where you confused some people.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

And with a lull in attacks on my character, I will restate that I honor gun privilege while I do not consider it a right. I just want to see loopholes closed that allow dangerous people to own mini-arsenals. I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

Which is easily proven false as it is in fact, a constituitonal right. Yes, those who abuse said right should no longer have the ability to exercise it, and yes, not everyone is liable for the right (the mentally ill and those with histories of violent crime). However your definition of "mini arsenal" seems to be anything semi automatic as stated earlier, and that just simply is not the case. What DO you mean by arsenal? People should not be able to own more than one gun for example?

[Scomagia]

Also, consider this: I am the only person who has dared to stand constantly against the stream of guns rights advocates. I am being expected to answer every counterargument when my opponents outnumber me enormously.

Just because you take a contrary opinion doesn't make you right or admirable.

I agree with you but, for the sake of completeness, could we see those studies?

I've posted them a number of times throughout the thread, but to save you the effort of having to hunt them down:
This table shows that violent crime has been declining in recent years, and that rifles of any type, including so-called "assault rifles," account for fewer deaths than those inflicted by bare hands.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... ta-table-8

This chart shows that violent crime has been declining since 1992.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

tl;dr: It's been pretty well documented that the Australian model of gun control didn't really accomplish much.

I figured you were right, since I've actually seen those studies before, I just wanted to be sure.

[Ziegenhain]

And with a lull in attacks on my character, I will restate that I honor gun privilege while I do not consider it a right. I just want to see loopholes closed that allow dangerous people to own mini-arsenals. I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

What mini-arsenal? it's not like we're (all) prepping for some invasion of our homes by the government. Collection of various different weapon systems for show and/or taking them out to the firing range or hunting and demonstrating the proper weapons safety rules isn't posing any threat to society.

And what loopholes? That they didn't specify what and how many weapons and bullets you can have?

[Scomagia]

And with a lull in attacks on my character, I will restate that I honor gun privilege while I do not consider it a right. I just want to see loopholes closed that allow dangerous people to own mini-arsenals. I really don't see any reason, much less a possibility for a full ban!

No one ever attacked your character.

Anyway, they aren't "gun privileges" they are Gun Rights. They are enshrined in the Constitution as rights belonging to The People. You wouldn't say that Freedom of Speech or the right to Due Process are "privileges" would you?

[Wallenburg]

Arsenals are collections of weapons that are unreasonable for a single person to own. I leave it to Congress to decide exactly where collections become ludicrous.
As to right vs privilege, I argue that the first amendment clearly protects basic freedoms while the second amendment is the most obscure part of our Constitution. My best attempts at understanding it always lead me to conclude it only protects gun rights for militia members. The Court can sue me for exercising my freedom to think.
I have a problem believing that something is a right if it is not universal, and gun "rights" are withheld from those who cannot or will not use a gun responsibly, whereas freedom of religion is withheld from no one. Just ask the Church of Scientology.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

As long as the NRA lobby army and the weapon makers have a shitload of money, I doubt there will be any reasonable gun control laws proposed. And those that are, tend to get watered down pretty quickly, that's how it usually is in Congress. The only true solution to solve the 2nd Amendment is to pass the 28th Amendment, to ban influence of money in politics.

[Wallenburg]

That would be idyllic, but without money in politics there would be no campaign donations, meaning basically 0 news coverage/ad campaigns in elections.
Money corrupts Washington, but the fix won't be that simple.
#concession

[Occupied Deutschland]

Arsenals are collections of weapons that are unreasonable for a single person to own.

So baseless arbitrary lines in the sand. Gotcha.

I leave it to Congress to decide exactly where collections become ludicrous.

Congress has, rightly, not done so. If they remain sensible, they never will.

As to right vs privilege, I argue that the first amendment clearly protects basic freedoms while the second amendment is the most obscure part of our Constitution.

Nah, that privilege ALWAYS goes to the third.

My best attempts at understanding it always lead me to conclude it only protects gun rights for militia members. The Court can sue me for exercising my freedom to think.

No they can't.
'Right of the people' tends to suggest a right granted to people, not organizations. The two other places where 'right of the people' is used in the Constitution, for example, pertain to individual rights, not those only applicable if done as part of a group.

Besides that, militia members applies to everyone, functionally. Legally you have been referred in the past to the US Code definition of militia. It would be helpful for you to investigate this matter.

I have a problem believing that something is a right if it is not universal, and gun "rights" are withheld from those who cannot or will not use a gun responsibly, whereas freedom of religion is withheld from no one. Just ask the Church of Scientology.

Or the Branch Davidians, if you'd care for a counterpoint to this supposed 'universality'.
Restrictions exist on all rights. That isn't an argument that such rights are nonexistent.

[Arbolvine]

That right there, made no sense. Everyone's in the militia? And where did this person say that the constitution applies to organizations instead of people?
Wallenburg's argument on arsenals is pretty fuzzy. I don't know how you can decide if someone goes overboard on guns unless they break the law.

[Mapelum]

I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

Should it be repealed? Should we subject ourselves to the rule of tyrants without having a hand in stopping it you mean??

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, the Supreme Court is 4 biased liberals and 5 biased conservatives. Guess who decided that gun rights apply to all citizens. While I recognize a liberal majority would have completely annihilated the amendment, that doesn't make dinosaur logic acceptable.
I know the Court's decision. They are wrong. The Republican majority decided to fail their duty as justices to interpret the Constitution without bias, and rather help out their pals in Congress.
The Court's purpose has been abandoned.

So, by "failing to interpret without bias" what you really mean, as is obvious from your record of barely readable shitposts, is that they failed to interpret with YOUR bias.

Bias is a funny thing, aye?

Like hell nuclear warheads preserved peace! Their proliferation nearly ended the human race before you were even born. Don't give that kind of shit. You may think gun control advocates are fools, but remember that they are the ones learning at the top schools while Farmer Joe (by no fault of his own) can't send his kids to high school.

Tell me, when did the millions of NATO and Warsaw Pact forces go to war?
I think you'll find they never directly fought, certainly not over Europe.

Nuclear arms secured this uneasy peace.
Were it not for the bomb, the Russians could have seized Germany after the war. If the west had the bomb, but not the technological and nuclear superiority it enjoyed in the early Cold War, the same could have occurred, but with the nuking of Germany.
It didn't. It wasn't seen as worth risking.
Uneasy peace.

Yes, nuclear weapons were a key factor in preserving peace! Militaristic logic: if you can destroy the world, people won't fuck with you.
Because we had the Cuban Missile Crisis in the bag...DEFCON 2 is so overrated...

The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved when American flew F-14s in with nuclear-tipped Air-to-Ground missiles over the Soviet Fleet attempting to defend Cuba.

Actually, it was resolved when America agreed to withdraw the controversial Jupiter IRBM silo field from Turkey, after installing it there in 1961-2. The Soviets agreed to reciprocate and withdrew their own IRBMs from Cuba and withdrew their fleet.

The F-14 entered service in 1974, eleven years after the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[Autonomous Titoists]

Arsenals are collections of weapons that are unreasonable for a single person to own. I leave it to Congress to decide exactly where collections become ludicrous.
As to right vs privilege, I argue that the first amendment clearly protects basic freedoms while the second amendment is the most obscure part of our Constitution. My best attempts at understanding it always lead me to conclude it only protects gun rights for militia members. The Court can sue me for exercising my freedom to think.
I have a problem believing that something is a right if it is not universal, and gun "rights" are withheld from those who cannot or will not use a gun responsibly, whereas freedom of religion is withheld from no one. Just ask the Church of Scientology.

Oh yes let the government whom we may have to fight for our freedoms tell us when what we have is too much. When they get too powerful and someone has to be ousted you'll be sad all the law abiding citizens who are strapped suddenly had all the policwe and military show up at their door one day and have M16's shoved in their face as they were "relieved" of their shit.

[Kernen]

Arsenals are collections of weapons that are unreasonable for a single person to own. I leave it to Congress to decide exactly where collections become ludicrous.

Congress already has. They say that it's not unreasonable for a person to own dozens of handguns and rifles, and thousands of rounds to go with them, provided they are legally acquired and follow all the rules as to licensing. Congress equally finds no issue with civilians owning fully automatic rifles, provided they undergo the long process to meet Class III permit requirements. So I'm not sure what your argument is.

[Central Kadigan]

When has a person practising open carry actually killed someone unlawfully? I'm asking in genuine curiosity, though with some bias.

Most agencies are forbidden, by NRA-drafted laws, from collecting such data. The CDC, for example, studies motor vehicle accidents, industrial accidents, and even playground accidents as matters of public safety - but it, cannot, by law, collect any data on firearms-related incidents. Makes perfect sense...

Regardless, several nonprofits *do* collect data on firearms-related incidents by methodically going through and compiling primary sources (mainly municipal police reports and local newspapers). To answer your question directly: since 2007 there have been at least 727 nonself-defense firearms-realted deaths directly attributable ndividuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons.

here is the report: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

here is an NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opini ... count.html

[Vitaphone Racing]

Every time I come in to a gun thread on NSG, it makes me embarrassed to own guns. Some of the attitudes here towards human life are just... wow.

And somebody please punch me if I ever turn into one of the people that furiously masturbate over the difference between an AKM and an AK-47.

[Arbolvine]

PRAISE THE LAWD!

[Gun Manufacturers]

As long as the NRA lobby army and the weapon makers have a shitload of money, I doubt there will be any reasonable gun control laws proposed. And those that are, tend to get watered down pretty quickly, that's how it usually is in Congress. The only true solution to solve the 2nd Amendment is to pass the 28th Amendment, to ban influence of money in politics.

What about BILLIONAIRES like Bloomberg, Bill Gates, and others funding gun control measures? They have the funds to outspend the NRA, why haven't their fortunes counteracted the NRA's political donations? Maybe it's because there ISN'T enough support for some of these gun control measures.

BTW, getting money out of politics? And you thought a repeal of the 2nd Amendment was going to be an uphill battle?

[Spirit of Hope]

When has a person practising open carry actually killed someone unlawfully? I'm asking in genuine curiosity, though with some bias.

Most agencies are forbidden, by NRA-drafted laws, from collecting such data. The CDC, for example, studies motor vehicle accidents, industrial accidents, and even playground accidents as matters of public safety - but it, cannot, by law, collect any data on firearms-related incidents. Makes perfect sense...

Regardless, several nonprofits *do* collect data on firearms-related incidents by methodically going through and compiling primary sources (mainly municipal police reports and local newspapers). To answer your question directly: since 2007 there have been at least 727 nonself-defense firearms-realted deaths directly attributable ndividuals with legal permits to carry concealed weapons.

here is the report: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

here is an NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opini ... count.html

I love the New York times article. Takes the data and runs in a direction not fully supported by it.

What really would interest me is a study on how many of those shootings wouldn't have happened if the concealed carry permit had not been issued.

I do agree it is a problem for the CDC and other government bodies to blocked from gathering data. While I support people having the right to carry arms that right is not unlimited, and the government needs data on what will most likely make a difference.

Every time I come in to a gun thread on NSG, it makes me embarrassed to own guns. Some of the attitudes here towards human life are just... wow.

And somebody please punch me if I ever turn into one of the people that furiously masturbate over the difference between an AKM and an AK-47.

I haven't seen all that much disrespect for human life thrown around here. There are the usual "My right is unlimited" crazies and "down with the government" talk, but the average pro gun person seams very restrained.

The second part is just mean. No one has been criticized for not knowing the difference between an AK-47 and an AKM. The complaint has been people making arguments and proposing ideas that are completely illogical, like the idea that assault rifles are high power weapons, or trying to define sniper rifles to include all rifles. If you want to argue a point you should at least know some of the technical details about what your are proposing.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Arsenals are collections of weapons that are unreasonable for a single person to own. I leave it to Congress to decide exactly where collections become ludicrous.
As to right vs privilege, I argue that the first amendment clearly protects basic freedoms while the second amendment is the most obscure part of our Constitution. My best attempts at understanding it always lead me to conclude it only protects gun rights for militia members. The Court can sue me for exercising my freedom to think.
I have a problem believing that something is a right if it is not universal, and gun "rights" are withheld from those who cannot or will not use a gun responsibly, whereas freedom of religion is withheld from no one. Just ask the Church of Scientology.

And congress has decided no such arbitrary limit exists.

I fail to see how clearly stating the rights of the people to bear arms is vague. You are free to have that understanding just don't try and apply it to the entire nation.

That is actually false, you do not have the freedom to sacrifice as part of your religion or infringe on another's rights due to religion. So no, it is not universal as there are sensible limitations, just as with the second amendment.