Many European countries used to have mandatory military service, not so much anymore today, which explains how and why those countries have lower gun deaths than the US.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[/quote]
Now this is a much better way to frame the question, and it is quite honest and respectful of cultural differences between the Continent and us (which are usually quite distinct). I hope to see more discussion on this post. And yes, I am pretty sure ALL of us really despise the killing of innocents.
For my own, I believe that it is a question of natural right (ala Locke, as SexMachine pointed out), and Constitution in addition to culture, but to be sure the culture is real.
[quote]b89 wrote:
I think the notion of a civil war in this nation being American civilian versus the US military is pretty delusional. If it were to come to that I imagine there would be more soldiers willing to fight for America than the American government, the government can be replaced. Why kill your countrymen for the politicians? That scenario is for the movies.
I think what it really comes down to is there’s a huge gun culture in America and has been for centuries. The days of militias are long gone, the desire to own and use firearms for one reason or another aren’t. Even back in the days of the founding fathers there’s a huge difference between having a militia and having a militia that opposed the government, they weren’t too keen on opposing supposed tyranny. But since there’s gun violence in this nation you’ve opportunists wanting to exploit it and make a career off of it. When a mass shooting like this happens it’s natural for people to take sides and things have played out to where a certain group appeals to people that don’t care for firearms. Since hunting and gun ownership is somewhat taboo now it’s just easier to oppose it than in previous eras of American history. But throughout the history of this nation there’s always been some controversy over 2nd amendment rights.[/quote]
Sorry, wait…what? Hunting and gun ownership is taboo? I think you might be confusing ‘America’ with the people who live in your immediate vicinity.
There are literally tens of millions of gun owners in the United States, in every city, in every neighborhood. New guns are being purchased by the thousands every month.
A little bit of media PC and whining from a spoiled but loud minority does not mean that guns are ‘taboo.’
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Love the wording, Brother Chris. I absolutely agree. Mandatory enrollment in the militia (barring religious convictions or mental deficiency) at 18 would train people how and when to use firearms, plus give an opportunity to teach them the consequences of carelessness when operating. Just consider it grades 13 and 14, the last bit of stuff you need to know before you jump out into the real world.
I would have definitely gone into the military if it wasn’t for what I learned from my dad about the U.N. while I was growing up. I don’t believe in fighting wars for people who won’t fight for themselves, so I would not be in favor of mandatory military service, as it stands now.[/quote]
Swiss’ Militia is not their army.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Love the wording, Brother Chris. I absolutely agree. Mandatory enrollment in the militia (barring religious convictions or mental deficiency) at 18 would train people how and when to use firearms, plus give an opportunity to teach them the consequences of carelessness when operating. Just consider it grades 13 and 14, the last bit of stuff you need to know before you jump out into the real world.
I would have definitely gone into the military if it wasn’t for what I learned from my dad about the U.N. while I was growing up. I don’t believe in fighting wars for people who won’t fight for themselves, so I would not be in favor of mandatory military service, as it stands now.[/quote]
Swiss’ Militia is not their army.[/quote]
Exactly what I was saying. Militia, yes. Military, no.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[/quote]
Simple. You don’t restrict gun rights but rather allow the law to come down like the hammer of Thor on those who use their guns to propagate crime.
You don’t require an ordinary citizen to ask permission to keep and bear but rather you nail his ass to the wall when he abuses his God-given, natural right.
It works that way with the freedom of speech and worship too. We don’t require permits in order to engage in speech or worship but rather we prosecute those who abuse those rights.
Make sense?[/quote]
Perfect sense.
This principle is also in fact a very effective way to discipline children.
Allowing the transgressing individual infringing on the liberty of others to experience the full impact of their actions is the fair solution as opposed to infringing on the liberty of the innocent to absorb the impact of the violation of the transgressor.
The scales of justice dictate that what goes around comes around.
Creating laws that disrespect that principle only contributes to a further break down of society.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[/quote]
Simple. You don’t restrict gun rights but rather allow the law to come down like the hammer of Thor on those who use their guns to propagate crime.
You don’t require an ordinary citizen to ask permission to keep and bear but rather you nail his ass to the wall when he abuses his God-given, natural right.
It works that way with the freedom of speech and worship too. We don’t require permits in order to engage in speech or worship but rather we prosecute those who abuse those rights.
Make sense?[/quote]
yes, that does make sense.
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
would you want to go down that route, with the legal/court time/costs/appeals issues it would bring?
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
People could own machine guns if it weren’t for the minority of people that would abuse it. It comes down to a benefit cost analysis. The prevailing wisdom is that current gun laws either don’t have any effect on mass killings or that its an acceptable cost to have a few lives lost for keeping the status quo. It is what it is. There are a ton of things that are legal that hurt people to one degree or another.
[/quote]
Same thing with freedom of speech. A minority of people abuse it. Solution? Ban it for everyone. Problem solved.
After all it just comes down to a benefit cost analysis.[/quote]
I dont pretend to understand the U.S. love for guns, so I wont try to argue against it.
but, surely we (intelligent, adult, law abiding citizens) would like the killing of innocents to be minimized in general.
so what ways could the U.S. do that without breaking your 2nd amendment?
[/quote]
Simple. You don’t restrict gun rights but rather allow the law to come down like the hammer of Thor on those who use their guns to propagate crime.
You don’t require an ordinary citizen to ask permission to keep and bear but rather you nail his ass to the wall when he abuses his God-given, natural right.
It works that way with the freedom of speech and worship too. We don’t require permits in order to engage in speech or worship but rather we prosecute those who abuse those rights.
Make sense?[/quote]
yes, that does make sense.
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
would you want to go down that route, with the legal/court time/costs/appeals issues it would bring?
[/quote]
I honestly wouldn’t mind it. The price for freedom isn’t always efficiency in the economic sense. But that is what makes freedom so valuable.
Personally I think we should bring back hard labor. Make small rocks out of big rocks for 20 years. In my mind, if you have violently infringed on another persons right to life, you have forfeited any complaint to your Constitutional rights ONCE you’ve been found guilty (only after conviction).
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
[/quote]
What’s your basis for this grossly irresponsible statement?
Care to provide stats?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I honestly wouldn’t mind it. The price for freedom isn’t always efficiency in the economic sense. But that is what makes freedom so valuable.
Personally I think we should bring back hard labor. Make small rocks out of big rocks for 20 years. In my mind, if you have violently infringed on another persons right to life, you have forfeited any complaint to your Constitutional rights ONCE you’ve been found guilty (only after conviction).[/quote]
I agree.
Sound post, as usual, Aragorn.
I am reminded, however, that the judicial system and the police force stand to benefit if the laws somewhat guarantee they keep in business.
Wouldn’t having the common sense approach Pusharder suggested mean there would be less reason for tax money to flow to the police departments, court system, judges, lawyers and all that benefit from having a populace that is more capable and responsible?
Somewhat like the Pharmaceutical companies that stand to benefit from people being treated for their symptoms but never really cured?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
[/quote]
What’s your basis for this grossly irresponsible statement?
Care to provide stats?[/quote]
i think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Push talked about “the hammer of Thor” being used as a punishment for gun killings. He meant very heavy punishment.
I was suggesting that the only “hammer” the judicial system could use as a deterrent to gun killings may be the death penalty.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
[/quote]
What’s your basis for this grossly irresponsible statement?
Care to provide stats?[/quote]
i think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Push talked about “the hammer of Thor” being used as a punishment for gun killings. He meant very heavy punishment.
I was suggesting that the only “hammer” the judicial system could use as a deterrent to gun killings may be the death penalty. [/quote]
Meh. The death penalty is not much of a deterrent for murder in any degree. What is there, 10k+ “gun related murders” per year? How many people are getting zapped or gassed?
There are already some stringent gun crime laws on the books, mandatory sentences for gun related crime, etc. Stronger enforcement might help.
The solution to mass gun crime has nothing to do with guns or penalties. Criminals will get guns. Period.
Let’s be honest about where the bulk of ‘gun crime’ happens. Get people working and change the culture.
There’s always going to be murders with weapons. We’re human.
These sensationalized events like Columbine and Connecticut are not representative of ‘daily crime’.
Just like airplane crashes. Happens very little, but we all hear about them forever when they happen. Meanwhile 1000’s die in autos every week. How many people have cigarettes killed in the past 100 years?
Footnote: I’m not in favor of banning guns, cigarettes, autos, or planes. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, either (gasp!)
Just know I was thinking…
Why isnt wallmart selling landmines. I want to buy a shitload of landmines so I can mine my yard against unwanted visitors. No f***ing trespassing.
Where can I get this flamethrower? I need to burn my forest down so I can see farther with my sniper. I dont wanna use it inside though, I might melt my P90 Ab Ripper by mistake.
I also need some surface-to-air missiles to protect me and my family from alien attacks/tyrannical government and burglars if they come with an aircraft.
It’s a constitutional right.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
the implication is that there would need to be an almost guaranteed death penalty for gun crime which itself caused death of another.
[/quote]
What’s your basis for this grossly irresponsible statement?
Care to provide stats?[/quote]
i think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.
Push talked about “the hammer of Thor” being used as a punishment for gun killings. He meant very heavy punishment.
I was suggesting that the only “hammer” the judicial system could use as a deterrent to gun killings may be the death penalty. [/quote]
Meh. The death penalty is not much of a deterrent for murder in any degree. What is there, 10k+ “gun related murders” per year? How many people are getting zapped or gassed?
There are already some stringent gun crime laws on the books, mandatory sentences for gun related crime, etc. Stronger enforcement might help.
The solution to mass gun crime has nothing to do with guns or penalties. Criminals will get guns. Period.
Let’s be honest about where the bulk of ‘gun crime’ happens. Get people working and change the culture.
There’s always going to be murders with weapons. We’re human.
These sensationalized events like Columbine and Connecticut are not representative of ‘daily crime’.
Just like airplane crashes. Happens very little, but we all hear about them forever when they happen. Meanwhile 1000’s die in autos every week. How many people have cigarettes killed in the past 100 years?
Footnote: I’m not in favor of banning guns, cigarettes, autos, or planes. I’m not in favor of the death penalty, either (gasp!)[/quote]
fair enough. what is the answer then, if not gun control or higher penalties? or did you say it already- “get people working and change the culture”?
changing the culture would take a few generations but sounds like a good start. Getting people working would be a good start too, and easier to change.
changing the culture would surely involve a much bigger state involvement in education/welfare than you have just now though.