Yay, GUNS!

[Iggy]

I disagree, I think London's like any other big city. I just think in the US, more likely the guy would use a gun.

 

It's difficult to quantify, but you can sort of feel the difference between... say... Los Angeles (right before the LA riots) and New York (today).

 

I mean, New York couldn't have a riot today if they tried. It would just end up turning into a parade or something.

 

Calling it cultural may be the wrong word to use. It's the temperament of the people of the time and place. Then again, I think I just defined culture in order to avoid using the term. Eh.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Iggy

[doG]

I disagree, I think London's like any other big city. I just think in the US, more likely the guy would use a gun.

Or not....there seems to be a sector of Islamist extremists that like chopping off heads, even when guns are available. Another sector likes bombs like the Boston marathon bombers. Israel has gun control laws similar to the U.S. but they are plagued by suicide bombers. I think your speculative assumption is unsupported. Barbaric killers like the ones you speak of in London are going to be barbaric killers wherever they are regardless of the gun laws in the region.

 

"Yep. It's a right, in the US. It's not a privilege. It cannot be taken away except by due process of law.

How you "see" it is irrelevant. We have a fact here, not an opinion."

 

In a discussion of gun control that "fact" can be changed by opinion.

No it can't. It can only be changed by a constitutional amendment that is passed by a two thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states.

[John Cuthber]

"No it can't. It can only be changed by a constitutional amendment that is passed by a two thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states."

So if 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states had the opinion that it should change, then it would be changed.

So the US constitutional right to bear arms is a "fact" that can be changed by opinion.

Which is what I said...

 

 

 

 

"That's the argument the NRA is currently making in the US - that since nothing can be done about the loonie and villain gun violence without confiscating everyone's guns, such must be the agenda of the gun control advocates."

But it's not a valid argument is it?

I'm not advocating confiscation.

So, they are lying about my agenda.

Edited May 26, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

So the US constitutional right to bear arms is a "fact" that can be changed by opinion.

It can only be changed by certain actions, as described. Actions are not opinions. Regardless of anyone's opinion, if the Constitution is changed it is changed in fact. The people changing it could be making a mistake, not realizing what they are doing, whatever, the change is in the facts of the matter.

 

But it's not a valid argument is it?

That depends.

 

I'm not advocating confiscation.

So, they are lying about my agenda.

. If according to your affirmed beliefs confiscation is a necessary feature of what you are advocating, it's hard for you to claim that confiscation is not part of your agenda.

[John Cuthber]

"It can only be changed by certain actions, as described. Actions are not opinions."

For (Insert deity's name)'s sake. That's true to the extent that you elect representatives and their actions don't represent your opinions. If it's significant the elect better representatives.

Seriously, if everyone in the US woke up tomorrow with the opinion in mind that it would be a good thing to change the constitution then that "fact" of the ban would change.

All it needs is a change of opinion and a bit of time.

 

 

" If according to your affirmed beliefs confiscation is a necessary feature of what you are advocating,"

But it is documentedly not so, and misrepresenting my views as if it were is dishonest.

It's a matter of record that my view is that we can address this via education

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/page-30#entry741989

We explain to people that having a gun is more likely to harm them (and their family) than help.

So, since I already said what my agenda was, and it's being misrepresented, that kind of suggests that you are resorting to a strawman.

People with a valid argument don't need to do that.

[Iggy]

So if 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states had the opinion that it should change, then it would be changed.

 

Two thirds of congress isn't a necessity. The states could, in principle, independently propose and pass an amendment without the federal government's involvement. Congress is the easier route, so they have always proposed amendments, but you wouldn't list it as a necessity. You can just say "3/4 of the states can change it".

[overtone]

 

But it is documentedly not so, and misrepresenting my views as if it were is dishonest.

It's a matter of record that my view is that we can address this via education

http://www.sciencefo...-30#entry741989

 

We explain to people that having a gun is more likely to harm them (and their family) than help

But - as very gun nut knows immediately and personally - you cannot banish guns by educating people about them.

 

And that is so obvious that education cannot be the limit of anyone's means who is genuinely setting out to ban guns in a society. If banning guns is your agenda, education cannot be the limit of your means.

[John Cuthber]

As I said

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/page-28#entry735769

 

And, once a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the states hold that opinion, the "fact" of the constitution goes away.

Edited May 27, 2013 by John Cuthber

[doG]

As I said

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67895-yay-guns/page-28#entry735769

 

And, once a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the states hold that opinion, the "fact" of the constitution goes away.

 

Thanks for showing us once again how poor your understanding is of our system. The people have no direct say, no vote, it is up to their representatives at both the federal and state levels.

[John Cuthber]

I think you may find that the people vote in representatives who do what the people want- otherwise they tend not to get voted back in. that's the point of a representational democracy.

Whether the process is "direct" or not doesn't matter.

[overtone]

 

And, once a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the states hold that opinion, the "fact" of the constitution goes away.

It has almost nothing to do with the holding of an opinion - a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the States might very well hold that opinion right now, to no effect.

 

It's the fact of the Constitutional right that matters. And yes that can be changed, like almost any other fact, but no need to put it in scare quotes - we all know that the US Constitutions can be changed, discarded, revolted against, etc. Until then, it remains in force as written now.

[John Cuthber]

It has almost nothing to do with the holding of an opinion - a majority of the voters in 3/4 of the States might very well hold that opinion right now, to no effect.

Some democracy.

[john5746]

Or not....there seems to be a sector of Islamist extremists that like chopping off heads, even when guns are available. Another sector likes bombs like the Boston marathon bombers. Israel has gun control laws similar to the U.S. but they are plagued by suicide bombers. I think your speculative assumption is unsupported. Barbaric killers like the ones you speak of in London are going to be barbaric killers wherever they are regardless of the gun laws in the region.

True, not familiar with that person in particular. My main point was that the US is not that much different from UK, except guns. So, yeah it could happen in America. Statistically, though we know that America has at least 3 times more murders and that this is due to the prevalence of guns.

No it can't. It can only be changed by a constitutional amendment that is passed by a two thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states.

But this isn't needed to allow the recent proposed gun laws to be enacted. Particular gun types have been regulated. Background checks have been established, just not effectively enough. SCOTUS haven't found any of it unconstitutional. Having a right to a gun does not mean a right to ANY type of gun. And it doesn't mean that right cannot be taken away from an individual, like a felon, mentally unstable or wife beater. Also, guns and ammo can be taxed correctly to account for the lives they ruin, just like with cigarettes.

 

So, you have an outdated document and a broken political system on your side. We have evidence that less guns is better for society. Eventually, this might win out.

Edited May 27, 2013 by john5746

[overtone]

 

Statistically, though we know that America has at least 3 times more murders and that this is due to the prevalence of guns.

You don't know whether the prevalence of guns has anything to do with it.

 

 

So, you have an outdated document and a broken political system on your
side. We have evidence that less guns is better for society.

Fewer guns might well be better for society (you don't have very good evidence, there) but that's not the issue.

 

The issue is whether taking guns away from Americans would improve American society. That's not the same thing.

 

And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence - in practice, confiscation of guns from the recalcitrant. We can file that with the others, for the inevitable time when someone once again claims that no one is talking about confiscating people's guns.

 

My main point was that the US is not that much different from UK, except guns

And the legacy of plantation slavery, and a miserable set of drug laws, and a continental sized territory to govern.

[john5746]

You don't know whether the prevalence of guns has anything to do with it.

 

Fewer guns might well be better for society (you don't have very good evidence, there) but that's not the issue.

We have much more murders than peer countries and most of our murders involve guns. Guns make killing easier, that's their purpose and they work.

The US fairs poorly when compared to countries with more gun control and within the US, states with more gun control usually fair better than states without gun control. And that's even with gun trafficking bringing guns to the cities of some of the better states.

The issue is whether taking guns away from Americans would improve American society. That's not the same thing.

 

And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence - in practice, confiscation of guns from the recalcitrant. We can file that with the others, for the inevitable time when someone once again claims that no one is talking about confiscating people's guns.

 

And the legacy of plantation slavery, and a miserable set of drug laws, and a continental sized territory to govern.

You really beat the tar out of that strawman!

 

The issue for most people is if ANY gun control can be helpful to society. If reducing gun availability, especially certain types and to certain people is safer, then more gun control is a good idea. Over time, this should be effective.

 

I did not say to take any guns away, I did not bring up race or drugs or any other bizzare crap you are spewing.

 

Maybe you could list any gun control measure that you think would be a good idea or if you think we have too many?

Edited May 28, 2013 by john5746

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence - i

Who's that?

[overtone]

 

I did not say to take any guns away, I did not bring up race or drugs or any other bizzare crap you are spewing.

Exactly. Which makes your assertions and assumptions about the effects of guns or gun control efforts worthless.

 

You seem to be overlooking basic facts of the situation.

 

 

The issue for most people is if ANY gun control can be helpful to society.

That's not the issue for most Americans - we pretty much all agree that several reasonable and sensible gun control measures would be helpful to society.

 

Almost everyone (NRA members, gun nuts, everyone) agrees, for example, that possession security regulations and background checks on gun purchasers are in abstract good ideas and would be helpful to American society - if they were established without immediate risk of authoritarian overreach and loss of gun rights. On that last point much reassurance over considerable time is probably going to be necessary, given the kinds of obliviously authoritarian recommendations filling the media bandwidth and general public discussion so far.

[Iggy]

So, you have an outdated document and a broken political system on your side. We have evidence that less guns is better for society. Eventually, this might win out.

 

The basic idea of a constitution is to write down certain things that the government can't do. The legislature can't write unconstitutional laws and the executive can't enforce a law unconstitutionally.

 

The judiciary has equal authority to erase laws as the legislature has to write them, and they can release people from jail just as easily as law enforcement can put them in jail.

 

The constitution allows the people to write down certain things that government can't do, and laws allow the people to write down certain things that the population can't do. A law and a constitutional amendment are therefore functionally very different. They serve different purposes. The primary difference isn't that laws only take a majority of representatives while amendments take three quarters of states.

 

 

The other idea is to have an unwritten constitution, or what wikipedia calls an "uncodified constitution" -- where I suppose the sitting government would traditionally not do certain things, but those things don't get written down and enforced.

 

An apt analogy is football where the players have rules about how to play the game and refs who keep them in line when they don't. It is true that the rules can be changed, but it isn't true that the game has no rules. Players, in other words, aren't the ones deciding what they can't do while they play. Lawmakers can't decide what kinds of laws they can't make while making laws.

 

Don't you think?

 

 

edit:

 

BTW, "less guns is better for society" assumes that self-protection is the only benefit, accident and murder are the only down side, and that the two numbers should be compared directly.

 

In other words, you wouldn't weigh freedom of speech by comparing the number of people bullied by language to the number of people complimented. More people were killed maliciously by guns during the french revolution than people protecting themselves in self defense with guns during the french revolution. One *cannot* therefore conclude that french society was better off without guns during the french revolution. That reasoning is a very big non sequitur.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

Once again,"And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence "
Who's that?

[overtone]

 

Once again,"And notice that we have another example of a gun control
advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence "

Who's that?

One oftne finds in forums like this one that there is this quote or set of quotes, see, and by convention immdiately after (that is: down or to the right, in written English prose) the quoted material one often finds the "response". The response would then be referring to the quoted material (hence the label "reponse"), its author and content and argument and implications and so forth, unless clearly shown otherwise.

[john5746]

Once again,"And notice that we have another example of a gun control advocate actually favoring a coerced reduction in gun prevalence "

Who's that?

This guy.

[John Cuthber]

Overtone,

I'm familiar with the convention.

Your use of it implies you were citing John 5746

But he didn't say what you are asserting. (except,arguably, in the case of those who most people think have forfeited their right to a gun or never had such a right anyway

"And it doesn't mean that right cannot be taken away from an individual, like a felon, mentally unstable or wife beater."

(and he has posted the note above as I was typing this.)

 

So, for the 3rd time.

Who's that?

[arc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDDgSqOsHM

 

 

You might have to ban ductape, hacksaws, pipe, hardware stores and anybody who knows how to change the oil in their car.

Edited July 2, 2013 by arc

[john5746]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDDgSqOsHM

 

 

You might have to ban ductape, hacksaws, pipe, hardware stores and anybody who knows how to change the oil in their car.

therefore, all weapons....nukes, chemicals, etc. must be freely distributed. One argument from the extremes deserves another.

[Moontanman]

therefore, all weapons....nukes, chemicals, etc. must be freely distributed. One argument from the extremes deserves another.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGCFmSFvIZw

Edited July 2, 2013 by Moontanman