|
Except that this discussion started with a suggested law that wouldn't restrict you and while it wouldn't do anything to stop career criminals could well have stopped some of the recent high-profile killings.
As I said upthread (two or so pages back), with things like this, a false identification is not an easy thing to clear up. It can take months or even years to get your name removed from lists such as this. You could speed the process up, but then you'd have to deal with lawyer fees and other court costs...
So yeah, I'd say I'm affected by that...
Not to mention that this would infringe upon a few other rights, such as the 5th Amendment...
Again, that affects me...
You can say these "whack-jobs shouldn't have been able to", but they could, in some cases perfectly legally. They didn't fall through the cracks, the door was left wide open.
Um, yeah, they did...
We have all kinds of laws and provisions to keep people that are "mentally unstable" from owning firearms...
And these all failed...
But that still does not mean that there should be some kind of "catch-all net" style law tossed over the 2nd Amendment just to catch these few individuals...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See this is how you have a dialogue. It is true that non-violent change is more successful. The second amendment is for when youve tried the non-violent route, and it didnt work. Ive noticed that you dont like the second amendment, and I invite you to try to have it repealed. I merely posited that my viewpoint that I disagree and would work to block you. I dont think your viewpoint is garbage. I just dont agree with it.And I think we're done here.
Edit to address your edit regarding two kids knife fighting. I agree. What you are proposing is banning all knives instead of just the knife of the kid who stabbed the other one. The situation in your analogy ALREADY exists.
As far as handguns. Yup they were designed primarily to kill people. They have no hunting applications that a rifle couldnt do better. Whats your point? Again, the second has nothing to do with hunting.
You'll note above, I'm not in favor of the second amendment either. I'm cool with all the other amendments, but I don't think that one is doing us any favors right now.
Even looking at the original intent, protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If you look at the statistics, non-violent resistance/revolution has a greater chance of success and a greater amount of change imposed on a country.
Guns aren't even the most effective method of protecting rights, and their existence and prevalence just increases the chances that someone might try to infringe on yours.
I already know it wouldn't get passed. I fully understand how the climate of fear works in our country and how it gets used to control the message in our political discourse.
The NRA wants to protect gun rights. They also have a vested interest in maintaining the fear that "the government is coming to take your guns", even when it isn't happening right now. And by that I don't mean keeping a watchful eye, but actively promoting fear.
I wouldn't want to repeal the 2nd in order to ban all guns either. But rather to remove it from the debate and idea of the "god given right to own guns", which puts us further and further from a solution.
If the US military really wanted to bomb your house, owning a gun wouldn't help. Owning a gun wouldn't necessarily increase your chances of survival if armed conflict broke out in the country either, because if you're using it to defend yourself, that means you're in a fire fight. Being in a fire fight would be a major factor in your odds of being shot during the course of your life.
Re-imagine the civil rights movement more as how Malcom X spoke about it. We probably would have far worse race relations in the country if that had happened and armed uprisings took place instead of the non-violent protests. If we looked back on images like that, we wouldn't feel near as much empathy for the African-Americans wielding guns against our soldiers as we do for the ones being hosed down by them.
And if anyone in the past 60 years should have raised up with arms in this country, it was minorities living in Mississippi during that time.
Guns don't stop crime. They just make it more likely that someone dies during it, whether it was a justified shooting or not.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.
If the NRA wasn't a constant presence, how much easier then would it be to have 2nd amendment rights eroded?
Yes, and they keep going on and on about how Obama is taking your guns away. That his inaction is a conspiracy to lull you into complacency. That is fear-mongering, not vigilance.
Im not sure I follow at all. I was with you up until "Owning a gun wouldn't necessarily increase your chances of survival if armed conflict broke out in the country either, because if you're using it to defend yourself, that means you're in a fire fight. Being in a fire fight would be a major factor in your odds of being shot during the course of your life."
Hunh? So if Im already in an armed conflict and being fired upon, I should just run from the armed conflict while trying to not be shot? Then I wouldnt have been in a fire fight? That makes absolutely zero sense.
As far as the civil rights movement, while we are playing what-if: What if MLK's way didnt work? Should African Americans just laid down and took their lynchings? If the local sheriff came to lynch me, I would rather have a weapon. How Im viewed afterwards is a bridge that I would cross after I fought to make sure that I had an afterwards.
And then the rest I agree with.
That is your opinion.
Constantly being in the public eye and fighting against city ordinances that infringe on the 2nd amendment and such, and taking them to the Supreme Court to fight it IS vigilance. Chicago and DC ring a bell?
I'm not worried about Obama taking my guns. He can't, even with an executive order. What I don't like are cities or counties who try to nit pick the 2nd amendment rights of its citizens by passing ordinances and laws that have to be taken to court to stop, things that shouldn't be allowed in the first place. But, that's how it goes, they can pass a s$!$ty law, then defend it in court. So, as long as that continues, it will be fought. By organizations like the NRA, with donations and dues from members.
If the NRA wasn't a constant presence, how much easier then would it be to have 2nd amendment rights eroded?The NRA has been wholly co-opted. There was a time when it not only protected the rights of gun-owners but also protected the interests of gun-owners, in conservation, hunting rights, and defense of common wilderness areas. Now, it endorses people who outright want to abolish the EPA and sell off government wilderness areas for fear of the Dreaded Gungrabbers.
Considering that Mitt Romney actually signed anti-gun legislation, unlike President Obama, this is pretty spot on.
However, the "fear-mongering" does have some basis. Allegedly(according to Sarah Brady), the President told (Brady) that he was working on gun control under the radar. source However, looking at the President's track record, that tells me that there is no way that he is working on gun control.
Just out of interest, what do you need guns for? Self-defence? Because a taser can be used for that. And no one can massacre a theatre or classroom full of people with a taser.
Guns make it easy (like, super-easy!) to kill people. It is not a God-given right to own guns - there are no God-given rights. Rights are drafted into constitutions by governments that are made up of people. Yours is no different.
I'll agree that the 2nd amendment was important at the time it was drafted, but we now live in a completely different context. Although I'll agree that the bigger problem is the sheer number of firearms in the US, you don't get lots of guns unless there's a public market for them - which your lax laws encourage.
I don't know - it's not my country, it's yours, your pros and cons, you obviously understand the situation better than I do (in large part because here, we never encounter guns and gun massacres). But purely because of your gun laws, I'm so glad I don't live in your otherwise great nation.
Just out of interest, what do you need guns for? Self-defence? Because a taser can be used for that. And no one can massacre a theatre or classroom full of people with a taser.
Guns make it easy (like, super-easy!) to kill people. It is not a God-given right to own guns - there are no God-given rights. Rights are drafted into constitutions by governments that are made up of people. Yours is no different.
I'll agree that the 2nd amendment was important at the time it was drafted, but we now live in a completely different context. Although I'll agree that the bigger problem is the sheer number of firearms in the US, you don't get lots of guns unless there's a public market for them - which your lax laws encourage.
I don't know - it's not my country, it's yours, your pros and cons, you obviously understand the situation better than I do (in large part because here, we never encounter guns and gun massacres). But purely because of your gun laws, I'm so glad I don't live in your otherwise great nation.
A quick question: Do the police forces in Australia have firearms, tasers, or both? How about the military?
That was in response to Irontruth, MiB. I should have hit 'reply' to make that clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im not sure I follow at all. I was with you up until "Owning a gun wouldn't necessarily increase your chances of survival if armed conflict broke out in the country either, because if you're using it to defend yourself, that means you're in a fire fight. Being in a fire fight would be a major factor in your odds of being shot during the course of your life."
Hunh? So if Im already in an armed conflict and being fired upon, I should just run from the armed conflict while trying to not be shot? Then I wouldnt have been in a fire fight? That makes absolutely zero sense.
As far as the civil rights movement, while we are playing what-if: What if MLK's way didnt work? Should African Americans just laid down and took their lynchings? If the local sheriff came to lynch me, I would rather have a weapon. How Im viewed afterwards is a bridge that I would cross after I fought to make sure that I had an afterwards.
And then the rest I agree with.
If an armed conflict breaks out and you have a gun, you've got two choices, join a side and use your gun, or don't. If you join a side and get in the fight, the odds of dying go up.
Now, not joining isn't a guarantee to not die. Far from it. But choosing to be in an armed conflict does increase the chances of a violent death.
Non-violent protest isn't a guarantee either. People can be killed by rubber bullets or even a tear gas canister to the head. But those odds are a lot lower than a violent protest.
An interesting read regarding violent and non-violent resistance.
Non-violent political movements are successful 53% of the time, while violent resistance is successful 26% of the time, during the time period of 1900-2006. Its twice as likely to achieve a positive result.
If the state of Texas started shooting IRS agents, because they didn't like a policy of the federal government, people might shake their heads, say they have a point, but still needed to be rounded up and locked away.
If they en masse just stop paying taxes, and the federal government comes in and and tries to force the issue, you'd see a serious sympathy movement happen. The state government would probably join their citizenry and you'd see a backlash against the feds in the rest of the country as well.
That was in response to Irontruth, MiB. I should have hit 'reply' to make that clear.
The NRA prints stuff like this. Which is what I am talking about. This is the kind of stuff they do for fundraising, which is fear-mongering.
Ok. So what happens when they try the non-violent way and it fails? just give up?
That was in response to Irontruth, MiB. I should have hit 'reply' to make that clear.The NRA prints stuff like this. Which is what I am talking about. This is the kind of stuff they do for fundraising, which is fear-mongering.
So it's not just viligance...
Fear-mongering is not vigilance. It's fear-mongering. They might us it to financially support their vigilance, but it's still fear-mongering and is twisting the debate.
Except for the instances I cited above. But, ok.
If you lived on a frontier, or in disputed territory, or had any need at all for guns, it would make sense.
There's a few part of America where you might have to deal with angry grizzly bear, bison or moose. They're a mite bigger than your roos.
Ok. So what happens when they try the non-violent way and it fails? just give up?
I would keep trying the non-violence method. Once you turn to violence, it's really hard to go back. Armed resistance and terrorism rarely work and when they do, it often takes decades, instead of months or years.
Even the American Revolution took 8 years to accomplish. There was also a follow up conflict a few years later. It also laid the ground work for the civil war.
Ireland's conflict heated up and cooled off periodically from 1919 to 1998 and the violence still isn't completely over.
India and Britain separated on non-violent terms. Overall a decent relationship grew out of that.
India and Pakistan separated on violent terms.
It's deciding to leave a legacy of violence or non-violence for generations to come. Wars usually cost the general populace the most.
If you lived on a frontier, or in disputed territory, or had any need at all for guns, it would make sense.There's a few part of America where you might have to deal with angry grizzly bear, bison or moose. They're a mite bigger than your roos.
The best defense against wild life is knowledge, not firearms.
A bell is more likely to prevent you from being mauled by a bear than a gun is.
A bell is more likely to prevent you from being mauled by a bear than a gun is.
The National Park Rangers are advising hikers in Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain parks to be alert for bears and take extra precautions to avoid an encounter.
They advise park visitors to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge.
Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered. Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear's sensitive nose and it will run away.
It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area. People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat.
Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.
I haven't spent a lot of time out west. All we have around here are rattlesnakes, coyotes, and blackbears and a walking sticks always been enough to shoo them away. (poor rattlesnake was in the middle of the road, not the safest place)
Yeah, I mostly encounter black bears as well. I didn't get a pic of the bear itself, but I have a picture of the pile of scat it left next to my pack while I was taking a nap. The dog and I chased it away and we didn't have any problems after that.
Of course, I suspect the major reason we had an issue in the first place was the decent number of fish carcasses that were sunk in the water. Too many people had been cleaning fish at the site, so the bears knew to come and check it out when they smelled people.
For grizzlies, bear spray is not a guarantee. Strong winds, or even moderate winds in the exact wrong direction can ruin it's efficacy. Then again, there are plenty of stories of grizzlies having been shot and still killing the hunter, or requiring full reloads, something not everyone can do when faced with a charging grizzly, regardless of training.
Knowledge is the best defense against a grizzly.
edit: for awesome dog story
As a teenager I had an extremely tough dog. Walking in the woods, we saw some bear cubs run up a tree, the dog of course went after them. I, being smarter, ran back to the boat. 10 minutes later, the dog shows up, 4 parallel red lines on each hindquarters. He also beat a malignant tumor without treatment. Lastly, he was hit by a car once. He survived to 13, for a breed that typically lives 6-8.
Yeah... The US military could kill you if it decided it really wanted to. If necessary, it could nuke you. So? What do you think would happen if the military decided to start killing people that had done nothing wrong? It would have a PR nightmare ahead of it. People would quit. There would be schisms in the organisation. Every other political issue would disappear with the first military murder of a civilian american. Keep claiming guns won't protect you if the military wants to kill you, it ignores a whole lot of other facts. That second amendment still protects you people from tyranny.
A quick question: Do the police forces in Australia have firearms, tasers, or both? How about the military?
Absolutely, they have guns, tasers, capsicum (pepper) spray, and nightsticks. And thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that they do. They are the ones that regularly have to deal with criminals (police) and international threats (soldiers). They are screened heavily, face strict disciplinary action if they misuse them, and train constantly in their use. They also dedicate their lives to public and national safety.
But that means us regular Joes don't need guns. We can get them. I could get in a gun in a little over a week, either by joining a gun club or demonstrating the need (my da has one on his farm, and I have mates with sniper rifles etc for recreational hunting/target shooting). But one's police record is checked, people can be flagged by health professionals, and we don't have a proclivity for weapons here.
I used to own a Tai Chi sword, as I was practising martial arts at the time, until the new weapon laws came in (ornamental weapons require a license here too, and being a collector is a valid reason to get a license). I sold it to a mate with a weapons license - I couldn't be bothered. When my daughter turns 15 I'll probably get one though :)
I'm not going to check the numbers unless you need me to, but there are far less guns per capita in this country, and far less firearm related fatalities. I don't think this is a coincidence. So by maintaining your liberty and right to self-defence, you actually live in a more dangerous nation.
I have never so much as held a gun, and I have no desire to. I don't feel like my rights as a human being are being impinged upon. But if you are happy to pay the cost in innocent human lives so that you can feel a sense of liberty, then I've no problem with that. You're in your land, I'm in mine.
Having said that, I do realise that Australia is a much more peaceful nation than... just about anywhere. As I said before, you know the level of safety in your nation better than I do.
A quick question: Do the police forces in Australia have firearms, tasers, or both? How about the military?
Absolutely, they have guns, tasers, capsicum (pepper) spray, and nightsticks. And thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn that they do. They are the ones that regularly have to deal with criminals (police) and international threats (soldiers). They are screened heavily, face strict disciplinary action if they misuse them, and train constantly in their use. They also dedicate their lives to public and national safety.
But that means us regular Joes don't need guns. We can get them. I could get in a gun in a little over a week, either by joining a gun club or demonstrating the need (my da has one on his farm, and I have mates with sniper rifles etc for recreational hunting/target shooting). But one's police record is checked, people can be flagged by health professionals, and we don't have a proclivity for weapons here.
I used to own a Tai Chi sword, as I was practising martial arts at the time, until the new weapon laws came in (ornamental weapons require a license here too, and being a collector is a valid reason to get a license). I sold it to a mate with a weapons license - I couldn't be bothered. When my daughter turns 15 I'll probably get one though :)
I'm not going to check the numbers unless you need me to, but there are far less guns per capita in this country, and far less firearm related fatalities. I don't think this is a coincidence. So by maintaining your liberty and right to self-defence, you actually live in a more dangerous nation.
I have never so much as held a gun, and I have no desire to. I don't feel like my rights as a human being are being impinged upon. But if you are happy to pay the cost in innocent human lives (remember - far less guns, far less firearm related fatalities) so that you can feel a sense of liberty, then I've no problem with that. You're in your land, I'm in mine.
Having said that, I do realise that Australia is a much more peaceful nation than... just about anywhere. As I said before, you know the level of safety in your nation better than I do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every other political issue would disappear with the first military murder of a civilian american.
I used to believe this was true. Probably so did Abdul-Rahman Al Awlaki.
Absolutely, they have guns, tasers, capsicum (pepper) spray, and nightsticks.
A quick question: Do the police forces in Australia have firearms, tasers, or both? How about the military?
Why do they need all that? According to you, if one wanted self defense, all that one would need is a taser.
Why do they need all that? According to you, if one wanted self defense, all that one would need is a taser.Absolutely, they have guns, tasers, capsicum (pepper) spray, and nightsticks.
A quick question: Do the police forces in Australia have firearms, tasers, or both? How about the military?
Did you even read the rest of my post?
They need them because they are responsible for public safety. That's their job. And the more firearms you take out of the equation, the less need you have for self-defence.
Yeah, I read the rest of your post. And according to you, the laws in Austraila are good enough that only a taser is needed for self defense. So then why do the police need firearms? If only law abiding and mentally fit people have access to weaponry there, shouldnt the firearms be unnecessary? Or are they for wildlife only? If so, do they only carry long rifles or handguns, which are only good for killing humans and subpar for most wildlife?
Edit-this isnt snark. I really dont know much about Aussie society.
Ummmm.. Okay. I did not want to go there, but... First military murder of an american who looks american...
Yeah, I read the rest of your post. And according to you, the laws in Austraila are good enough that only a taser is needed for self defense. So then why do the police need firearms? If only law abiding and mentally fit people have access to weaponry there, shouldnt the firearms be unnecessary? Or are they for wildlife only?
No, the police are authorised to use force one step above an offender. Which means if an citizen is bare-handed (without Improved Unarmed Attack, that is) a police officer can only use their baton or capsicum spray. If a bladed weapon, bring on the guns! But as I said, their usage of firearms is strictly monitored and controlled. If someone is shot dead in this country by a police officer, it makes national headlines.
There are virtually never shoot outs with criminals in this country. It just doesn't happen. Neither do murders with guns. And they tend to be other criminals that are shot dead.
This topic is about the regulation of guns, not that guns shouldn't exist ever. Police officers and soldiers are heavily regulated. They don't really come into the equation here.
Also, I'd like to address another quote of yours. I think it really might be a continental type of disconnect.
So by maintaining your liberty and right to self-defence, you actually live in a more dangerous nation.
Absolutely. Freedom IS a dangerous thing. If we wanted absolute safety, we would lock ourselves up in solitary confinement. We Americans push for (at least the illusion of) more freedom than most of the rest of the world.
If so, do they only carry long rifles or handguns, which are only good for killing humans and subpar for most wildlife?
Edit-this isnt snark. I really dont know much about Aussie society.
Lol I'm enjoying the low-level of snark here :)
Yeah, I read the rest of your post. And according to you, the laws in Austraila are good enough that only a taser is needed for self defense. So then why do the police need firearms? If only law abiding and mentally fit people have access to weaponry there, shouldnt the firearms be unnecessary? Or are they for wildlife only?No, the police are authorised to use force one step above an offender. Which means if an citizen is bare-handed (without Improved Unarmed Attack, that is) a police officer can only use their baton or capsicum spray. If a bladed weapon, bring on the guns! But as I said, their usage of firearms is strictly monitored and controlled. If someone is shot dead in this country by a police officer, it makes national headlines.
There are virtually never shoot outs with criminals in this country. It just doesn't happen. Neither do murders with guns. And they tend to be other criminals that are shot dead.
This topic is about the regulation of guns, not that guns shouldn't exist ever. Police officers and soldiers are heavily regulated. They don't really come into the equation here.
Then that is another disconnect with the way things are here. Here, if a police officer shoots and kills someone, in many cases, theres a token investigation. If the shooting makes headlines, the investigation will drag out until the media forgets about it. More so for minorities or the poor.
Also, I'd like to address another quote of yours. I think it really might be a continental type of disconnect.
So by maintaining your liberty and right to self-defence, you actually live in a more dangerous nation.Absolutely. Freedom IS a dangerous thing. If we wanted absolute safety, we would lock ourselves up in solitary confinement. We Americans push for (at least the illusion of) more freedom than most of the rest of the world.
A facetious observer would then respond that gun massacres in the US should be explained as the necessary price for a greater good. Of course, I wouldn't say such a thing...
I feel like my liberty is unendangered... But to re-repeat, our nations are very different places.
I agree. Does Australia have the massive inequalities in income, jobs, and education between the rich and poor that exist here in the US? Because its my opinion that fixing this (and ending the stupid, stupid, stupid war on drugs)would do more to curb gun violence than any sort of ban.
I agree, ending those will go a long ways towards reducing violence in general. Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of will to really accomplish some of the better ideas. The best ideas are going to combine some innovative right and left ideas, which means neither side will be willing to pass them.
Until then, it would be nice to just reduce access to tools people use to kill other people, but that won't happen either.
And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change...
I agree. Does Australia have the massive inequalities in income, jobs, and education between the rich and poor that exist here in the US? Because its my opinion that fixing this (and ending the stupid, stupid, stupid war on drugs)would do more to curb gun violence than any sort of ban.
Australia does have those problems, but I assume they are much, much bigger in the States. We're just starting to give up on the war on drugs ourselves :) Catchy name, that's about it...
And good point about the combo of left and right ideas Irontruth, I'm a political swinger, so I'd be up for that, but I guess politics doesn't work that way...
For short snippets about the topic, I'd suggest TED talks about economic development in Africa. They have a lot of problems and the US style of aid isn't really helping much. A few small programs, or large programs of limited scope, are having some success, but it's tough going.
The major problem is that the people interested in giving money want to do charities. But traditional charities only deal with symptoms, not causes. Like in US cities, it's going to be extremely difficult to completely eradicate homelessness, but we can do our best to help them have some dignity. But in Africa where they just need their economy to develop as a whole, charity doesn't do anything.
It costs something like $12 to manufacture and distribute a mosquito net within Africa, but the locals can't afford it. The problem is, they don't want handouts either. They found if they charge $1, more people will take them. It also starts generating consumer data, which can then be utilized to improve how aid is distributed and business is done.
It basically turns into make-work jobs for the employees, but still provides a valuable service to the community as well. In the current economic and political climate in the US though, we'll never authorize large spending increases to provide goods and services at reduced cost to consumers though.
There also isn't long term data showing the efficacy of such programs, though the data people have seen is encouraging. It's also a long and slow process to build an economy up enough so that they can start to do these things on their own, or start spending on good infrastructure, like paved roads (of which there is a serious lack in Africa, making development difficult).
Anyways, I highly doubt much progress will be made.
It's late, I'm starting to ramble. There was a point in there somewhere, hopefully it's not completely lost.
|
[rhetorical question]And why shouldn't that person have access to guns?[/rhetorical question]If a person is deemed "too unstable" to warrant not being allowed access to guns, then that person should also be deemed "too unstable" to be allowed to mingle unsupervised in society at large...
So if anyone is deemed "safe" in the community, they should be allowed guns.
Felons on probation should be allowed guns, as clearly they are deemed safe to be in the community, right?
@Bignorsewolf
The Neo-Nazi strawman is a strawman. And saying that psychologists are to subjective to put stock in, yet we give them the authority to involuntarily commit someone...
You are better than these arguments, as I've from you in other threads.
No one is saying you can't buy guys. What I am saying is that if a licences mental health professional is concerned to the point they contact the police to indicate someone should not have a firearm, they probably shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm subject to an appeal process.
No one is raiding their house to take their guns (unless they are committed as the firearms purchase attempt raised red flags), no one is locking them up, you are simply putting a hold on purchase until further review.
We had an incident near here a few weeks back where a guy threatened to shoot up his place of buisness. Police arrested him, raided his house, seized a large amount of guns and committed him to a mental health facility. In the end he will probably be charged with misdemeanor threatening charges, as that was all he did.
That was a person detained and his house raided because a guy he worked with got a phone call and called the cops.
All I am asking is that if a mental health professional is concerned about a patient, they get a hold put on new purchases and the mental health professional be notified.
Which is more invasive?
|
|
Maybe restrict the crazy then. they can always get bomb making materials, vehicles, arson supplies and illegal guns and do the damage anyway. Get them out of the public and they cannot harm anyone.
And I'm sure you are in favor of paying the higher taxes required to house all of these people in institutional care? And you aren't at all concerned that there is no grey area between "May be dangerous, let them go home but not buy guns." and "May be dangerous, better safe than sorry, involuntary committment!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit that I find it fascinating that some people who will give up any number of other rights without protest, immediately fly into a blinding rage when someone suggests restricting their massive arsenals in any way. That suggests to me that it's less about rights and more about the perception of power that firearms provide to otherwise powerless people.
This isn't true of all guns-rights advocates by a long stetch, nor of many people on this thread (Thewhiteknife and BT, for example, are remarkably consistent in their anger against the removing of any liberties from citizens, an attitude I share with them).
Hang around some other 'net discussions on the topic, though, and the "guns >> everything else" attitude is quite prevalent.
I find it incredibly telling that some seem to be advocating more people be institutionalized rather than making it more difficult for them to purchase firearms.
|
I have to admit that I find it fascinating that some people who will give up any number of other rights without protest, immediately fly into a blinding rage when someone suggests restricting their massive arsenals in any way. That suggests to me that it's less about rights and more about the perception of power that firearms provide to otherwise powerless people.
This isn't true of all guns-rights advocates by a long stetch, nor of many people on this thread (Thewhiteknife and BT, for example, are remarkably consistent in their anger against the removing of any liberties from citizens, an attitude I share with them).
Hang around some other 'net discussions on the topic, though, and the "guns >> everything else" attitude is quite prevalent.
I find it incredibly telling that some seem to be advocating more people be institutionalized rather than making it more difficult for them to purchase firearms.
Assuming your idea goes into effect:
1: Who manages this "database of unstable people"?
2: Who has access to it?
3: What if they do not consent to their Protected Health Information being shared with non-healthcare-providers? What is their recourse?
4: At whose cost is the "appeal"? Since their rights have been infringed without actually posing a legitimate, proximate threat, why do they have to spend MORE money proving their "stability"?
5: Who reviews the whole system, ensuring security, accuracy, and honesty?
6: Who pays for this new governmental entity?
It's not as simple as "shrink says you shouldn't get a gun, so you don't get a gun," there's quite a few more protected rights being infringed here without any provable crime/threat/action committed on the part of the damaged party.
That's my objection to this idea: it smacks of "though police" and "pre-crime," and violates HIPAA, the 4th amendment, and creates an entirely new database of citizen's private information the government really shouldn't have free access to.
Ok. So what happens when they try the non-violent way and it fails? just give up?I would keep trying the non-violence method. Once you turn to violence, it's really hard to go back. Armed resistance and terrorism rarely work and when they do, it often takes decades, instead of months or years.
Even the American Revolution took 8 years to accomplish. There was also a follow up conflict a few years later. It also laid the ground work for the civil war.
Ireland's conflict heated up and cooled off periodically from 1919 to 1998 and the violence still isn't completely over.
India and Britain separated on non-violent terms. Overall a decent relationship grew out of that.
India and Pakistan separated on violent terms.
It's deciding to leave a legacy of violence or non-violence for generations to come. Wars usually cost the general populace the most.
I find your evidence a little, uh, selective.
The American Revolution took 8 years? The struggle for Indian independence took 62! (Also, the American Revolution laid the groundwork for the Civil War? You mean other than by not freeing the slaves?)
Ireland won its independence from Britain in 1921, had a 10-month civil war and has been relatively peaceful since then.
Northern Ireland, on the other hand, tried civil disobedience, as I seem to recall. It didn't go so well.
I'll give you India, but I'm not entirely convinced. I'll have to read more about it one of these days. But, India is only one country that won its self-determination after World War II. The majority of them did not do so through peaceful means. To name just five: Algeria, Vietnam, Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Indonesia, Angola.
MLK's Civil Rights Movement gave us the Civil Rights Act. The urban ghetto riots gave us the Great Society.
I like to think that I am not a particularly bloodthirsty guy, vicariously grooving off killing plutocrats (Vive le Galt!). Armed resistance is, of course, a tactic, not a necessity. Sometimes it's better to take arrests, sometimes it isn't. But pledging oneself beforehand to peaceful nonviolence, no matter what, borders on the suicidal.
On to the topic at hand:
Honestly, to me, having a list of certifiably insane people who shouldn't own guns seems pretty reasonable and if it was passed, I wouldn't be too upset.
On the other hand, as a point of personal principle, I don't offer the state advice on how to make its machinery of repression more efficient and I would never support this proposal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find your evidence a little, uh, selective.
It was selective, because it's a really long list.
The paper I linked talking about statistics and probabilitly.For example, in non-violent revolutions, there was a 46% ratio of security force defections to the non-violent movement, compared to a 2% ratio of defections to violent movements. The states ability to commit violence is greatly reduced when the security forces defect, so which is the safer play?
Since 1900, there have been 349 armed conflicts. That includes wars between states, but there is a lot of wars to enforce oppression in there as well.
Conversely, since 1900, there have been 37 non-violent movements.
Besides, you should be pro-non violence. Non-violent protest is a direct testament of the power of the people, that through something as simple as inaction, like everyone refusing to work, or just flat out ignoring a regime, it can be brought to its knees. It's based on the theory that the government cannot exist without the people, but the people will go on existing without the government.
The Boston Tea Party was in 1773, the battle of Point Pleasant was in 1774, the Declaration in 1776.
Quite a few big battles were fought in 1781, the British started to leave in 1782 with early peace agreements signed. British troops didn't leave New York City until Nov 25, 1783. The British had major successes as late as 1780, when they captured Charleston, for example. They lost a lot as well though.
If you go read the South Carolina succession document, their logic and reasoning of why they could succeed from the Union was that they had already fought their war of independence and gained it, therefore they had the right to do so again and fight if need to be to protect it. They thought there was a direct link.
|
|
Assuming your idea goes into effect:1: Who manages this "database of unstable people"?
It exists. It is the database gun owners call currently.
"Access" for them is just "Yes sell" or "No don't sell"
That is all the access they need.
Then you have a flag that notifies the doctor they tried to buy a gun.
That is it.
This is actually current law in most places. The issue is the database is poorly updates and often doesn't cross state lines.