School shooting reported at a Community College in Oregon

[Grumman]

This is not to say that no gun control measure could ever be effective; it's that almost no pro-gun-control advocate ever appears that is not making it blatantly obvious that they want gun control at any cost, for its own sake. The gun-rights group has learned this, and therefore defends against any measure, no matter how minor because they know perfectly well that giving in on any point means acquiescing to the idea that gun control is an end rather than a means.

Or to put it another way: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We know that the gun control side wants to implement useless and stupid laws restricting gun ownership because that's exactly what they did last time. Any man who supports a ban that targets shotguns with a pistol-style grip over ones with the grip integrated into the stock because it makes it look scarier is simply too stupid to be trusted to write laws on this subject.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

This is not to say that no gun control measure could ever be effective; it's that almost no pro-gun-control advocate ever appears that is not making it blatantly obvious that they want gun control at any cost, for its own sake. The gun-rights group has learned this, and therefore defends against any measure, no matter how minor because they know perfectly well that giving in on any point means acquiescing to the idea that gun control is an end rather than a means.

Or to put it another way: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We know that the gun control side wants to implement useless and stupid laws restricting gun ownership because that's exactly what they did last time. Any man who supports a ban that targets shotguns with a pistol-style grip over ones with the grip integrated into the stock because it makes it look scarier is simply too stupid to be trusted to write laws on this subject.

The laws are toothless because the agencies who are supposed to enforce them are toothless too?

[Grumman]

Or to put it another way: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We know that the gun control side wants to implement useless and stupid laws restricting gun ownership because that's exactly what they did last time. Any man who supports a ban that targets shotguns with a pistol-style grip over ones with the grip integrated into the stock because it makes it look scarier is simply too stupid to be trusted to write laws on this subject.

The laws are toothless because the agencies who are supposed to enforce them are toothless too?

No. The law was toothless because it was written either by morons or to cater to morons.

[Simon_Jester]

It wasn't that it was hyperbolic, it was offensively so.

Yes, the US attitude towards guns is different from other nations. Yes, that is why the situation is fucked up and remains so. But attitudes towards guns leans much towards "tools" than "worship" for the vast majority.

I would say that it is more toy than tool. The majority of civilian gun owners don't really consider them weapons for self defense or tools for hunting as a survival mechanism. They consider them a shiny new toy to play with. And that is why there is a sense of entitlement. People are bothered by the idea of their toys being taken away and so they throw temper tantrums like children*. This mentality is what really needs to be addressed with the issue of gun control.

*I'm not suggesting gun owners are particularirly more childish than average. The same phenomenon would be seen with most Americans if you suggested taking away another similar item that only really has value as a source of entertainment. Though no one is suggesting we ban televisions.

And yet, there are large numbers of Americans who sincerely believe that the right to be armed is part of full citizenship.

There is historical precedent for this view. If we look at the societies that existed before the rise of modern democracy, the only people who could be termed first-class citizens were the nobility... and one of the badges of noble status was carrying a weapon. Everyone else was a peasant, and peasants were generally not allowed to carry the means of defending themselves. This was, quite simply, because second-class citizens were not trusted to have a weapon, because of the fear that they'd use the weapon against their betters.

If you take a law-abiding citizen today, who believes that carrying a weapon is a badge of full citizenship, and thinks that being disarmed by the law is equivalent to being told "you aren't allowed to protect your life, peasant!..." they are justified in objecting when you try to take away their guns.

It is not a childish thing, any more than claiming women should have access to birth control is.

Just because you don't believe human beings have a certain right, doesn't mean others don't believe in that right, or that they are somehow immature or throwing a temper tantrum if they resist when you try to take that right away.

This is not to say that no gun control measure could ever be effective; it's that almost no pro-gun-control advocate ever appears that is not making it blatantly obvious that they want gun control at any cost, for its own sake. The gun-rights group has learned this, and therefore defends against any measure, no matter how minor because they know perfectly well that giving in on any point means acquiescing to the idea that gun control is an end rather than a means.

Or to put it another way: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We know that the gun control side wants to implement useless and stupid laws restricting gun ownership because that's exactly what they did last time. Any man who supports a ban that targets shotguns with a pistol-style grip over ones with the grip integrated into the stock because it makes it look scarier is simply too stupid to be trusted to write laws on this subject.

Yes. This.

Basically, what it comes down to is that there are a fair number of people on the anti-gun side who, if asked candidly, will say that the goal is to eliminate weapons from civilian ownership altogether. We've seen this on our own forum.

Now, while there are a LOT of people who want gun bans for reasons of personal and community safety (i.e. nearly everyone living in an urban center), the leadership roles in the anti-gun movement tend to be taken by those who just plain have an ideological opposition to the idea of people carrying weapons.

It's like trying to compromise with Republicans on taxes; they're so firmly opposed to any increase and so firmly in favor of any decrease, that anything they will approve of is going to have the net effect of putting taxes on a one way ratchet. And they won't stop until taxes are ratcheted all the way down to zero.

There's not much point trying to compromise with someone who operates that way, who does not really believe that there IS a middle ground or that it would be desirable to occupy that ground.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Or to put it another way: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We know that the gun control side wants to implement useless and stupid laws restricting gun ownership because that's exactly what they did last time. Any man who supports a ban that targets shotguns with a pistol-style grip over ones with the grip integrated into the stock because it makes it look scarier is simply too stupid to be trusted to write laws on this subject.

The laws are toothless because the agencies who are supposed to enforce them are toothless too?

No. The law was toothless because it was written either by morons or to cater to morons.

Really? Why then do Republicans make it an abject point to defund as many agencies they do not like as possible? Like the ATF?

There's not much point trying to compromise with someone who operates that way, who does not really believe that there IS a middle ground or that it would be desirable to occupy that ground.

You Americans. Always about compromise. Perhaps learning to call a spade a spade for once will maybe solve your problems? Especially when compromise is always biased towards that of those with the most amount of lobby money. To be blunt, your system is so fucked almost everything is beholden to those who actually pull the money strings.

[Broomstick]

To be blunt, your system is so fucked almost everything is beholden to those who actually pull the money strings.

In that case - who profits from the current status quo, allowing the "peasants" and "serfs" to walk about armed, allowing urban gang violence, allowing random shootings, allowing mass shootings and shootings at schools and churches?

Follow the money, right? So who's profiting from the current situation?

[Grumman]

Really? Why then do Republicans make it an abject point to defund as many agencies they do not like as possible? Like the ATF?

The same ATF that spent five years arming Mexican drug cartels with over a thousand firearms with their incompetent attempts at a sting operation? Gee, I wonder.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be blunt, your system is so fucked almost everything is beholden to those who actually pull the money strings.

In that case - who profits from the current status quo, allowing the "peasants" and "serfs" to walk about armed, allowing urban gang violence, allowing random shootings, allowing mass shootings and shootings at schools and churches?

Follow the money, right? So who's profiting from the current situation?

I can answer that, actually. The gun manufacturers and NRA. The private prison industry. Police budgets too, maybe.

That's not to say I buy into some grandiose conspiracy theory where corporations want shootings. But their are people who benefit from doing jack.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Really? Why then do Republicans make it an abject point to defund as many agencies they do not like as possible? Like the ATF?

The same ATF that spent five years arming Mexican drug cartels with over a thousand firearms with their incompetent attempts at a sting operation? Gee, I wonder.

The EPA, NSF, USDA, DOE...

This is most obvious when you hear the term "common sense measures" that politicians love so much. It's a red bullshit flag any time its used because its a cute way of saying "we should adopt the solution I want because it intuitively seems like it should work" knowing all the while it's very hard to get rid of anything like that once its in place. Its a very cute way of asking the public to reject the need for research or careful consideration, and the public is often all too eager to do it because the press aids and abets this method by reducing everything to quick sound bites and reporters advocating knee-jerk reactions 15 minutes after a problem appears.

The problem is, the research does not happen. This is why politically biased hacks conduct back of the napkin poorly designed correlation studies between gun-ownership and violence at the state level. The CDC, and all other federal agencies including the NSF, cannot conduct or fund any research that examines guns as a public health issue.

This was lobbied for by the NRA, but politically it benefits both sides because everyone is allowed to make up their own facts.

[Channel72]

And yet, there are large numbers of Americans who sincerely believe that the right to be armed is part of full citizenship.

There is historical precedent for this view. If we look at the societies that existed before the rise of modern democracy, the only people who could be termed first-class citizens were the nobility... and one of the badges of noble status was carrying a weapon. Everyone else was a peasant, and peasants were generally not allowed to carry the means of defending themselves. This was, quite simply, because second-class citizens were not trusted to have a weapon, because of the fear that they'd use the weapon against their betters.

This antiquated attitude is a large part of the problem. Gun ownership really needs to be viewed more as a privilege to be earned, rather than some kind of right. The same way that driving a car is a privilege to be earned. Americans don't get all nuts and start waxing poetic about some constitutional amendment and citizenship when the state amps up DUI laws or implements stricter policies on drivers license renewal. Yet individual personal freedom is much more affected by the ability to drive a car than own a firearm (at least in the US where local travel remains severely difficult without a car outside of urban areas.)

Anyway, this bizarre, uniquely American cultural attitude that owning a firearm is an inherent right of citizenship and some kind of ultimate expression of personal freedom, is really the root of the problem when it comes to any sort of debate over gun control. It's almost impossible to even start the debate when you actually have people who believe that what happened in Oregon was a result of too many "gun free zones".

There is really an inherent strain of anarchist thought behind all this pro-gun rhetoric. At the root of all these arguments is this tacit belief that the American public can and should police itself - that individual citizens should carry firearms in order to protect themselves and the general public, alongside the actual professional police force.

[Joun_Lord]

This antiquated attitude is a large part of the problem. Gun ownership really needs to be viewed more as a privilege to be earned, rather than some kind of right. The same way that driving a car is a privilege to be earned. Americans don't get all nuts and start waxing poetic about some constitutional amendment and citizenship when the state amps up DUI laws or implements stricter policies on drivers license renewal. Yet individual personal freedom is much more affected by the ability to drive a car than own a firearm (at least in the US where local travel remains severely difficult without a car outside of urban areas.)

Anyway, this bizarre, uniquely American cultural attitude that owning a firearm is some kind of ultimate expression of personal freedom, is really the root of the problem when it comes to any sort of debate over gun control. It's almost impossible to even start the debate when you actually have people who believe that what happened in Oregon was a result of too many "gun free zones".

Driving isn't a privilege though. One can buy a car and drive it on private land all fricking day long without any licenses or permits. To drive on public roads you need a license and all that hoop jumping, just like if you want to use a firearm on public land or in public in most states.

Some Americans do get up in arms about driving rights being infringed by the big bad gubmint but unlike firearms ownership, owning a motor vehicle or driving it is not in the Constitution for some reason and is not considered part and parcel of being a citizen. Owning a firearm atleast for some shows a persons ability to defend themselves and their nation if called upon, to protect their lives and that of their families. A car cannot do that. A car cannot be used to defend your rights like free speech, and freedumb, whereas in theory a firearm can. Well I guess you could try running over robbers, rapists, and black helicoptered UN stormtroopers but that would do alot of property damage if its in your home or in a building. Worst a gun will do is a little bitty hole, a car makes a considerably bigger whole.

And there is something to be said, and I'm saying it because I can, about the stupidity of "gun free zones". Gun free zones only stop law abiding citizens. A criminal isn't going to look at those signs and be all, "oh, guess I gotta leave my gun in my car or at home or fuck off out of this commie liberal gun grabbing hellhole, curses foiled again by those dastardly laws that I as a criminal follow, damn thee to hell!" No, he'll say or think, "sweet, my victims can't fight back at all."

Laws only effect law abiding citizens. Criminals, being law breaking malefactors, are not affected by such laws because again, law breakers. A gun free zone isn't going to stop a mass shooter, at most it will stop a law abiding citizen who could possibly stop the douche maybe, probably, who knows.

And and for people who believe firearm rights are a right that shall not be infringed its doubly stupid because its literally a zone people marked off where peoples rights stop being rights, like the "free speech zones" that people rightfully bitch aboot.

There is really an inherent strain of anarchist thought behind all this pro-gun rhetoric. At the root of all these arguments is this tacit belief that the American public can and should police itself - that individual citizens should carry firearms in order to protect themselves and the general public, alongside the actual professional police force.

That not anarchist. Thats being sensible. Cops cannot be everywhere. Cops cannot respond to all things fast enough, minutes that they take to respond or longer can spell ones doom.....DOOOMMM!!!. You cannot carry a cop in your pocket to defend yourself should the unthinkable happen. You can carry a firearm.

A person first line of defense should be themselves. Or if they're rich a couple big burly bodyguards with guns so they can be against guns while still benefiting from them, fuck you Rosie O'Donnel.

And that doesn't even get into the fact cops at times ARE the threat one needs to defend against.

[Simon_Jester]

There's not much point trying to compromise with someone who operates that way, who does not really believe that there IS a middle ground or that it would be desirable to occupy that ground.

You Americans. Always about compromise. Perhaps learning to call a spade a spade for once will maybe solve your problems? Especially when compromise is always biased towards that of those with the most amount of lobby money. To be blunt, your system is so fucked almost everything is beholden to those who actually pull the money strings.

Oddly, in this case the most powerful lobby group involved (the NRA) is getting a large majority of its money from membership fees, educational services, advertising fees, and small donors.

A significant minority comes from gun manufacturers but it's a minority. So in this case "follow the money" leads to BOTH the gun industry AND the eight digit number of Americans who think that being armed is a fundamental right associated with full citizenship and should not be given away.

And yet, there are large numbers of Americans who sincerely believe that the right to be armed is part of full citizenship.

There is historical precedent for this view. If we look at the societies that existed before the rise of modern democracy, the only people who could be termed first-class citizens were the nobility... and one of the badges of noble status was carrying a weapon. Everyone else was a peasant, and peasants were generally not allowed to carry the means of defending themselves. This was, quite simply, because second-class citizens were not trusted to have a weapon, because of the fear that they'd use the weapon against their betters.

This antiquated attitude is a large part of the problem. Gun ownership really needs to be viewed more as a privilege to be earned, rather than some kind of right...

Okay. Now, I would like you to explain something to me.

I say "there was a time when the majority of the population was forbidden to carry weapons as a symbol of their second-class citizenship, and so people today are viewing the right to carry weapons as part of full citizenship."

And you say "that attitude is antiquated, people should stop viewing this as a right and start viewing it as a privilege."

Now, I would like to ask you a question. What, exactly, is the process by which something that was a right becomes a privilege? What else might become a privilege in the future as the potential for abuse grows?

Maybe the potential for Internet slander will make free speech a privilege not everyone is trusted with?

Maybe the growing availability of private information and corporate interests in knowing that information will make privacy a privilege that only the elite are entitled to?

Maybe untrustworthy groups will form and freedom of association will be limited only to select individuals whose ideology is officially trusted?

Maybe rising court costs will make the right to a fair trial a privilege of those who can afford to pay? I mean hell, that's pretty much already happening.

Where does this end?

IF you are someone who views "being armed" as a fundamental right, and they hear you saying "that's not a right anymore, you should think of it as a privilege..."

THEN how are they to be assured that's the only right you feel this way about? Once they start conceding 'this isn't a right anymore,' when do they get to stop?

Anyway, this bizarre, uniquely American cultural attitude that owning a firearm is an inherent right of citizenship and some kind of ultimate expression of personal freedom, is really the root of the problem when it comes to any sort of debate over gun control.

No, the root of the problem is that many Americans think this way, and many others think that removing this right is of fundamental importance.

It's as if there were two groups of Americans. One group thinks freedom of travel was a fundamental right (the UN Declaration of Human Rights agrees) and therefore cars should remain legal. And another group thinks cars are too dangerous to be handled by anyone but highly trained state employed professionals and therefore cars should become illegal.

If the latter group started using attempts to register cars as a covert means of gathering information for a later confiscation of cars (generally without recompense to the owners), and passed ridiculous laws that banned certain categories of cars because they "look too fast" or something, and privately said among themselves that they look forward to a "car-free America..."

I assure you that attempts to regulate automobiles would be viewed with a lot less sympathy and support by the car-owning population. ANY attempt to regulate automobiles would be (not without cause) seen as an intellectually dishonest attempt to conceal the 'real' long range goal of taking away ALL the automobiles and forcing everyone to rely on public transit whether they like it or not and regardless of whether that fits their lifestyle.

And that's pretty much the situation gun owners already live with.

There is really an inherent strain of anarchist thought behind all this pro-gun rhetoric. At the root of all these arguments is this tacit belief that the American public can and should police itself - that individual citizens should carry firearms in order to protect themselves and the general public, alongside the actual professional police force.

If a large percentage of the population of a democratic nation adheres to lingering anarchist sentiment, perhaps that should be reflected in the structure of its government.

I mean, if a large percentage of people in a democratic nation are socialists and vote accordingly, the government should respond to that with increased regulation of business and a social safety network to prevent exploitation of the workers. That is fitting and proper- where possible, people should have an opportunity to enjoy the rights, protections, and privileges they sincerely believe they deserve.

Why do the rules change when we're talking about anarchists?

Is it because anarchists are bad? Or is it because you disagree with them?

[Channel72]

This antiquated attitude is a large part of the problem. Gun ownership really needs to be viewed more as a privilege to be earned, rather than some kind of right...

Okay. Now, I would like you to explain something to me.

I say "there was a time when the majority of the population was forbidden to carry weapons as a symbol of their second-class citizenship, and so people today are viewing the right to carry weapons as part of full citizenship."

And you say "that attitude is antiquated, people should stop viewing this as a right and start viewing it as a privilege."

Now, I would like to ask you a question. What, exactly, is the process by which something that was a right becomes a privilege? What else might become a privilege in the future as the potential for abuse grows?

In general, the right -> privilege transition definitely becomes something up for discussion when something that is viewed as a right starts to become harmful (i.e. people start dying or getting injured). Also, the difference between a "right" and a mostly unregulated "privilege" is too blurry to even bother trying to differentiate. In the early days of automobile mass-production, traffic lights were mostly absent, and so people had the "right" to just do whatever they wanted at intersections. Eventually this became a problem, because accidents kept happening, and people got injured and died, and so ultimately traffic lights, and many, many other restrictions and regulations, were installed. This arguably infringed on the "rights" of drivers, but it was a necessary step.

Maybe the potential for Internet slander will make free speech a privilege not everyone is trusted with?

Sure - but that's a different discussion. If some certain sequence of words, say "abra-cadabra", consistently unleashed some magic spell that turned innocent bystanders into corpses, then yes, we would certainly and rightfully start banning or regulating the utterance of those sequence of words. (I imagine this is a problem at Hogwarts.)

Maybe the growing availability of private information and corporate interests in knowing that information will make privacy a privilege that only the elite are entitled to?

Maybe untrustworthy groups will form and freedom of association will be limited only to select individuals whose ideology is officially trusted?

Maybe rising court costs will make the right to a fair trial a privilege of those who can afford to pay? I mean hell, that's pretty much already happening.

Where does this end?

How is this not textbook slippery slope nonsense? All of the things you're talking about are not in any way obviously linked to gun control measures. You could make the same slippery-slope argument every time the State government starts adding additional restrictions to obtaining a driver's license, or every time the State adds more restrictions to purchasing cigarettes, or the FDA puts more restrictions on what foods or ingredients you have access to.

It's as if there were two groups of Americans. One group thinks freedom of travel was a fundamental right (the UN Declaration of Human Rights agrees) and therefore cars should remain legal. And another group thinks cars are too dangerous to be handled by anyone but highly trained state employed professionals and therefore cars should become illegal.

Well, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely saying that while I will accept private ownership of firearms remaining legal, I don't see why we should view such ownership as a fundamental "right" of citizenship. The only reason anyone even has this idea is due to arbitrary historical circumstances.

I'm reminded of that hilarious episode of the Simpsons where Lisa complains about gun violence, and Homer says something like "Now Lisa, if we didn't have guns then the King of England could come right into our house and start shoving us around! Is that want you want? Is it??" (I'm paraphrasing, but the joke was something along those lines.) Obviously that's an exaggeration, but it's really not that more absurd from the reality, where Americans view gun ownership as a fundamental right of citizenship due to the 2nd Amendment, which is rooted in the circumstances of an 18th century war that barely has any relevance to our current lives.

If the latter group started using attempts to register cars as a covert means of gathering information for a later confiscation of cars (generally without recompense to the owners), and passed ridiculous laws that banned certain categories of cars because they "look too fast" or something, and privately said among themselves that they look forward to a "car-free America..."

I assure you that attempts to regulate automobiles would be viewed with a lot less sympathy and support by the car-owning population. ANY attempt to regulate automobiles would be (not without cause) seen as an intellectually dishonest attempt to conceal the 'real' long range goal of taking away ALL the automobiles and forcing everyone to rely on public transit whether they like it or not and regardless of whether that fits their lifestyle.

I understand that gun-rights advocates are paranoid that the opposition wants to completely eliminate their guns (and many anti-gun advocates want all firearms banned, yes). But that doesn't help any discussion about instituting measures to reduce gun violence. If every attempt to insititute such measures results in a paranoid backlash like this, we'll never get anywhere. We may as well give up and just accept the background gun violence, despite the fact that it is totally abnormal for a first world civilization. Furthermore, no other discussion about imposing restrictions for the purpose of public safety results in this kind of backlash.

There is really an inherent strain of anarchist thought behind all this pro-gun rhetoric. At the root of all these arguments is this tacit belief that the American public can and should police itself - that individual citizens should carry firearms in order to protect themselves and the general public, alongside the actual professional police force.

If a large percentage of the population of a democratic nation adheres to lingering anarchist sentiment, perhaps that should be reflected in the structure of its government.

I mean, if a large percentage of people in a democratic nation are socialists and vote accordingly, the government should respond to that with increased regulation of business and a social safety network to prevent exploitation of the workers. That is fitting and proper- where possible, people should have an opportunity to enjoy the rights, protections, and privileges they sincerely believe they deserve.

Why do the rules change when we're talking about anarchists?

Is it because anarchists are bad? Or is it because you disagree with them?

That question is redundant. Obviously, I disagree with them because I think anarchists are bad. Generally, I disagree with things I think are bad. I'd rather our government not cater to this lingering anarchist sentiment.

Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that living in a democracy requires you to agree with the majority sentiment about every issue? (Not that it matters, apparently most Americans support stricter gun laws anyway.)

[Simon_Jester]

In general, the right -> privilege transition definitely becomes something up for discussion when something that is viewed as a right starts to become harmful (i.e. people start dying or getting injured)...

Also, the difference between a "right" and a mostly unregulated "privilege" is too blurry to even bother trying to differentiate. In the early days of automobile mass-production, traffic lights were mostly absent, and so people had the "right" to just do whatever they wanted at intersections. Eventually this became a problem, because accidents kept happening, and people got injured and died, and so ultimately traffic lights, and many, many other restrictions and regulations, were installed. This arguably infringed on the "rights" of drivers, but it was a necessary step...

Thing is, it's not immediately obvious that allowing citizens to be armed is causing more harm now than it did in the past. We could look at violent crime rates in America as a whole to get information on that, and I'm sure studies have been done... do you know the results? Off the top of my head I don't.

Moreover, there's a difference between the "right" to not obey traffic lights at an intersection and the "right" to be armed. Not all freedoms are fundamental rights. There is a fairly specific list of things that are fundamental rights.

One of the key points in the gun control debate in the US is whether the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, or a frivolous pseudo-right. People who compare guns to 'toys' are generally assuming that it's a frivolous pseudo-right... but the actual gun owners tend to disagree.

Maybe the potential for Internet slander will make free speech a privilege not everyone is trusted with?

Sure - but that's a different discussion. If some certain sequence of words, say "abra-cadabra", consistently unleashed some magic spell that turned innocent bystanders into corpses, then yes, we would certainly and rightfully start banning or regulating the utterance of those sequence of words. (I imagine this is a problem at Hogwarts.)

Maybe the growing availability of private information and corporate interests in knowing that information will make privacy a privilege that only the elite are entitled to?

Maybe untrustworthy groups will form and freedom of association will be limited only to select individuals whose ideology is officially trusted?

Maybe rising court costs will make the right to a fair trial a privilege of those who can afford to pay? I mean hell, that's pretty much already happening.

Where does this end?

How is this not textbook slippery slope nonsense? All of the things you're talking about are not in any way obviously linked to gun control measures...

The reason I'm invoking a slippery slope concern is as follows.

Normally, when we talk about "human rights" or "the rights of a citizen," we are talking about them as 'inalienable' rights. These are not rights that can be taken away by the state. There may be specific regulations about the time, place, and manner in which you exercise the rights- your right to travel does not give you a right to drive on the wrong side of the road. But your rights cannot be revoked entirely; they do not just disappear because it no longer suits the state to grant you such rights.

Now, you are talking about the idea of the right to bear arms being something we should abandon... which means you are taking this right and saying it is now... for lack of a better term, alienable.

So the real question is, if this right is alienable, which other rights are alienable? How much harm does a fundamental right have to cause before it becomes not-fundamental and you try to take it away from people?

There are people who DO try to revoke the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of assembly, the right to fair trials, the right to privacy, and so on, PRECISELY by arguing "this right causes too much harm, we should ignore it. Let's just waive everyone's right to X."

And it is a very common argument made by defenders of civil liberties that no, these rights are absolute, they are not something you can take away just because you decided it would be less costly to do so, they are not something to be bargained away for political reasons. I'm sure you would be sympathetic to someone who says that no, privacy is not a state-granted privilege, freedom of speech is not something you have to pay for, these are fundamental rights.

Only now this argument is being extended to guns, an issue where you happen to be on the other side, on the side of eliminating the idea of 'right to bear arms' as a right.

To me, the result seems somewhat ironic- you very rapidly dismiss the claims of your opponents that what they think is a fundamental right, is actually such a right at all. Their historical arguments for why such a right should exist are dismissed as 'ancient history,' and their arguments from political theory are dismissed as 'ideology' or as a desire to 'keep their toys.'

There are a lot of structural parallels here that I don't think you adopted on purpose... but which I think are rather disturbing when you step back from the trees and look at the forest.

You could make the same slippery-slope argument every time the State government starts adding additional restrictions to obtaining a driver's license, or every time the State adds more restrictions to purchasing cigarettes, or the FDA puts more restrictions on what foods or ingredients you have access to.

Except that there is no classically enshrined right for full citizens to be licensed to operate heavy machinery, to be able to buy noxious drugs without restriction, or to add dangerous substances to food.

Whereas there are considerable precedents for the idea that full citizens are allowed to be armed. Maybe not allowed without restriction to be armed in all times and places with whatever weapons they desire. But nonetheless, armed.

It's as if there were two groups of Americans. One group thinks freedom of travel was a fundamental right (the UN Declaration of Human Rights agrees) and therefore cars should remain legal. And another group thinks cars are too dangerous to be handled by anyone but highly trained state employed professionals and therefore cars should become illegal.

Well, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely saying that while I will accept private ownership of firearms remaining legal, I don't see why we should view such ownership as a fundamental "right" of citizenship. The only reason anyone even has this idea is due to arbitrary historical circumstances.

I'm not saying this view ("Cars should be illegal!") is a direct analogy to yours. I'm saying it's an analogy to someone's. There are enough people on the anti-gun side of the debate who believe that, that it undermines the claim of the anti-gun side to be arguing in good faith.

Because the experience of pro-gun advocates is that gun regulations often are operated on a ratchet, that slippery-slope arguments actually do describe what happens when they make major concessions, and that a significant fraction of their opponents really DO want them to be disarmed en-masse and do not in any way believe in or honor the idea that "bearing arms" is a fundamental right associated with citizenship.

If one cannot understand this, one can never understand the American gun control debate.

I'm reminded of that hilarious episode of the Simpsons where Lisa complains about gun violence, and Homer says something like "Now Lisa, if we didn't have guns then the King of England could come right into our house and start shoving us around! Is that want you want? Is it??" (I'm paraphrasing, but the joke was something along those lines.) Obviously that's an exaggeration, but it's really not that more absurd from the reality, where Americans view gun ownership as a fundamental right of citizenship due to the 2nd Amendment, which is rooted in the circumstances of an 18th century war that barely has any relevance to our current lives.

No, it is not rooted that much in the context of the American rebellion against Britain.

It is also rooted in the overall realities of medieval Europe and pre-modern society in general (peasants couldn't carry weapons because they might harm their betters).

And in the timeless, eternal reality of defending yourself against physical aggression (which is that IF it happens to you, it will probably happen without warning in a place where shouting for help is ineffective and the state's armed agents are not there to protect you).

If the latter group started using attempts to register cars as a covert means of gathering information for a later confiscation of cars (generally without recompense to the owners), and passed ridiculous laws that banned certain categories of cars because they "look too fast" or something, and privately said among themselves that they look forward to a "car-free America..."

I assure you that attempts to regulate automobiles would be viewed with a lot less sympathy and support by the car-owning population. ANY attempt to regulate automobiles would be (not without cause) seen as an intellectually dishonest attempt to conceal the 'real' long range goal of taking away ALL the automobiles and forcing everyone to rely on public transit whether they like it or not and regardless of whether that fits their lifestyle.

I understand that gun-rights advocates are paranoid that the opposition wants to completely eliminate their guns (and many anti-gun advocates want all firearms banned, yes). But that doesn't help any discussion about instituting measures to reduce gun violence.

You're right- it doesn't.

But the paranoid backlash is a reality, a reality created in large part by the bad faith of the gun control movement. Refusing to admit it exists, or refusing to address it seriously and treating it like a child's temper tantrum, will also "not help any discussion about instituting measures to reduce gun violence."

If every attempt to insititute such measures results in a paranoid backlash like this, we'll never get anywhere. We may as well give up and just accept the background gun violence, despite the fact that it is totally abnormal for a first world civilization. Furthermore, no other discussion about imposing restrictions for the purpose of public safety results in this kind of backlash.

The critical first step is that we need to have some respect for the issue on the gun control side. Personally, I think America needs more gun control. But I respect the people who disagree with me, strive to understand their arguments, don't dismiss them as childish, and am prepared to negotiate in good faith.

I really think we need more people who are pro-gun control who ARE willing to think that way.

If a large percentage of the population of a democratic nation adheres to lingering anarchist sentiment, perhaps that should be reflected in the structure of its government.

I mean, if a large percentage of people in a democratic nation are socialists and vote accordingly, the government should respond to that with increased regulation of business and a social safety network to prevent exploitation of the workers. That is fitting and proper- where possible, people should have an opportunity to enjoy the rights, protections, and privileges they sincerely believe they deserve.

Why do the rules change when we're talking about anarchists?

Is it because anarchists are bad? Or is it because you disagree with them?

That question is redundant. Obviously, I disagree with them because I think anarchists are bad. Generally, I disagree with things I think are bad. I'd rather our government not cater to this lingering anarchist sentiment.

Regardless, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that living in a democracy requires you to agree with the majority sentiment about every issue? (Not that it matters, apparently most Americans support stricter gun laws anyway.)

What I'm saying is, if a large minority within the state believe they should have a certain fundamental right, that merits some respect from the majority. There may still need to be negotiation about the precise nature of the right, the right may well be restricted in a variety of ways. But there's still going to be a compromise point.

If 40% of the population thinks that a living wage is a universal right, then there should be, if not a living wage, a minimum wage. Even if the other 60% thinks a minimum wage should not exist, the compromise position between "40% pro-living-wage" and "60% anti-any-minimum-wage" is not going to be "pass no minimum wage." It's not even "pass a minimum wage that is a pittance."

Compromise is necessary in a democracy, and one of the big things people compromise about is how much of their way they can get when they happen to be in the majority.

[TimothyC]

The reason that gun registration is NOT a slippery slope fallacy is because of what has happened in New York City. The city government passed laws saying that all long guns needed to be registered, and then, years later, used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from people, without adequate compensation. It has happened before, and people that support gun rights never want to see it happen again.

[Lonestar]

You Americans. Always about compromise. Perhaps learning to call a spade a spade for once will maybe solve your problems? Especially when compromise is always biased towards that of those with the most amount of lobby money. To be blunt, your system is so fucked almost everything is beholden to those who actually pull the money strings.

Here comes a lesson in civilization and corruption from the guy from Singapore.

[Jub]

Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Are not other less well-armed nations more prosperous, freer, and more equal? Would your lack of guns somehow prevent you from voting, protesting, or doing other things that would have an effect on politics?

Canadians, Brits, Germans, the Dutch, etc. all get by just fine without clutching for a handgun on our hips. I get that social safety nets, population density, and other factors are larger parts of not needing a weapon for protection, but if you Americans are to be believed a few thugs armed with handguns could clean out an entire town because no upstanding citizen with a concealed carry permit was there to stop them. Are our criminals just more polite and sporting by choosing not to conduct mass shootings, or is the lack of cheap and easy to acquire weaponry actually an effective tool when it comes to suppressing crime?

The reason that gun registration is NOT a slippery slope fallacy is because of what has happened in New York City. The city government passed laws saying that all long guns needed to be registered, and then, years later, used the registration lists to confiscate the weapons from people, without adequate compensation. It has happened before, and people that support gun rights never want to see it happen again.

Why would it be so bad to see people disarmed? Sure the financial side of things would obviously be rough, but aside from that what does the average gun carrying American do with their pistol(s) on a daily basis?

[Lonestar]

How is this not textbook slippery slope nonsense? All of the things you're talking about are not in any way obviously linked to gun control measures. You could make the same slippery-slope argument every time the State government starts adding additional restrictions to obtaining a driver's license, or every time the State adds more restrictions to purchasing cigarettes, or the FDA puts more restrictions on what foods or ingredients you have access to.

NYC ordered semiautomatic rifles registered and then in the late 80s/early90s ordered them either out of the city or turned in. In the late 90s California used the "grandfathered" assault weapons registry [confiscate](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... 0710-30735) SKS rifles. The NOPD went door-to-door with a municipal registration list confiscating legally owned firearms during Katrina; those Oathkeepers that keep on popping up in the news supposedly were created because the founder was told as a Guardsman to help the NOPD and he refused to. And then you have the author of the Federal AWB lamenting that she didn't have the votes to get a confiscation passed, or Obama lamenting that he can't do what Australia did and confiscate all semiautomatic longarms. Even if most people for stronger gun control don't want an actual confiscation, that doesn't change the actions and words of the most passionate gun control people.

So, it isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Negotiating with the pro-gun control side is a poisoned well. Sorry, it is. If one side is negotiating in bad faith, and the other side knows it, why would they even bother? Fucking all week on FB I've been arguing this, and when the other side says "compromise" I ask them what they are gonna give us in the compromise. National Concealed carry? Repeal the Hughes Amendment? Declaring antiques to be "100 years from the current date"? Nope. It inevitably comes out that they mean "I won't get as much as I want(for now) and you won't gain anything and you should be GLAD I can't ban all guns right now if I could". Someone giving up something but gaining nothing, and the otherside gaining something and given up nothing isn't compromise. It's just death by a thousand cuts.

[Lonestar]

Why do Americans feel the need to be armed in the first place? Are not other less well-armed nations more prosperous, freer, and more equal? Would your lack of guns somehow prevent you from voting, protesting, or doing other things that would have an effect on politics?

Why would it be so bad to see people disarmed? Sure the financial side of things would obviously be rough, but aside from that what does the average gun carrying American do with their pistol(s) on a daily basis?

I've been in a situation where I was -very- glad I had a firearm within reach. No amount of "you don't need guns to be safe" will convince me otherwise.

The whole "you don't need guns for self defense" is bullshit anyway. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "when seconds count the cops are minutes away"?

[Patroklos]

It should also be pointed out that rights are like entitlements in that the are far easier to legislate into being then legislate away. Legal momentum, precedence and the self interest of the portion of the population who uses/values whatever already exists makes it an uphill slope for any opponents. Opponents are indeed starting from a position of extreme weakness. That was the whole point of Obama/Pelosi cramming Obamacare through by hook or by crook regardless of its imperfections even to them. The same goes for the Bush era tax cuts. The optics of failing to give something away vice actively taking something away were not unknown to either.

[Jub]

I've been in a situation where I was -very- glad I had a firearm within reach. No amount of "you don't need guns to be safe" will convince me otherwise.

The whole "you don't need guns for self defense" is bullshit anyway. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "when seconds count the cops are minutes away"?

Dude, I don't look my door when I go out. I've lived in a house where the back door was open an entire summer, strangers came and went - I once came home and the only two people there didn't live there and knew the guy with the mohawk, and a homeless man named Windows lived in my shed because he didn't cause any trouble and needed a place to sleep. The only things that were ever taken from that house were loose change, the occasional box of Kraft Dinner, an Xbox 360, and a rather expensive tool set. The last two were stolen by my drug addict of a little brother after I took pity on him and took him off the street. A gun wouldn't have made my house any safer or prevented any theft.

Now before you say I must live somewhere safe consider that I live Kelowna BC, in one of the worst cities in Canada when it comes to crime. It's not only petty crime either, we're the drug capital of Canada and home to a major Hells Angel's chapter. If I'd ever have needed a gun in Canada it would have been there.

It sucks that you've needed a gun, but the average American never will.

[Patroklos]

Is your next anecdote to tell women to not bother protecting their drinks because statistically they are unlikely to be drugged? That logic isn't going to hunt. You can argue that guns cause America's high level of violence relative to other similar countries, but as long as it is at the level it is for whatever reason you are not going to get far with the "you probably won't need it" because you will run afoul of a dozens of other common sense things that should qualify for the same treatment under your argument which I doubt you will follow through on. Why wear your seat belt for instance? Bicycle helmets are for pussies. Screw sunscreen. etc...

[Lonestar]

Dude, I don't look my door when I go out. I've lived in a house where the back door was open an entire summer, strangers came and went - I once came home and the only two people there didn't live there and knew the guy with the mohawk, and a homeless man named Windows lived in my shed because he didn't cause any trouble and needed a place to sleep. The only things that were ever taken from that house were loose change, the occasional box of Kraft Dinner, an Xbox 360, and a rather expensive tool set. The last two were stolen by my drug addict of a little brother after I took pity on him and took him off the street. A gun wouldn't have made my house any safer or prevented any theft.

Congrats on making shitty choices about your safety, I guess.

Now before you say I must live somewhere safe consider that I live Kelowna BC, in one of the worst cities in Canada when it comes to crime. It's not only petty crime either, we're the drug capital of Canada and home to a major Hells Angel's chapter. If I'd ever have needed a gun in Canada it would have been there.

It sucks that you've needed a gun, but the average American never will.

"You aren't statistically likely to need a gun" is cold comfort to the outliers. Given that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely than the general public to engage in felonious behavior, there's little public danger with them continually existing, even if they will never need it.

[Jub]

Is your next anecdote to tell women to not bother protecting their drinks because statistically they are unlikely to be drugged? That logic isn't going to hunt. You can argue that guns cause America's high level of violence relative to other similar countries, but as long as it is at the level it is for whatever reason you are not going to get far with the "you probably won't need it" because you will run afoul of a dozens of other common sense things that should qualify for the same treatment under your argument which I doubt you will follow through on. Why wear your seat belt for instance? Bicycle helmets are for pussies. Screw sunscreen. etc...

I'd argue that your home is better defended by a good door, bars over your windows, and an alarm system versus a gun on the nightstand. I'd also argue that making guns harder to come by and disarming large swathes of the populace would reduce the need for a gun in the first place. If you aren't willing to give up your weapons no change can happen, are you happy with the current state of the US when it comes to gun crime?

-----

Congrats on making shitty choices about your safety, I guess.

They were so shitty that I was never once assaulted, robbed by an outside source or made to feel unsafe in any way; but I'm sure I'd have been even safer if Canada had looser weapons laws.

"You aren't statistically likely to need a gun" is cold comfort to the outliers. Given that concealed carry permit holders are far less likely than the general public to engage in felonious behavior, there's little public danger with them continually existing, even if they will never need it.

Do you just tune out the weekly mass shootings and focus on the time where a single person was killed due to the lack of a gun?

[Jub]

One thing I've noticed in this debate is that our American posters are very focused on the self and the impact to the individual if guns were to be taken from them. It's always how would I defend myself, how would my rights be impacted, would I be given a rebate if my guns were taken. Do you not think that it's worth a few random deaths that might have been prevented by owning a gun if the nation as a whole winds up safer?