Gun Control

[MutantScalper]

They require ID, yes.

Well that's good. Do they have a nation wide database where they check if the buyer is a felon or something? And if a holder of a reservist rifle commits a crime do they take the rifle away?

What is your point?
Do you not realize that if Belgian gun laws were implemented in the UK, you would not suddenly have a huge surge in crime either? Yet Belgian gun laws are far more lenient than the British ones.
Moderate gun freedom does not magically raise crime...

If the UK suddenly became more like my country Finland with a lot more hunting weapons in households...there could be problems. I don't know the exact differences between Belgian and UK gun laws so I won't comment on that.

You seem to think of the US - model as the ideal one for everyone. But also mention the Swiss model in defence of the US model. Hey how about this. Most if not all people who have the reservist rifles at home in Switzerland have completed their military service. How about a similar system for US too, a semi-mandatory military service and only after completing it you get the reservist rifle at home. We also have the option of buying a semi-auto version of the RK for home.

Btw not long ago an RK-62 that was stolen from the military was used in a shooting of a cop. The cop was shot and killed from a close range. So not sure if our society is perfect either.

 

[Gizmojunk]

How about a similar system for US too, a semi-mandatory military service

We had [and got rid of] that decades ago; along with the draft.

Do they have a nation wide database where they check if the buyer is a felon or something?

Of course. Felony charges IRRC, might strip gun privileges rights for life*. But a database check doesn't stop someone from having another buy the weapon for them.

*https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/07/28/gun-rights-for-convicted-felons/

https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/06/23/gun-ownership-is-a-right-not-a-privilege/

 

[Crni Vuk]

But do we need to ban microwaves because some idiot put his pet in it to dry it?

Never said that.

But how is depriving others of the means to protect themselves a correct thing to do in order to protect "muh children"?

There's endless ways to harm these children. Not so long ago, a belgian nutjob walked into a day care center and started stabbing kids all around. He used a knife. If he had used a firearm, I guarantee you there would've been a call for stricter gun laws (regardless of the gun having a legal origin or not).
How is that fair?

We're not having the debate if it is fair or not, but that you can't even have that debate in the first place with the gun-nuts. When we get to the knive topic, we can talk about the knive-nuts and their rights to bear knives. But so far, I am not saying that we should remove anything. Be it knives, guns or what ever.

It's just the novell idea that an escessive gun culture, can lead to more gun viollence and eventually more mass shootings.

And I think that is a rational thought that every normal human being can agree with.

Because a few people did not buy proper protective equipment for their children on motorcycles, it's now illegal to ride with a child. You have a lot of parents who bought their children top grade personal protective equipment and were responsible drivers. They are now punished for the transgressions of a few. I find this unfair.

Yes, a few idiots always ruin the fun for the rest of us. But that's something that you have to deal with in a functioning society. Unless, you say that we should get used to all sorts of people geting killed, injured etc. and also dealing with the issues you named. I am with you on some topics, like surveilance - this alone could fill a topic for it self, I would like to see the NRA once rally the masses, at someting like the patriot act the same way they do when it comes to guns. Sometimes I almost think they would even vote for a character like Stalin if all he promised them was to never ever touch their guns ... almost.

But I also think that it has to be decided from case to case where regulations make sense and where they don't. But as said, we are not even that far when it comes to the gun debate in the US.

The fact I know a dozen people here in Belgium who are NRA lifetime members, should say something. These people cannot be represented by the NRA and have no real direct stake in american gun laws, but they feel they:

When you look at how deep the conection is between the gun lobby, the politicans and the weapon industry it simply leaves a foul taste in your mouth.

Support is one thing, fanatism is another. And I simply don't like extremism. No matter from which side it comes.

It's chilling, and true. Though by no means is success guaranteed if there would have been guns. But that is what americans mean when they say the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny.

There are a great many occasions in history where legal gun owners could've made a difference.

How big is that danger and how realistic is that scenario with the US? By the way, what can happen when armed civilians try to fight a fully equiped and professional military was also seen in the Warsaw uprising against the Nazis and the various revolts in the Warsaw states. But as you already say, there is no garantue that weapons alone mean a success. But that's not even the point. My point is, that to make an actuall difference, you need a hell of a lot more armed civilians then you currently have in the US or in most western nations.

For me personaly, the BEST(!) protection of a constitution, liberty and democracy, today, are educated citizens that actually place some value in the constitution that goes further then lip service. We are not facing wars and conflicts these days, but demagoguery and mass surveilance. And here, guns are completely ineffective. Even after Snowden, and many other incidents where the constitution has been directly violated, we havn't seen people using their weapons to protect it.

As George Carlin said, those things are privileges granted to us. If 90% of the US population for some reason would either support or simply not care about a Hitler like regime under Trump, well 10% freedom loving gun owners aren't going to make a real difference here. What you need is the support of the people, and so far it seems that in most polls the population is not on the side of the NRA.



There’s a common saying in the US that “Freedom is not free.” The saying is usually used in reference to the wars fought and won (or lost) to protect the values of the country. It’s a way of reminding people that, hey, this didn’t just magically happen; thousands of people were killed and/or died for us to sit here and sip over-priced mocha frappuccinos and say whatever the fuck we want.
(...)
But people have seemed to conveniently forget that freedom is earned through internal sacrifices as well. Freedom can only exist when you are willing to tolerate views that oppose your own, when you’re willing to give up some of your desires for the sake of a safe and healthy community, when you’re willing to compromise and accept that sometimes things don’t go your way and that’s fine.
https://markmanson.net/crazy-world

Weapons can not secure your freedom for the same reason as why weapons don't kill people. They are inanimate objects. It's people that defend constitutions. Trough their ideas, actions and thinking. Sometimes this involves weapons. Sometimes words.

An illustration of what I said before from an american point of view:

Yeah, I am sure someone could make an convicing argument, also with a cake, why cars, nucler plants, drugs and all kinds of things, should see no regulation at all.

But again, we are not even at the point in our debate where we talk about taking anything away. Be it a cake or guns. At least I am not.

It's simply about to recognize that gun culture has a part in mass shootings - how much? I can't say. But under the current political climate, that's not possible.

The thing that I have a problem with, is extremism. And extremism, can come in many forms. But as I said, in the current political debate that you see in the US, not even that can be acknwoledged or really talked about.

Guns are harmless unless used to do harm; and the same could be said for cakes, and pencils.

Let us continue this anology once the militaries of this earth decided to equip all of their soldiers with cakes and pencils.


Men I love this movie.

*And who is to say what is enjoyable by whom and why; (and whether it's harmless or not)?

The people, which are represented by the Senates, Parliaments and State governments that they vote(d) for. Or at least so I think.

Let us asume 95% of the population and politicans want a bann on cakes. What should the rest do? Revolt? I am not saying that I agree with those 95%. We live in democratic societies where the discussions of opinions and ideas is key, where we are free to voice criticism against anything and anyone as we please. But at the end, after all is set and done, it comes down to a vote. If we truly respect democracy, we have to at least respect the will of the people in that regard. Even if it's not always something that we like, as we saw with Brexit.

 

[Operation Wignut]

It's just the novell idea that an escessive gun culture, can lead to more gun viollence and eventually more mass shootings.

Not really. It's the escalation of military tech. Even though we have automated drones, missiles, tanks and all that, for the most part (globally) we fight wars with infantry. And infantry uses guns, for the most part. So weapon research is still looking into how guns can be better designed to kill more people better.

So when just the military gets this weaponry, the manufacturers become pigeonholed into only selling to the military. What do the manufacturers do instead? Sell to the general public, of course!

You can see how this is a problem. Military tech in the hands of un-screened people = eventual disaster.

My point is, that to make an actual difference, you need a hell of a lot more armed civilians then you currently have in the US or in most western nations.

Uh, no. Not really. Consider this. If the US was fighting an actual rebel faction comprised of JUST gun owners, the full US Army would be outnumbered. Rebel factions use guerilla tactics, which are extremely deadly to conventional armies like the US Army (see Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria). The US is unable to use bombs for the most part, because of a high civilian population that would be at risk.

But even then, that's not a realistic scenario. If ALL gun owners rose up against the US, and NONE of them defected, the entire Active Personnel of the Uniformed Services would be outnumbered 32:1. A reminder that the US was defeated in Vietnam by less than 500,000 people.

 

[TheGM]

A reminder that the US was defeated in Vietnam by less than 500,000 people.

 

[Operation Wignut]

It's true. Let's not kid ourselves: when you are fighting a war with a guerilla army by using conventional ground infantry, you're bound to get obliterated. Funny thing is, the US did the very same thing against the British in the Revolutionary War, and the Union suffered from similar tactics used by the Confederacy, to a lesser degree.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Let us continue this anology once the militaries of this earth decided to equip all of their soldiers with cakes and pencils.

The people, which are represented by the Senates, Parliaments and State governments that they vote(d) for. Or at least so I think.

I have to disagree; most of those people seem out of touch with reality ~IMO.

*In this case I meant the Senators, not the people represented. You meant the citizenry?

 

[Crni Vuk]

But even then, that's not a realistic scenario. If ALL gun owners rose up against the US, and NONE of them defected, the entire Active Personnel of the Uniformed Services would be outnumbered 32:1.

Sure, I forgot that the US is special, could very well be that between 30 and 40% of the population might own a gun. I made the mistake to think about something like Germany, where not even 5% of the population owns legal firearms. Fair enough! Your citizens could much more easily form an armed resistance.

However, what I am talking about is the number of people that would be actually willing to take action against a government where the large part of the population agrees with.

I just find it unlikely that a minority would take up arms against a majority of the population and succeed when like 80% of the population actually agrees with the policy of their government.

Let us say the US government would in 30 years create a policy which runs concentration camps for Muslims and Mexicans, where they are exterminated and a large part of the population either directly or silently supports it. This means that you would have also gun owners that are on the side of their government, like 80% of them. Do you see the other 20% here taking up arms and fighting their government? For the rights of others? I don't. People usually don't work like that. We all value freedom and liberty, but only very very few people ACTUALLY take up actions if they have an alternative. Americans aren't special snowflakes. And honestly I don't see a soccer mum that owns a revovler for self defence against rapists joining a militia to fight for the rights of people that might have been described by propaganda as potential terrorists for the last 20 years. Maybe a few would, there will always be brave and courageous people. But they would be quickly branded as terrorists and lunatics by their own government, as a fanatic group that just wants to destroy order. That's why demagoguery and populism are so dangerous.

The Germans didn't really felt National Socialism was some opressive regime, neither did the Soviets with Stalinism. All of those reflections came later. Much later. And for some people, never. The point when the population actually realized that their system was a dictatorhips, it was already to late. It it's not like the Germans in the late 20s and early 30s didn't realize that Democracy was vanising. But the population wasn waking up in 1933 with the realisation that Hitler was a cruel dictator who would eventually turn against his own people. They simply valued stability, prosperity and security more then a vote at this point. But at the same time the population still experienced enough freedom in their every day live where they didn't really question their own government. In reality, it is all about preasure. And the same could in theory, happen with the US, if the large part of the population feels that their safety is more important then their right to vote. Impossible? Well just look at the Cold War and McCarthyism, or Guantanamo today and the surveilance that's happening. Constitutional rights are violated constantly, but I never saw this mass revolt nor any real changes.

That's the thing! We are talking about very hypothetical scenarios here. American civilians taking up arms against their own military? That's so artificial and so surreal. So there is no way to say who is right or wrong, in our scenarios the lizard people or aliens from mars could be behind everything.

With keeping that in mind, there was already a time where legal american citizens have been striped away from their constitutional rights - watch the video from above where Carlin is speaking about it. The ones with a japanese herritage. And we are not talking about just a few. We are talking about a relatively large group of people. And I don't think it would have really changed anything if everyone of them was armed to the teeth with guns and rifles.

This is what I mean when I say that the only real defence the constitution has, is people that believe in it. Guns are not some magic protection for the public against a tyranny ... if they actually believe in said tyranny. You know how I believe liberty would actually go down in the US? With thunderous applause.

I have to disagree; most of those people seem out of touch with reality ~IMO.

I absolutely agree with you. The average voter often enough doesn't kow what he wants.

But there is only so much you can do against the will of the people, to say it that way. See Brexit. This means that we have also to accept decisions that might not seem great for us. But at the end of the day, when all is set and done, it comes down to the vote and what the representatives decide.

*In this case I meant the Senators, not the people represented. You meant the citizenry?

Kinda, but I was actually talking about democracy as a whole. Politicans and citizes don't exist in some kind of vacuum. When the epoch changed, the ways changed - Legalism (Chinese philosophy).
Politicans can ignore the demands of their population only for so long. Be it for the positive, or the negative.

 

[Gizmojunk]

That's a great Churchill Quote. [and I agree]

This one, by C.S. Lewis, is one of my absolute favorites:
(...and it applies well to gun control, I think.)

Spoiler

But there is only so much you can do against the will of the people, to say it that way. See Brexit. This means that we have also to accept decisions that might not seem great for us. But at the end of the day, when all is set and done, it comes down to the vote and what the representatives decide.

That's what sparked our 'Civil War'; and the will not to acquiesce.

 

[Operation Wignut]

However, what I am talking about is the number of people that would be actually willing to take action against a government where the large part of the population agrees with.

I just find it unlikely that a minority would take up arms against a majority of the population and succeed when like 80% of the population actually agrees with the policy of their government.

Well, for all the speculation around it, the Civil War could have been settled VERY differently, especially with outside intervention. And it fits your criteria. A minority of the population fought the US Government over proposed legislation.

Now, the situation in Brexit is very different. The people in the Stay camp would be the people who would submit redress to the government, not pick up pitchforks. However, tensions here are already high based on the increased exposure of government programs used to spy on the American people. If something like the PATRIOT Act ever came up again, and widespread use of it occurred, who knows? A small-scale version of this type of situation happened with Jade Helm this year. People were ready to attack active military personnel for just doing military exercises. While I doubt there is some conspiracy to undermine the People's will in the US Government (I think they just do their jobs poorly), there could certainly come a point where offensive measures are taken. At that point, "Pry my gun from my cold, dead hands" becomes a lot less empty of a phrase, and I don't necessarily know how it could really end up.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We are getting somewhat philosophical here. And I am afraid my deficits with the english language make it very hard to describe what I want to say. Particularly as I would have already trouble to articulate it even in my native tongue.

In my opinion, what we can see with Trump is a very good example. People, for the most part, are supporting him often with the argument that he stands against the establishment they hate, the banks, the popular politicans and political decay ruled by money and finances. Yet, he is actually a part of this system, which made him a billionair. How does this oxymoron work? Because it is about emotions and not the reality. Often enough how people feel matters more then the facts infront of them. And even though, the US is probably in it's safest period ever, statistically viollence, crime and wars are on a decline, but the people don't feel that they are in the savest period ever. And thus, demand changes and turn to those that promise them.

If people are screaming for blood, there is only so much you can do to denny it to them. And a large portion of the average voters have declined in education, certainly true for the US. Populism, demagoguery and extremism are growing. Not just in the US but also in Europe. The common people are more and more detached from the actuall political class and feel that their vote doesn't matter - the popular term, chosing the lesser of two evils. The question is, how long could that continue? Imagine the next 50 years.

Again, how likely is it that the US population would take up arms and fight against something they actually agree with. If 80% the population would openly reject the constitution, not all of it, just the part where they feel isn't usefull for their current situation, how long can the political class ignore that pleading before the people turn to extremism? Which is what we have seen in Germany between the 1920s and 1933s. And what we can see in Turkey right now. Even this military coup was totally useless, because the military personal that initiated it, didn't had enough support.

Again. Weapons are inanimate objects. They hold no true power. You guys constantly say how weapons by them self don't do anything. Except, when it comes to defending freedom, liberty and the constitution? You can't have both worlds, I am afraid. People wield weapons. People defend constitutions and rights. Not weapons. A constitution is just a piece of paper that holds no true power and weapons don't decide what people think or how they feel about something.

That's what sparked our 'Civil War'; and the will not to acquiesce.

Don't get the idea that I don't agree with you! I certainly think that a democratic society simply has to acquiescence certain occurances - however I think we both can agree that it was a good thing that the US abbolished slavery instad of to just acquiescence it.

Anyway, the point is, there is only so much that a society is willing to take before they might turn to extremists. The current situation with immigrants in Europe is an good example. Most people are not right wing extremists, but they vote them because they promise to do something that the current political elite isn't doing. Closing borders. And no matter how many facts you represent such people that those right wing populists have also other more negative agendas, like anti semitism with the AfD, they still root for them.

You know how tyranny came into power? From a guy who entered the senate with a group of people holding clubs. And how could he do that? Because the population didn't felt like the Senate represented their will.

 

[Operation Wignut]

Again, how likely is it that the US population would take up arms and fight against something they actually agree with. If 80% the population would openly reject the constitution, not all of it, just the part where they feel isn't usefull for their current situation, how long can the political class ignore that pleading before the people turn to extremism?

What says 80% of people want to limit or repeal the 2nd Amendment?

(Also, the process is much more complicated than Brexit. Only one Amendment has ever been repealed, the 18th Amendment. In order to propose an amendment for ratification, it must pass either through Congress with 2/3rds in support of it, which the Republicans would never accept, or in some cases, through a national convention. Now, to ACTUALLY BECOME an Amendment, it has to be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states through legislature or state ratifying conventions. Currently and historically, there has never been 3/4ths of a party occupying either the House of Representatives or the Senate, as far as I know.)

 

[TheGM]

A minority of the population fought the US Government over proposed legislation.

There wasn't proposed legislation, just perceived ones.

The election of 1860 was a mess and had 4 candidates running for office. A Republican, 2 Democrats, and one from the newly founded constitutional union party. The democrats split the vote and this causes Lincoln to win. The thing is Lincoln wasn't even on some ballots in a couple southern states do the Republican party being a non-entity there. People got mad. Slaver owners got paranoid that Ol' Abey was coming to take muh slaves. then we got full blown Insurrection, Secession, States Feels, the works.

And thus The War of Northern Aggression begins when Southern Insurrectionist attack a US Government Instillation at Fort Sumter

 

[Gizmojunk]

Yet, he is actually a part of this system, which made him a billionair.

I don't think the system made him a billionare, I think its existence gave the opportunity for him to make himself one... Same as Zuckerberg ~sort of.

 

[Operation Wignut]

There wasn't proposed legislation, just perceived ones.

Yep, my fault. My phrasing was sup-par.

Although, that kind of fuels my point even more towards the reactionary nature of people perceived to be attacked by the government.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What says 80% of people want to limit or repeal the 2nd Amendment?

It was a completely hypothetical scenario, so don't read to much in to it. Because I personaly believe the only likely event where the US would turn into a tyrannical regime is only if it was actually backed up by the population. Like, imagine it would be 2050, and 80% of the population would have no problem to suspend the consitution, if only temporarily, till things are sorted out because of some terrorist attacks coupled with a very harsh recession, a lot of poverity or what ever, you name it.

As Herman Göring said after 1945 to an interviewer:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.[…] That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country

It is outright frightening how fraggile a society actually is, when you think about it. And how quick people can throw away their liberty, safety and all of that, in exachange for stability. I believe, if the majority of the people, had to chose between stability and surveillance or freedom and insecurity, they would always go with stability. It goes without a saying that this is a gross simplification, I am talking in a political sense here, like where people might be persuated to vote for a registration act, a law with the intention to enforce the mandatory registration of Muslims for example. Or where people give up their personal rights with their data to a government agency. And when I am looking at the current events, this isn't that far fetched, as people willingly give up their personal information to companies like facebook ...

 

[Operation Wignut]

I believe, if the majority of the people, had to chose between stability and surveillance or freedom and insecurity, they would always go with stability.

And that is where America has differed, for the most part, since its inception.

We were built on the establishment of freedom itself, from the Puritans wishing for religious freedom, to the Founding Fathers wishing for political freedom, to the Civil Rights Movement wishing for equality of freedom.

We have not always been the most equality-friendly, but we have always been the most free, overall.

 

[Gizmojunk]

Don't get the idea that I don't agree with you! I certainly think that a democratic society simply has to acquiescence certain occurances - however I think we both can agree that it was a good thing that the US abbolished slavery instad of to just acquiescence it.

Indeed; but both sides refused to acquiesce'; I did mean the North.

*Incidentally... Something not often taught or recalled today: There were former slaves fighting in that war, for the Confederacy; to protect and retain plantations (that they personally owned) ~and to keep the slaves that worked on them.

 

[Operation Wignut]

Incidentally... Something not often taught or recalled today: There were former slaves fighting in that war, for the Confederacy; to protect and retain plantations (that they personally owned) ~and to keep the slaves that worked on them.

Isn't there some conceived notion nowadays that the first slave owner was black? I never studied slavery in depth.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And that is where America has differed, for the most part, since its inception.

We were built on the establishment of freedom itself, from the Puritans wishing for religious freedom, to the Founding Fathers wishing for political freedom, to the Civil Rights Movement wishing for equality of freedom.

We have not always been the most equality-friendly, but we have always been the most free, overall.

I challange that perception. Freedom is a buzzword. Particularly as I think that this is a historical missconception since people back then had a different understanding what freedom is compared to today. Because It depends about who we're talking about. I am absolutely certain that all those people had those noble ideas in mind and that this was their target, but when you look at the reality, it still happens that people tend to prefer stability at the end of the day. Even Thomas Jefferson, was aware about that inconsitency - in this example, slavery.

Again, people chose stability over freedom - on the expense of others in this case. Sadly I can't find that quote again, but I remember something along the lines, that even back then some feared that this security was bought on the expense of future generations who will be forced to deal with the issue of slavery one way or another. Well which is what lead to one of the bloodiest civil wars in human history.

And this concept of liberty-or-death was also not super popular among commoners and most citizens. For example, only 1/3 of the nation was actually in favour of indepence from Britain, where a large portion saw them self as citizens of the British Empire. And consider how long it took to actually get rid of racial segreation in the US.
Here is an interesting take on the indepdence war, albeit with the criticism on a movie.


If it would have been so easy to rally people behind the idea of independence and the spongy concept of freedom, it wouldn't have required an extensive propaganda and years of convincing by the patriots, who have been the minority for the most part. Up to the point where the tensions became unbearable.

Human nature is tailored in favour of stability and orderliness due out of self-preservation. It's a part of our whole biology and attitude. That's why it takes usually decades if not even longer before dictators and opressive regimes are banished. The majority of people feel more content with their current situation, even if a possible change would hold the prospect of improvements, simply because they are familiar with their present condition where as changes are uknown teritory from their point of view. This might sound unlogic, but this has a lot to do with our brain chemistry and how we react to new situations. There is a whole topic about this when dealing with depressions and the irrational behaviour of people. And in some sense, this can be also attributed to nations and societies.