Gun Control/Immigration Control/Survelliance

[DoomYoshi]

Your face when you realize someone can be free even if they don't have the right to purchase a firearm.

In modern society, being able to own a gun is the ability to defend your freedom from both foreign invaders

No, that is having a national army.

If the government goes rogue for whatever reason and starts enslaving en masse, what can the populace do without guns?

Given that the US military and US police force have much better and bigger guns and are actually trained in how to fight with them properly, I'd put the populace's odds at about 0.1% with or without guns.

thank you mr. chinaman

China and Russia are in the news today for their alliance. For many years they have been a part of the SCO. One of the main things the SCO focuses on is terrorism. Terrorism is not defined in the way you might expect. It is literally defined as seperatism.

It's recorded in the Bible - once the Philistines conquered the Jews, the first thing they did was take away the weapons. It's pretty much the definition of slavery.

So to recap:
terrorism = nationalism
slavery = gun control

[mrswdk]

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

You're still not showing how a restricted supply of guns would stop significant numbers of people committing suicide. Like I said, there are a bunch of countries (49, according to the WHO) which have a higher suicide rate than the US, despite having prohibitions on gun ownership. So why your assertion that if guns weren't available people would find it harder to commit suicide and suicide rates would go down?

There are plenty of quick and easy ways to kill yourself without a gun, if you're that way inclined. Jump in front of a train, jump off a building, whatever. People in the US use guns because guns are there but if they weren't then they'd just use some other method, same as people in the rest of the world do.

[Metsfanmax]

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

You're still not showing how a restricted supply of guns would stop significant numbers of people committing suicide.

Yes, I did show that. The NYT article (linked in my last post) links to a couple of studies which indicate that this is the case -- when you decrease the number of ways people can easily commit suicide, less suicides occur. For example, they point out a study indicating that after the Israeli military stopped letting their soldiers take their guns home on the weekends, the suicide rate among their servicemembers fell substantially. There's also evidence that in the US, the rate of non firearm suicides does not substantially vary among states, but in states with more gun ownership, there are more gun suicides. Consequently there's good reason to believe that decreasing the number of guns would decrease the number of suicides. You're arguing against actual data from actual public health professionals, and insisting that you understand this better than the experts is just making you look silly. Please actually investigate your claims before continuing to assert them.

[Beast Of Burson]

Yo Metz..you're generalizing my man..check it out:

Private Sales in Oregon; Last updated August 27, 2015. In 2015, Oregon enacted a law requiring a private or unlicensed firearm seller to conduct a background check on a private or unlicensed purchaser before transferring a firearm him or her.1 The transfer must be conducted through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). The FFL must process the transaction as if the dealer were selling the firearm from his or her own inventory and comply with all federal and state laws regulating firearms dealers (See the Oregon Background Checks and Federal Law on Private Sales sections for further details).

That's the same law we have in California. The only reason there would not be a BG Check is if you inherit a gun from your Father or Mother (direct family member), but if it came from an Uncle , Aunt, etc., you would have to go to a dealer and do background check, in which you have to take the firearm to the dealer and leave it with them until your BG Check is complete.

I personally know 2 guys that failed their BG check for whatever reason, and the Gov told the dealer to confiscate the guns and hand them over to them (the Gov).

It doesn't matter what laws they put into effect. If somebody wants a gun to do harm with, they will get it.
And if they can't get guns, they can make their own IED's to do the dirty work. It's amazing the shit you can find on the web that explain how to make weapons with, out of household goods!

We need to quit being so fucking lenient on the people that commit these horrible crimes. If somebody kills, (other than protecting ones self), they should be killed, period. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.

[mrswdk]

Well, that NYT articles links to a story which says:

The national map of suicide lights up in states with the highest gun ownership rates. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska, the states with the three highest suicide rates, are also the top gun-owning states, according to the Harvard center. The state-level data are too broad to tell whether the deaths were in homes with guns, but a series of individual-level studies since the early 1990s found a direct link. Most researchers say the weight of evidence from multiple studies is that guns in the home increase the risk of suicide.

“The literature suggests that having a gun in your home to protect your family is like bringing a time bomb into your house,” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, an epidemiologist who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Instead of protecting you, it’s more likely to blow up.”

Still, some dispute the link, saying that it does not prove cause and effect, and that other factors, like alcoholism and drug abuse, may be driving the association. Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, contends that gun owners may have qualities that make them more susceptible to suicide. They may be more likely to see the world as a hostile place, or to blame themselves when things go wrong, a dark side of self-reliance.

i.e. there is some level of correlation between states with high gun ownership and states with high suicide, but no substantive evidence to demonstrate a causal link between the two

[Metsfanmax]

Well, that NYT articles links to a story which says:

The national map of suicide lights up in states with the highest gun ownership rates. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska, the states with the three highest suicide rates, are also the top gun-owning states, according to the Harvard center. The state-level data are too broad to tell whether the deaths were in homes with guns, but a series of individual-level studies since the early 1990s found a direct link. Most researchers say the weight of evidence from multiple studies is that guns in the home increase the risk of suicide.

“The literature suggests that having a gun in your home to protect your family is like bringing a time bomb into your house,” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, an epidemiologist who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Instead of protecting you, it’s more likely to blow up.”

Still, some dispute the link, saying that it does not prove cause and effect, and that other factors, like alcoholism and drug abuse, may be driving the association. Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, contends that gun owners may have qualities that make them more susceptible to suicide. They may be more likely to see the world as a hostile place, or to blame themselves when things go wrong, a dark side of self-reliance.

i.e. there is some level of correlation between states with high gun ownership and states with high suicide, but no substantive evidence to demonstrate a causal link between the two

That's a rather motivated reading of that section. It says that "most researchers say the weight of evidence" is on the side of the argument that gun access directly increases the risk of suicide. That's very different from your characterization of "no substantive evidence to demonstrate a causal link."

[demonfork]

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

Another stupid fucking article...

When oven technology changed to less dangerous natural gas, fewer people had an easy means of suicide in their home. Only some people found another suicide method, and the suicide rate fell substantially.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Just because suicide rates supposedly dropped when better oven technology hit the market doesn't mean that this was the factor that caused the rate to fall.

Do I even need to fucking argue this?


Check Australia's suicide rates... they remained flat after they banned guns.

[Metsfanmax]

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

Another stupid fucking article...

When oven technology changed to less dangerous natural gas, fewer people had an easy means of suicide in their home. Only some people found another suicide method, and the suicide rate fell substantially.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Yes, this is exactly the same comment made by every single person who doesn't like the results of a scientific study and assumes that they are clever enough to realize this but not the actual scientists who did the study. If you ever look at a study and think "correlation does not imply causation," then congratulate yourself for being the 9,000th person to have this thought, and then shut up and actually read the study to figure out whether they found a causal link or not.

Just because suicide rates supposedly dropped when better oven technology hit the market doesn't mean that this was the factor that caused the rate to fall.

So as an example, if you had even read the abstract of the study in question, you would know that this was accounted for. For example, they found that over the period in question when the total suicide rate fell in the UK, the suicide rate due to non-gas methods actually increased over that period. (And they also provide reasons why other factors are unlikely to explain the situation either.) So that indicates that this wasn't, for example, purely caused by some general trend of people just being less willing to commit suicide in general.

Do I even need to fucking argue this?

Actually, yes, if you want anyone to believe that you understand public health issues better than public health professionals, you do in fact need to provide some evidence for your claim. Scientific research is not perfect and it is indeed hard to control for correlation perfectly and prove causality beyond a shadow of a doubt. But if you want to actually make a valid contribution, you need to do better than "correlation is not causation" and engage with the specifics of the research in question.

Check Australia's suicide rates... they remained flat after they banned guns.

I don't know this statistic offhand, but I will look it up. However that's not necessarily a relevant argument. The question is whether, if you decrease the availability of guns, that will have a causal influence on the suicide rate that makes it decrease. Policymakers cannot guarantee that there is not some other societal trend that will happen at the same and offset the benefits of the policy. However it could be possible that if the gun policy weren't changed, then the total suicide rate would increase due to whatever other trend there was affecting the suicide rate. Flat is better than increasing.

[riskllama]

I wish I had a better oven. mine sucks...

[Metsfanmax]

Check Australia's suicide rates... they remained flat after they banned guns.

I don't know this statistic offhand, but I will look it up. However that's not necessarily a relevant argument. The question is whether, if you decrease the availability of guns, that will have a causal influence on the suicide rate that makes it decrease. Policymakers cannot guarantee that there is not some other societal trend that will happen at the same and offset the benefits of the policy. However it could be possible that if the gun policy weren't changed, then the total suicide rate would increase due to whatever other trend there was affecting the suicide rate. Flat is better than increasing.

OK, so I'm not too knowledgeable about this, but searching for Australian suicide rates brought me to this page by the Australian parliament: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ ... _Australia

It indicates that in fact suicide rates steadily fell in Australia from about 1997 to 2009, which does actually roughly match with the timeline for when their gun policy changed in 1996.

[KoolBak]

lol....don't presume to tell me how to live my life zeke....this was a silly statement:

I appreciate your interest in the conversation but please try to pay attention to the full context instead of responding to snippets.

Outta here.....

ps - I know several psychopaths that have acquired things no one should have

[Metsfanmax]

ps - I know several psychopaths that have acquired things no one should have

Yes, and you seem proud of the fact that you know these people.

[Army of GOD]

the suicide argument seems weird. lowering suicide rates with gun control is only a valid argument if preventing suicide is morally just. which, I'm not sure if that's true

[mrswdk]

Check Australia's suicide rates... they remained flat after they banned guns.

I don't know this statistic offhand, but I will look it up. However that's not necessarily a relevant argument. The question is whether, if you decrease the availability of guns, that will have a causal influence on the suicide rate that makes it decrease. Policymakers cannot guarantee that there is not some other societal trend that will happen at the same and offset the benefits of the policy. However it could be possible that if the gun policy weren't changed, then the total suicide rate would increase due to whatever other trend there was affecting the suicide rate. Flat is better than increasing.

Haha. In other words, when a restriction on access to guns is followed by a drop in suicide rates (the Israel case study) it proves fewer guns helps prevent suicides, but when a ban on guns is followed by no such drop (the Australian case study) this proves nothing because there was probably a societal factor which offset the drop we would otherwise have seen. And you accuse me of 'motivated reading'?

[thegreekdog]

I don't understand why banning assault rifles is the top of the 'slippery slope' people in America are apparently concerned about. What about low intensity explosives (hand grenades, land mines etc.)? What about vehicles of war? The American Government aka Stalin's China has already outlawed those forms of self defense for decades now. The slippery slope is ALREADY BEING SLIPPED DOWN!!!!

As soon as the government banned grenades, mortars and tanks, the terrorists had already won. Those who would trade in a little freedom for security deserve neither.

Yeah, I don't understand this argument either. "Oh noes, they are going to take away our AR-15s! Whatever shall we do?"

Does the slippery slope of rights to privacy and due process rights do anything for you? I would be more concerned about those especially given that most Republicans and Democrats seem perfectly willing to disallow guns for people suspected of maybe being a criminal... possibly.

[thegreekdog]

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

Wait... why should we not let people commit suicide? Further, why are you (of all people) against suicide? Didn't you have a bunch of posts a few years ago about wanting to "abort" living people?

[thegreekdog]

Well, that NYT articles links to a story which says:

The national map of suicide lights up in states with the highest gun ownership rates. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska, the states with the three highest suicide rates, are also the top gun-owning states, according to the Harvard center. The state-level data are too broad to tell whether the deaths were in homes with guns, but a series of individual-level studies since the early 1990s found a direct link. Most researchers say the weight of evidence from multiple studies is that guns in the home increase the risk of suicide.

“The literature suggests that having a gun in your home to protect your family is like bringing a time bomb into your house,” said Dr. Mark Rosenberg, an epidemiologist who helped establish the C.D.C.’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. “Instead of protecting you, it’s more likely to blow up.”

Still, some dispute the link, saying that it does not prove cause and effect, and that other factors, like alcoholism and drug abuse, may be driving the association. Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University in Tallahassee, contends that gun owners may have qualities that make them more susceptible to suicide. They may be more likely to see the world as a hostile place, or to blame themselves when things go wrong, a dark side of self-reliance.

i.e. there is some level of correlation between states with high gun ownership and states with high suicide, but no substantive evidence to demonstrate a causal link between the two

I wonder if there is a correlation between the articles the New York Times publishes and the New York Times editorial board?

[Metsfanmax]

the suicide argument seems weird. lowering suicide rates with gun control is only a valid argument if preventing suicide is morally just. which, I'm not sure if that's true

As I indicated, many people attempt suicide in a fit of temporary depression and it does not reflect a rational decision to terminate their lives. Of those who attempt suicide and survive, many express happiness later on that they did not succeed.

In other words, when a restriction on access to guns is followed by a drop in suicide rates (the Israel case study) it proves fewer guns helps prevent suicides, but when a ban on guns is followed by no such drop (the Australian case study) this proves nothing because there was probably a societal factor which offset the drop we would otherwise have seen.

I didn't say there was probably a confounding societal factor, I said that there could be, and thus looking at raw trends without attempting to control for confounders doesn't mean anything. The scientists who study this do go out of their way to figure out whether they can control for them well enough to establish a causal link, and so we should pay attention to that. What we should not pay attention to are people who say "X happened, then Y happened" and establish a causal link between the two, which is what demonfork did when he said that Australian suicide rates didn't decrease after their gun control law was established and therefore concluded that their gun control didn't reduce suicides.

Also, kind of a moot point since I showed that there is data indicating that suicides did decrease after their gun control law was enacted.

Wait... why should we not let people commit suicide? Further, why are you (of all people) against suicide?

I did not argue that we should not let people commit suicide, and I am completely for a person's right to legally terminate their life at any time that they choose provided they believe it is truly in their best interests. That is not contradictory with the fact that many people commit suicide for irrational reasons (irrational by their own standards, not mine; a mental illness causes them to take an action which is not in their long-term best interests) and would prefer to live in general, so making it harder for them to commit impulse suicides (which is what guns are most suited for in this context) is to me a valuable idea. So I would be for limiting access to handguns or making it harder to access them (i.e. requiring them to be locked in a safe) so that it takes more time to make the decision, valuable time in which a person can snap out of the impulse.

[mrswdk]

I don't understand why banning assault rifles is the top of the 'slippery slope' people in America are apparently concerned about. What about low intensity explosives (hand grenades, land mines etc.)? What about vehicles of war? The American Government aka Stalin's China has already outlawed those forms of self defense for decades now. The slippery slope is ALREADY BEING SLIPPED DOWN!!!!

As soon as the government banned grenades, mortars and tanks, the terrorists had already won. Those who would trade in a little freedom for security deserve neither.

Yeah, I don't understand this argument either. "Oh noes, they are going to take away our AR-15s! Whatever shall we do?"

Does the slippery slope of rights to privacy and due process rights do anything for you? I would be more concerned about those especially given that most Republicans and Democrats seem perfectly willing to disallow guns for people suspected of maybe being a criminal... possibly.

I don't really buy into the notion of 'slippery slopes' of any kind but I do think that restricting people's rights on the basis of nothing more than 'the police think they might be shady' isn't the right way to go. Particularly when we're talking about curtailing people's freedom based on them managing to end up on the terror watch list, something it is apparently incredibly easy to end up on even if there's no proof whatsoever that the individual in question is any kind of threat.

And one doesn't need to have access to a gun to find a method of killing themselves quickly.

Why do so many insist that this discussion must be had in extreme qualitative terms instead of the actual quantitative terms that are relevant for public policy? Yes, obviously, some people will still commit suicide without access to a gun. But it will be fewer people. And since more than half of gun deaths occur this way, it seems like a pretty reasonable thing to consider when focusing on gun control legislation.

Wait... why should we not let people commit suicide? Further, why are you (of all people) against suicide? Didn't you have a bunch of posts a few years ago about wanting to "abort" living people?

I posted some stuff about not seeing any reason to draw the line at time of birth when it comes to abortion. Given Mets thinks pigs should be afforded the same rights as humans I imagine he probably saw differently.

[thegreekdog]

For some reason, I am unable to properly quote each of these points separately. Apologies.

Multiple new organizations including, but not limited to, CNN and Politico, reported on Amy Schumer's tweet. Her tweet and Kim Kardashian's tweet and the attention they received are indicative of the problem I have. There is no educated debate in the United States on this topic. There is a combination of political pandering, moneyed influence, and public idiocy about this entire issue. The WSJ had an article this morning about how gun control helps solve massacres, look at Australia. The problem is that someone reads that and gets upset about Congress's inaction, when no one in Congress is proposing the same sweeping law changes that Australia enacted. This is what I'm talking about.

If someone in Congress actually proposed that legislation it would never make it out of committee, there would never be a vote, because at present Republicans would not let it. Your point is completely irrelevant to anything that is going on. The WSJ is doing that to push Republicans (presumably) to be open to such legislation so that it can be proposed and a serious discussion had. Rest assured that someone would put that bill to the floor if someone could.

Everyone is outraged. What the f*ck are you even talking about? Who isn't mad that we have to have this interminable debate?

People should be outraged that we're talking about a bill the passage of which would be largely, if not entirely, ineffective.

Yes, people are outraged about that. Everyone involved in Congress knows that the vast majority of gun deaths don't come from assault weapons and the gun control supporters would love to be able to talk about legislation that reduces handguns. They're fighting for the thing that they can maybe have instead of the thing that they can definitely not have. I am not sure you understand that politics is the art of the possible.

DC v. Heller put a minor dent in the plan to go after handguns. Would you like us to complain more about the Constitution so that you are satisfied that we care sufficiently enough about the issue?

I don't think you know what the Heller case said. The Heller case is not applicable only to handguns; it is applicable to all firearms including, presumably, the AR-15.

No, it is not obviously applicable to all firearms, so I am not sure that you know what the Heller case said. The decision specifically indicates that reasonable prohibitions can be made on weapons that are not used for "traditionally lawful purposes" like self-defense. The AR-15 is an example of a weapon that is not normally used for such a purpose as self-defense and thus the Heller case does not clearly protect the right to own such a weapon. See, e.g., from the finding:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

If Heller said what you're implying it said, then it should have immediately struck down the machine gun ban in the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. But it didn't, because that's not what the court ruled, as machine guns are dangerous and unusual weapons that are not the type of weapons the Second Amendment was envisioned to protect ownership of.

Here are the four gun proposals that were rejected by the Senate:

(1) Update background check system to add more information on mental health (Republican proposed).
(2) Gun shows and online purchases background checks (Democrat proposed).
(3) Delay gun sales for people on terrorist watch lists (Republican proposed).
(4) Bar all gun sales for people on terrorist watch lists (Democrat proposed).

#4 was the only one that would have stopped Mateen from purchasing a gun.

#3 is an incorrect characterization of the Cornyn amendment; Cornyn was proposing that a judge would have to find probable cause to justify the blocking of a gun sale. If it was being characterized as merely a measure to "delay" gun sales, that's only because it gave the FBI a mere 72 hours to win the case for probable cause, which is a pretty high burden for them, and thus it may have been the case for Omar Mateen that it wouldn't have mattered, but that's not guaranteed.

What I was referring to were not proposals #1 and #2 but rather #3, #4, and also, on the Senate floor Monday there was discussion of an alternative proposed by Susan Collins, which was similar to the Feinstein approach (#4) but would allow someone denied a gun sale due to being on the watch list to appeal the reason for it in court. She was trying to work a compromise solution after seeing how narrowly the Cornyn approach would lose by. (Not sure why I said four amendments, I was thinking of these three.)

I don't disagree with your first point.

I don't think you understand politics. For example, the Congressional sit-in has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with political pandering. There is a direct correlation between something bad happening relative to guns and Democrats going out and hammering Republicans on the issue. And before you go off on a whatever, what happens when Congress starts pandering is that people who don't know facts, data, or anything else start to say and believe things that are untrue. And that's when I get upset.

Think about it in the context of Donald Trump. Trump crows when someone in the US gets killed by a Mexican because then he can pander to his audience and start getting morons to believe that Mexican illegal immigrants commit heinous crimes on a regular basis. The Democrats are using the Orlando massacre to pander to their set of morons to believe that the proposals they have put forward would stop these kinds of things from happening.

Yeah, I do know what Heller said, thank you. Let's recap, shall we? Your initial position was that Congress couldn't do anything about handguns because Heller said you can't regulate handguns. That was incorrect. The case did not say you can only not regulate handguns. Therefore, you did not understand Heller. You have now adequately summarized Heller (thanks to wikipedia), but you now believe the Heller case will let Congress ban assault weapons, but not handguns. I do not understand, based on the language quoted above and my understanding of Heller, how you've come to that conclusion. Perhaps it is based on your knowledge of guns. In any event, if you want to pretend that I don't know what Heller's holding was because you seriously think I was indicating all guns (e.g. machine guns and bazookas) were unregulatable, then you have Symmetry-type problems.

There's a fifth proposal, but I can't find it. Frankly, I would much prefer something with a due process protection involved. I'm indifferent on banning guns personally, but it will not happen without a constitutional amendment. I like to believe that even the most liberal, socially conscious, activist judges won't allow a ban on all weapons. That being said, the most effective way to deal with gun deaths within the bounds of the constitution is to provide more social and economic benefits to those people committing crimes with guns (and I'm not talking about terrorist; I'm talking about gangs).

[thegreekdog]

I did not argue that we should not let people commit suicide, and I am completely for a person's right to legally terminate their life at any time that they choose provided they believe it is truly in their best interests. That is not contradictory with the fact that many people commit suicide for irrational reasons (irrational by their own standards, not mine; a mental illness causes them to take an action which is not in their long-term best interests) and would prefer to live in general, so making it harder for them to commit impulse suicides (which is what guns are most suited for in this context) is to me a valuable idea. So I would be for limiting access to handguns or making it harder to access them (i.e. requiring them to be locked in a safe) so that it takes more time to make the decision, valuable time in which a person can snap out of the impulse.

There can't possibly be the data, but how can the percentage of gun suicides and irrationality be proven? Seems silly to even discuss the issue.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't think you understand politics. For example, the Congressional sit-in has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with political pandering. There is a direct correlation between something bad happening relative to guns and Democrats going out and hammering Republicans on the issue. And before you go off on a whatever, what happens when Congress starts pandering is that people who don't know facts, data, or anything else start to say and believe things that are untrue. And that's when I get upset.

Again, I have no interest in this discussion. Regardless of how accurate your assessment is, it does not matter one iota to the discussion of what reasonable gun control policy is and therefore what policy we should be advocating to our representatives. Being cynical like this only encourages us to stop having rational discussion and believe that we can't do anything at all. The problem with giving up like that is that then the only people who participate in the process are the ones who "don't know facts, data, or anything else."

Yeah, I do know what Heller said, thank you. Let's recap, shall we? Your initial position was that Congress couldn't do anything about handguns because Heller said you can't regulate handguns. That was incorrect. The case did not say you can only not regulate handguns.

I said that Heller said you can't prevent people from owning handguns. You responded that Heller covers more than handguns. How is that at all a relevant response? I didn't say that "the meaning of the Heller case is exactly that we can't regulate handguns," I said that we can't regulate handguns as a consequence of the Heller decision, implying that the Heller decision limits restrictions on some weapons and not others, and handguns are in the former category.

You have now adequately summarized Heller (thanks to wikipedia), but you now believe the Heller case will let Congress ban assault weapons, but not handguns.

No, I said that I believe that the Heller case does not prevent Congress from banning assault weapons. I am not suggesting that it gives Congress implicit license to do so. I do not believe that AR-15s are the type of weapon that they indicated in Heller was guaranteed by the Second Amendment to be legal to own. It could possibly be that in another case the Supreme Court rules against my view and argues that these type of weapons are considered legal under the category of "traditionally lawful purposes," but the whole point of this discussion was that you seemed to be arguing that Heller presumably protects the right to own AR-15s as well as handguns, and I was refuting that by arguing that the language of the finding does not clearly indicate this.

I do not understand, based on the language quoted above and my understanding of Heller, how you've come to that conclusion.

I think that AR-15s should be considered, in the context of the case, "dangerous and unusual weapons" that cannot be used for "traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home." It is that simple. You seem to understand that Heller does not permit ownership of machine guns. I am arguing that AR-15s should be in the same category as machine guns in this context.

[thegreekdog]

Again, I have no interest in this discussion.

Good. Then stop responding to me.

Regardless of how accurate your assessment is, it does not matter one iota to the discussion of what reasonable gun control policy is and therefore what policy we should be advocating to our representatives. Being cynical like this only encourages us to stop having rational discussion and believe that we can't do anything at all. The problem with giving up like that is that then the only people who participate in the process are the ones who "don't know facts, data, or anything else."

Being cynical does not encourage us to stop having a rational discussion; it encourages us to change the status quo. I'm looking to get people to stop thinking that the status quo is beneficial and useful; it's not and it needs to be changed. No one believes that, so I've taken it upon myself in the various points of the day where I have time to try to get people to agree with me that the way are politics work needs to change. Related aside - I think social media is helping this tremendously and I fully expect that things will continue to progress towards a more intelligent, learned, enlightened group of voters. To put it another way, I'm not cynical inasmuch as I'm giving up; I'm cynical and trying to change others' views.

I said that Heller said you can't prevent people from owning handguns. You responded that Heller covers more than handguns. How is that at all a relevant response? I didn't say that "the meaning of the Heller case is exactly that we can't regulate handguns," I said that we can't regulate handguns as a consequence of the Heller decision, implying that the Heller decision limits restrictions on some weapons and not others, and handguns are in the former category.

Yes, and? What makes you think we can regulate any other guns (that do not otherwise meet the Supreme Court's definition of acceptable guns)? You're position is "we can't regulate handguns because of Heller, so why try; we need to regulate non-handguns that aren't otherwise regulated." Other than that the law in question in Heller was a handgun statute, why makes you think, given your reading of the Heller wikipedia page, that Congress or any state can regulate non-handguns? That's my beef with your interpretation of Heller: You think that handguns are protected, but not other stuff, so we should go after the other stuff. I think that handguns and other stuff are protected, so go after handguns because they kill a fuckton more people (and by "they" I mean the people that carry them use them to kill a fuckton more people). Unfortunately, since a higher percentage of those people happen to be black, Congress isn't going to do that, but that's a different discussion.

I think that AR-15s should be considered, in the context of the case, "dangerous and unusual weapons" that cannot be used for "traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home." It is that simple. You seem to understand that Heller does not permit ownership of machine guns. I am arguing that AR-15s should be in the same category as machine guns in this context.

I understand this point... now. I believe you are incorrect because AR-15s are not dangerous and unusual weapons primarily because, other than what they look like, there is no difference between that weapon and a handgun. And again, this is a problem. People see a picture of an AR-15 and think it's an automatic weapon that is somehow deadlier than a handgun. It's not.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, and? What makes you think we can regulate any other guns (that do not otherwise meet the Supreme Court's definition of acceptable guns)?

Other pieces of Congressional legislation that restricted gun ownership have survived legal challenges, so I accept it as an empirical matter that the Constitution can be interpreted to justify some limitations on Second Amendment rights. Notably, the federal assault weapons ban was never overturned, nor was the earlier FOPA.

You're position is "we can't regulate handguns because of Heller, so why try; we need to regulate non-handguns that aren't otherwise regulated." Other than that the law in question in Heller was a handgun statute, why makes you think, given your reading of the Heller wikipedia page, that Congress or any state can regulate non-handguns?

This has been established as a principle at least since United States v. Miller. Heller cited Miller in explaining the fact that certain types of weapons can be regulated, and consequently I (and I think most others) view this as a debate regarding which weapons fall into that category and which do not. You have already agreed that Heller does not protect machine gun ownership, so I do not why you keep insisting that "handguns and other stuff" are protected when we've established that in fact some parts of the "other stuff" category are restricted and the relevant debate is which category weapons like the AR-15 fall into.

That's my beef with your interpretation of Heller: You think that handguns are protected, but not other stuff, so we should go after the other stuff. I think that handguns and other stuff are protected, so go after handguns because they kill a fuckton more people (and by "they" I mean the people that carry them use them to kill a fuckton more people). Unfortunately, since a higher percentage of those people happen to be black, Congress isn't going to do that, but that's a different discussion.

How exactly do you propose that we go after handguns? If you can provide some specific examples of laws restricting handgun ownership that you feel would survive judicial review, I'd be happy to hear them.

...other than what they look like, there is no difference between [an AR-15] and a handgun. And again, this is a problem. People see a picture of an AR-15 and think it's ... somehow deadlier than a handgun. It's not.

What is this claim based on, your extensive firearms training?

[hotfire]

I think mets and tgd should have a duel to the death...mets gets an ar15 and tgd gets a handgun. Let us start by taking bets.