All-purpose gun legislation thread

[ShivaX]

The leading reason cited for pistol ownership is home defense and no form of carry whatsoever is required there at all. Surely a well-regulated militia is possible for people whose basements are armories?

IMO concealed carry is for that minority of people whose work requires lethal capability or who otherwise can generate a plausible reason for needing a deadly weapon on the street. These people in the 20th century never had a problem getting licensed by the police or sheriff even in places like New York with its Sullivan act. And open carry is for crazed anarchists, secessionists, and for vigilante heroes shooting up people in Walmart parking lots.

As Lantz says, for point A to point B you can just transport instead of carrying.

Sure, but now you’re talking about removing self-defense carry completely, which is not what we’ve historically had. “Carry” is being used as a term not a common verb, it has a distinct meaning in this context. And having the government decide who gets to defend themselves doesn’t sit well with a lot of people.

And I’m not sure pistol ownership is about “home defense” as much as “self-defense” which is an important distinction. Shotguns historically have always been better home defense, but you don’t want to carry one to the store because it’s a fucking shotgun.

We’re basically talking about completely nullifying the ability to carry outside of your home, which isn’t really supported by any precedence that I’m aware of. I mean you can think that’s fine or whatever, but that’s literally the gun control issue in a lot of ways. I just don’t see it passing muster legally.

[Oghier]

We’re basically talking about completely nullifying the ability to carry outside of your home…

… In some states. If this holds, gun laws may be very different in red states vs blue ones.

[ShivaX]

… In some states. If this holds, gun laws may be very different in red states vs blue ones.

Very true, it will move the burden to states and, in many cases, cities. But those gun laws are already pretty different for the most part, it just becomes a question of where the line is in blue states/cities. We know they can’t stop you from having a handgun in your home, but I’m not sure if effectively barring many people from their right to self-defense will fly.

[TheWombat]

Now that the second is being limited every further, maybe we can look at some other common sense limits on some other rights. Maybe those Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to practice their religion. Or all news stories should be reviewed by a government agency before being allowed to be published. Perhaps if the police really, really need to, they should be able to search whatever they want.

I don’t think everyone shares that view. We do have limits on speech. We do have limits on religious freedom. We do have limits on protection from search and seizure. All the amendments in the Bill of Rights are limited in some way. None of them are absolute beyond a certain threshold. Now, that threshold is negotiable, to be sure.

Also, while it is certainly possible to view all the Amendments as equally important, or to pick and choose one or another as most important, I find it very hard to see the Second Amendment as more important than, say, the First or Fourth. The influence of an armed citizenry on the rights of Americans overall seems rather limited when compared to say freedom of speech, but admittedly it is hard to measure.

[Stepsongrapes]

Also, while it is certainly possible to view all the Amendments as equally important, or to pick and choose one or another as most important, I find it very hard to see the Second Amendment as more important than, say, the First or Fourth. The influence of an armed citizenry on the rights of Americans overall seems rather limited when compared to say freedom of speech, but admittedly it is hard to measure.

With respect to purely the risk of abuse of government power in the U.S. today, can anyone rationally say that the right to bear arms is a greater deterrence/counter to abusive government than the right to speech?

[Miramon]

With respect to purely the risk of abuse of government power in the U.S. today, can anyone rationally say that the right to bear arms is a greater deterrence/counter to abusive government than the right to speech?

Good point. Right to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly is clearly infinitely more important in constraining government power than the right to bear arms, which has absolutely no effect on government power whatsoever.

[TheWombat]

With respect to purely the risk of abuse of government power in the U.S. today, can anyone rationally say that the right to bear arms is a greater deterrence/counter to abusive government than the right to speech?

I would say no; the cases where freedom of the press alone has brought government malfeasance to light and malefactors to heel are legion. The cases where an armed citizenry has had any impact whatsoever on legislation, or the use of government power in any way, seem absent. Actually, to my way of thinking, if you honestly feel the only thing keeping your government from doing Bad Things to you is your gun, there are far more problems with the society you live in–as you see it–than the Second Amendment issue.

[Strollen]

Good point. Right to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly is clearly infinitely more important in constraining government power than the right to bear arms, which has absolutely no effect on government power whatsoever.

Are you be facitious? Historically the number of governments toppled by guns and other weapons exceeds those topple by speech and the ballot box by many times. You are right about the US, but we are an historic anomally and the founding fathers were clearly worried about tryants taking over.

[Miramon]

Are you be facitious? Historically the number of governments toppled by guns and other weapons exceeds those topple by speech and the ballot box by many times. You are right about the US, but we are an historic anomally and the founding fathers were clearly worried about tryants taking over.

Me facetious? No, but your argument here is totally insane.

First of all other countries have strict gun control laws and tiny murder rates. Yet we ignore them in talking about gun control in the US. It’s insane to cite other countries with respect to their revolutions. Unless you are saying you want a violent revolution in the US right now? But let’s cater to the insanity and consider revolutions around the world.

Not one revolution has ever occurred because people rose up with their concealed-carry pistols. And in the last hundred years, almost all revolutions have occurred when the army decided to change sides or when they refused orders to march on civilians. Where violent revolutions actually work these days the revolutionaries have access to military weapons one way or another, at least RPGs and usually armored vehicles and artillery as well. So privately owned guns are totally useless for changing governments here and everywhere else in the current day.

But putting that aside, you agreed I was right with respect to the US, which is after all what we are talking about. The fears of the founding fathers are neither here nor there. They are all dead, and they wouldn’t recognize either the world in which we live or the changes to the Constitution we have made over time. And Jefferson at least would have regarded that as a good thing, because he thought the whole document should be scrapped every generation or two and done over from scratch.

[ElGuapo]

I’m curious, the argument batting around with my conservative friends is that guns stop more crime, save more lives, and prevent more shootings than the mass shootings kill people. They also claim states where there are liberal CCW laws have crime drops that are correlated to the number of CCW holders. No one can quote any source or stats on that though. It seems like an emotional argument to me but I’d love some numbers. The best I’ve been able to find are news stories about isolated incidents (woman shoots intruder in Texas) but no aggregate numbers. Can’t find any!

[TheWombat]

Um, yeah, I don’t think you can find many–or any–revolutions carried out by people armed primarily with weapons they had at home. Seizing the armories or barracks or ordnance depots, getting the army on your side, flipping the police–this is what revolutionaries do to acquire the coercive apparatus of the state.

And how do they get motivated to do so? Speech, mostly.

[RichVR]

Are you be facitious? Historically the number of governments toppled by guns and other weapons exceeds those topple by speech and the ballot box by many times. You are right about the US, but we are an historic anomally and the founding fathers were clearly worried about tryants taking over.

For the most part, the tyrants have already taken over. But they aren’t necessarily the politicians. They are people like the Koch brothers. And using guns to take them down isn’t legal. And their political puppets are not legitimate targets either. That dichotomy, that separation, actually circumvents the 2nd Amendment rather well.

[ShivaX]

I’m curious, the argument batting around with my conservative friends is that guns stop more crime, save more lives, and prevent more shootings than the mass shootings kill people. They also claim states where there are liberal CCW laws have crime drops that are correlated to the number of CCW holders. No one can quote any source or stats on that though. It seems like an emotional argument to me but I’d love some numbers. The best I’ve been able to find are news stories about isolated incidents (woman shoots intruder in Texas) but no aggregate numbers. Can’t find any!

Because it’s illegal for the government to collect those numbers.

[ElGuapo]

What ever does that mean? Illegal to collect metrics? I don’t buy that for a second.

[ShivaX]

The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets

[RichVR]

What ever does that mean? Illegal to collect metrics? I don’t buy that for a second.

Not so much illegal as not allowed.

The CDC isn’t allowed to pursue many kinds of gun research due to the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association.

[Murbella]

The best government money can buy.

[Miramon]

It’s generally claimed that private gun possession causes far more accidental deaths and domestic violence deaths than home invasions and criminal attacks that are stopped. I believe the claim, but of course with no proper national data there is no way to demonstrate the truth of falsity.

[Fishbreath]

If you believe that’s the prevailing claim, you’re either arguing in bad faith or poorly read.

Edit: the smallest credible estimate for defensive gun uses per year is the NCVS’s 100k. (Remember that the gun need not be fired to count.) There are five times fewer accidental shootings, both fatal and non-fatal, per year, per the CDC.

[inactive_user]

Wait, so five times more incidents get prevented by Captain Awesome coming strapped with his CCW than people get murdered by the overwhelming ubiquiosity of firearms in the United States? Tell me more!