The Glade 4.0

My theory on gun control is kind of this:

Its about power. A gun grants power. Power to defend. Power to kill. The power itself is neutral, subject to the person who wields it.

Gun control advocates are more concerned about allowing people to have that power without some sense of trust. (I have no problem with, and in fact, actively encouraged my wife to pursue her CCL) But I trust her with power. But I don't trust just anyone with power, and suspect that power corrupts.

Anti-gun control parties generally seem to take the view that the power is out there, and they want a piece of it too.

Exactly. The power is out there and you can't put the gunpowder genie back in the proverbial bottle. And even if you could, it wouldn't diminish the desires of sinful people to harm one another.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The idea that some people think they are entitled to say who can exercise their Constitutional Rights, and to what extent, repulses me. Gun control advocates use their fear in an attempt to limit or remove those rights for others, but in many cases, have no problem exercising those very rights for their own benefit. Gun rights advocates, on the other hand, attempt to protect those rights for all.



I believe it is a city ordinance. That theater gives as many free tickets as members of the police want due to the type of people who congregate at that theater. My neighbor, an Aurora SWAT member, refuses to go there with his family for that same reason.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

It's not really possible to address magazine capacity from a purely practical standpoint.

For one thing, higher-capacity magazines are unweildy and unreliable, and more ammunition does not necessarily equate to a higher body count in the first place. There's a reason that belt-fed is used for actual crew-served weapons that need very high capacities; it is much more reliable than big drums.

Second, a spree shooting is a spree shooting. Some end with few or no casualties, some with a great many. Either way, it's a spree shooting, and some people are still going to get killed every year from them, at which point we will hear about how still more restrictions are needed because spree shootings are rare enough in the first place that we don't have good data to establish what factors in the spree shooting most affect the number of casualties. In fact, that speaks to the heart of the problem with your proposal and gun control in general; the magazine limitation and every other gun restriction are advocated based on the intuitive idea that fewr guns or fewer bullets = less dead people. This is the "solution looking for a problem" thing; the goal is controlling guns because it is assumed it will work rather than looking at the problem as a whole.

This is where the practical objections are inextricably meshed with the legal/Constitutional: Spree shootings are spectacular news stories, but they simply are not a pressing social problem, nor a major cause of death to Americans, and unlike matters of external attack where the government has exactly one responsibility: defend the nation and the citizens, in dealing with internal crime the government must defend the rights of citizens against criminals without also trampling upon those same rights in the process of doing so.

Spree shootings, again, are news because they are spectacular, and people frequently confuse the spectacular nature of anecdotal events with the overall severity of the actual problem. Perhaps you remember my post about the 9 dead aliens after someone tried to flee the Border Patrol with a minivan full of them. That death toll could easily have come from a shooting spree as well, but the accident I was at merits nowhere near the national media attention of a shooting spree with a similar death toll. Why? Partly because the driver did not actually intend to slaughter his passangers, but also partly because people accept traffic deaths as par for the course, where gun deaths are treated as extreme and outrageous.

You're equally dead either way. The fact of the matter is that the best solution would probably be that the public demand that the media stop sensationalizing shooting sprees, and thus, deranged people would not have the incentive of knowing that their anger, pain, or plea for attention will be broadcast breathlessly to the entire nation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Alright. See, I'm kinda for the whole "This is my business and I'm kindly asking you to secure/check/leave your gun at home." perogative. Personal choice and if you don't like you can shop somewhere else. Not saying its a smart decision, especially based on what you say, but one they should be free to make.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I agree, I can see the argument that each individual business, even localities, should be able to make such decisions. It's just sad that it's being made out of ignorance and fear.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You must hate libel laws then.

If only certain people were allowed to publish malicious lies because someone "trusts" them and others weren't because someone "fears" them, you bet I'd hate libel laws. As it stands, not so much.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

This

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

You missed my point. Free speech is a constitutional right, yet you are ok with laws that restrict it in some way. Your position on the 2nd Amendment is not consistent apparently.

Your point is abundantly clear. You wish to make a gotcha point by bringing up libel and implying that I support the limitation of some rights but not others. I believe that you are somewhat confused as to what I believe, as well as the point at which rights begin and end. As the saying goes, "Your rights end where my nose begins". That isn't someone limiting another's rights, especially because of trust issues and fear, that is the natural rights of one person having the same weight as the natural rights as another person. I was under the impression that this was pretty obvious.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Hmmm, this is interesting. If we're willing to limit or restrict our rights to prevent these tragedies, why restrict it to only our right to own guns and ammo?

I think we could find much more effective solutions in restricting something like freedom of speech. Make it illegal to broadcast the name or photo of the perpetrator of mass shootings. Put time restrictions on how long the media can cover such stories. This would be much more effective at preventing these tragedies than gun control.

If all people really care about is preventing shooting sprees from happening, they should at least be open to this kind or argument. I can understand if they weighed both and determined that free speech is too important to restrict but gun control isn't... but I don't think that's happening. Free speech isn't even on the negotiating table, not in the US at least. I haven't heard any restrictions on it even considered in the aftermath of this shooting.

And for all the "Why do law abiding citizens need assault rifles?" arguments that I hear... well, why does the media need to broadcast detailed information on the perpetrators or these crimes? Why do they need to print a huge portrait of the killer on the front page of every newspaper? What good is that doing for society?

I am confused on what you believe as your comments prior in this thread don't seem to be consistent what you've just posted. In particular I was reacting to this comment of yours.



To me this comes off along the same lines as Elmo saying that anyone should be able to own a nuke, because it's a right. But the reality is that no rights in the Constitution are absolute and all are subject to someone (courts, congress, etc) saying who can exercise those rights and to what extent.

I can understand your confusion, as there are multiple factors that are contributing to and exacerbating it:

1) You are attempting to create a parallel between exercising 1st Amendment rights by committing an abuse against someone (libel), with exercising 2nd Amendment rights by owning a gun. The difference there is rather obvious. A person owning a gun harms no one. A person committing libel harms the person being defamed (as intended).

2) You are ignoring the fact that I explicitly stated that the legitimate exercise of one's rights only extend so far as they don't impede the legitimate exercise of another's.

3) You are mistakenly conflating our duly elected representatives codifying where one person's exercise of their rights infringes on another's, with private citizens thinking they are entitled to say who can exercise their rights and to what extent. In the case of libel, our representatives have codified where one person's speech is deliberately causing harm to another. You have the right to be free from malicious false attacks, you do not have the right to be free from someone purchasing a gun.

4) You are deliberately taking one sentence out of context and attempting to create a conflict where none exists.

It would be more conducive to ask, seeking clarification, about things that cause you confusion rather than making declamatory statements, that come off as an attempt at snark; if you are interested in clearing up what confusion you may have.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Yeah, except I'm not. I'm discussing the fact that all rights have limits on them, and some of those limits are dictated by our laws.



Nope, not ignoring that, I'm just not commenting on it specifically because I think we both agree that it falls under the title of "no ****".



I'm curious how you think that laws begin? Or how our government works. I seem to recall something about "of the people, for the people and by the people". Point being that laws are created because there is need (real or imagined) by the people and they work through their elected representatives to make it happen.

It should also be noted that there is no right in the Constitution to be free from malicious false attacks. Your perception of that right comes from the fact that our government decided to limit the 1st Amendment.



Perhaps, but there really isn't much context to take your sentence out of. The rest is just the usual gun advocate diatribe that they are for freedom and gun control people are evil.



My entire point is that all rights have boundaries. Some of those are the obvious yours end where mine begins, but there are others that are placed in different places by our society.



A fair point. I get frustrated with the "but it's the 2nd Amendment" argument because it gets held up as a sacred cow and a cursory review of all the other rights in the Constitution and comparing them to our legal system will show that EVERY Amendment has limitations put on them, based on centuries of society tweaking the laws to what we thought was "right".

Now, you can absolutely argue your case that you think such a ruling like limits on magazine size is stupid, wrong, misguided or otherwise. (Like I have done, I might add) But coming out with some blanket appeal to the 2nd Amendment is more or less the equivalent to pulling a Godwin's as far as I'm concerned.

All that said, you do a better job than most at least trying to understand the opposing viewpoint and you deserve better. I'll endeavor to remember that in the future.

Isn't that the motto of this forum?

Maybe Latin-ing it up would make it classier.

Te sunt industria accipiens unum sententiam de context conati creare certamine ubi nemo est.

Khross, direct any complaints to Google Translate, not me.

Libel is a limit on Free Speech the same way murdering someone is a limit on the 2nd Amendment.

It's really not relevant to gun ownership.

Free Speech is a right. Gun ownership is a right. You are prohibited from using both rights to harm others.

A more apt comparison to limiting gun ownership to protect people from being shot is outlawing talking about other people in order to protect them from libel.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Dammit Kaffis, DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS !!

SHUSH!!

I like the Chris Rock position on the issue:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vf0V1yhPTU

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

...

But, it's so much fun to blame you for not knowing your Latin!

_________________

Ha-HA! Called it!

I can still blame you for not knowing your Latin, because you don't! But I can't pick on you for using the most convenient source available to you.

_________________

All of my schooling is from Alabama. 'Tis a slight miracle that I know English.

I'm not sure if I should break your brain now, or let the response to your post fester until you ask me what's so amusing while I smirk knowingly at you, good sir.

_________________

Heh