It is Never "The Time" to Talk About Gun Control

[Tom Servo]

Should an 18 year old be able to walk in and buy an AR-15 as they would a hunting rifle or hunting shotgun?

Why not? If they're not competent to own a rifle, they're not competent to vote, graduate high school, or join the military. Until such a determination is made, why should we place arbitrary limits on the type of guns they buy?

I don't know how many folks are aware of this, but the AR-15 IS used as a hunting rifle, particularly when dealing with coyotes and wild pigs.

They can't buy a handgun or handgun ammo

That's only because of an arbitrary classification, driven by racism and an effort to paint handguns as being less worthy of constitutional protection.

As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands.

The number of guns available has been increasing for two centuries. These mass shootings are a recent phenomenon, which are not tied to any increase in effectiveness or lethality, and I've seen nothing to correlate the recent booms in gun sales with mass shootings. If there was some causal relation between number of guns in circulation and school shootings, then we'd be seeing a much higher incidence of the latter than we are.

I can see AR-15s and AK-47s being added to the NFA list and the FOPA list

And Mini-14's, M1 carbines, pistols with threaded barrels, 10/22 rifles with collapsible stocks, and pretty much anything they can get covered under the next AWB. No thanks. That's a slippery slope.

the next mass shooting could be one of us or one of our loved ones.

So could the next bombing, the next attack with a truck, a freak lightning strike, or pandemic. I'll take reasonable precautions to protect my safety and that of my family, but I'm not going to accept all sorts of legal restrictions founded on mights and maybes.

 

[LogicMan]

LM, I think you are on very solid ground except for the bolded above. One can't really stop anyone from discussing a matter. All one can really do is meet the substance of the conversation fairly. That's particularly challenging where opponents use emotionally laden human shields to dissuade opposition.

Yes, I don't mean that anyone should be prevented, I just mean that in our general society, we do not discuss seriously restricting the other rights for the most part. It is never considered as part of the discussion in dealing with crime and terrorism. Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms should be considered just as off-limits.

 

[LogicMan]

Free speech is restricted. You cannot yell fire in a movie theater. Do it, and you will be arrested. Threaten the president, you will be arrested. Just as free speech has limits so does everything else. Gun control is no different than speech control...

No it isn't. If speech was regulated the way they want to regulate guns, and actually do regulate guns in certain states and jurisdictions, the courts would strike it down faster than you can bat an eye. Speech is for the most part completely free, minus a few exceptions here and there. Guns, on the other hand, they want to restrict heavily, making them only available here and there in a very limited capacity.

Thus the two are totally different. The example you use itself breaks down on analysis: Yes, you can't cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. So do we tape people's mouths shut when they enter a theater? You also can't shoot people in a theater either. So if people's mouths aren't taped, why should they be disarmed?

 

[LogicMan]

Another concern is the number of cheap AR-15s on the market. As the number of available guns are available, the greater the chance the can get into the wrong hands. Should AR-15s and AK-47s be treated like a hunting rifle, or should there be more restrictions? I can see AR-15s and AK-47s being added to the NFA list and the FOPA list. Why are NFA weapons so rarely used in crimes? I believe it is because of required registration, required safe storage, and relative rarity.

I know it would take a while before these changes have an effect, but the next mass shooting could be one of us or one of our loved ones. Do we say they should have had more guns?

If a loved one was shot, I would not call for AR-15s or AK-47s to be banned. And adding them to the NFA and/or FOPA list? All that would lead to is then calling for, as has been pointed out above, the M1 Carbines, M14s,/M1As, Min-14s, etc...to be outlawed as well. Then when those are outlawed, and someone does a mass shooting like the Texas Clock Tower massacre which was done with a bolt-action rifle or the Washington Navy Yard which used a shotgun, we'd here cries to ban or restrict access to those weapons. No thanks.

Furthermore, given that AR-15s and AK-47s are very customizable and designed as Everyperson's weapons, and basic infantry weapons, they are the epitome of the types of weapons that the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from being able to ban in any capacity.

You mention that NFA weapons are rarely used in crimes. Well neither are AR-15s and AK-47s. Aside from mass shootings, which are a very recent phenomenon, AR-15s and AK-47s are virtually never used in crimes.

 

[5whiskey]

How long ago were you in school? Its been a while for me, but I can certainly think of a few teachers I certainly would not want armed. How motivated would they be to train and how secure would they keep their weapons? How many accidental shootings would occur? What about teachers who don't train frequently? How much collateral damage would we see?

I don't think anyone would vote for, support, propose, or author a bill that mandates that all teachers carry. So the " few teachers I certainly would not want armed" would not be armed. Some propose advanced training, some propose no additional training to a typical CCH class. I personally would like to see some training, and a yearly in-service and qualification, for the very reason you state. No SWAT Ninja training, just a basic LEO type qualification (which is not extensive by any stretch of the imagination). Let a professional firearms instructor view their firearm handling skills, and the "few teachers I certainly would not want armed" will definitely not be. Problem solved.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

All the Constitution and Bill of Rights does is recognize, in writing, in an official document, God-given Rights each and every human being is naturally endowed with by God.

The actually use of the deity is not that useful. The basic point is that certain rights are thought to be inherent in a decent society.

The Constitution did not recognized initially the rights of African slaves or women. In fact many evoked God as a rationale for these groups having restricted rights.

It is better to argue that rights are inherent for reasons that make society decent and function well. Just using the "God" cliche has little power if you are actually evoking a deity.

If Wayne LaP. says you have right to have an AR because of God, contrast that with a young woman who took two rounds and has a face torn up by gun fire. She says: I have a God given right not to be massacred in school as I sit there as a child.

I know this will offend some but the quote is a choir argument and only for a subset of the choir. It may get contributions but won't change opinions.

Our view of rights has changed over time despite various theological views. I can find quotes from senators way back when fighting for laws against miscegenation as God's will.

 

[zukiphile]

The locution that a rightis "God-given" is not an invocation of a deity as an authority for the right.

Instead, it speaks to the right being a quality with which the individual is endowed. To attribute that endowment to the creator of the individual is not a prominently theological assertion. You and I may argue that the right to arms inheres in individual and sidestep the issue of why a person would be created with that trait, but the assertion that the trait is inherent is no less a metaphysical assertion that the assertion that an individual has a creator.

It is better to argue that rights are inherent for reasons that make society decent and function well.

It is even better to disentangle two distinct arguments before leaning them up against one another.

There is social utility in widespread arms ownership. There need not be any inherent right in order for that social utility to exist.

On the other hand, if we are endowed with these rights, i.e. they are inherent, we have them even in the absence of any social utility whatsoever. In fact, we have them even when they do a great deal of damage to the society. If a group of odious people had actually followed through on their permit to march through Skokie, the results certainly would have been painful and ugly and quite likely divisive. Yet, they had a right to do it.

Both arguments can also be true and complementary. There can be social utility in protecting the expression of the traits with which we are naturally endowed, and a society that functions best will recognize that.

 

[Don P]

It is talked about after a shooting like what has just happened because it fits the lefts agenda. Its always on their agenda. They keep a lid on it until a mass shooting happens and then they rip the lid off and let the narrative run wild. Here is something to ponder. The infamous Senator Dianne Feinstein is NOT FAR ENOUGH LEFT so the California democrats will not endorse her. Strange tides in politics.

 

[Tom Servo]

Guys, just a reminder of this subforum's rules: let's stay away from partisan right/left liberal/conservative discussion.