USA Politics

CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I still don't see any moral argument being put forward as to why you need to own a gun. Continually quoting your constitution is not a valid argument. As for gangs & guns: when I see reports on the news about mass killings in the US they don't seem to have anything to do with gangs or "criminals" --the perpetrators seem to be young, male, loners. (As they are when these atrocities are carried in other parts of the world too e.g. Norway, Scotland, etc.)

Simple question: forget the constitution --why do you need to own a gun?
Click to expand...
Quoting the Constitution is a valid argument, all laws in the country are based on that document. The mass shooting are generally not gang related, but in terms of the number of crimes committed with guns, that is mainly gang related activity. Those killings just get a lot less press.

As to why someone would want to own a gun, there could be many reasons (they hunt, they like shooting, they feel it is good for protection, whatever .. it does not matter, people have the right to own one.

I am not a gun owner, but I have no problem with people who legally purchase them because they in the vast majority of cases do not cause any problems.
 
It's in the constitution. They have the right. They "like shooting"! Seriously, those are some dreadfully lame answers. In most countries it's illegal to use & possess Heroin, but legal to buy & drink alcohol. Are these laws not worthy of scrutiny? Is it not worth questioning why there is no scientific basis, in terms of harm, for these laws? Are laws not worthy of scrutiny & questioning?

So you have a constitution; & this constitution says you have "the right" to bear arms. Do you not think this is worthy of scrutiny? (--rather than just trotting it out as if it's God's word.) Do you not ask yourself why other countries don't need this? (Not guns; just the constitutional stuff.) Other countries seem to be able to have guns for hunting but not have the same level of gun violence as the US.

I'm just curious as to why you think it's necessary? Loads of laws (or changes in law) are introduced with the express intention of targeting a small group of the population. You know, the ones that "punish" the ordinary folks; the normal responsible folk. Like minimum pricing of alcohol for example. (Perhaps only relevant to UK readers of this.) But if it's for a greater good is it at least not worth considering? Even if that means, for example, a few more hoops to jump through for those who (getting back to guns) enjoy hunting?

But if you feel there's no problem with guns in the US, fair enough.
 
bearfan said:
I do not think that is accurate.
Click to expand...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

This article is by a pro gun law group, but it is very well sourced:
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

The article you posted doesn't seem to dismiss what I said, either. It specifically discusses the theft of guns from retailers and shippers. It makes no distinction between the two, and I wonder indeed what percentage of guns stolen are from "property crimes" compared to "home burglaries". It singles out gun shops but that doesn't include pawn shops, shipment depots, or anything like that. This article talks about 230,000 guns per year being stolen but makes no mention of how many of those are recovered, whether or not they are used in a crime. If 230,000 guns are stolen but only 100,000 guns are not recovered, it's a pretty big statistical difference.

Statistically, more guns enter the system through gun shows and crooked gun owners than are stolen, and stolen guns are often recovered.

Of course, the ATF has been prohibited from tracing gun origins from 2005-2013 (executive orders recently lifted this restriction) so the data is old and probably flawed. Hopefully we get better data soon, but that still doesn't mean that targeting corrupt gun store owners and corrupt gun shows isn't a worthwhile endeavor. In fact, it makes sense if you're going to come down on the gun-powered gangs to come down on any possible method they get their guns.
 
Targeting people who illegally posses and/or sell guns would certainly be worth everyone's time and that is what they should be focusing one as that will do the most good

.. I think this answer applies to this as well

So you have a constitution; & this constitution says you have "the right" to bear arms. Do you not think this is worthy of scrutiny? (--rather than just trotting it out as if it's God's word.) Do you not ask yourself why other countries don't need this? (Not guns; just the constitutional stuff.) Other countries seem to be able to have guns for hunting but not have the same level of gun violence as the US
Click to expand...

There are laws on the books that limit who can buy guns, how guns have to be sold, a waiting period to buy certain types of guns, etc. There are Federal Laws and State Laws for all of this (obviously the state laws vary from state to state). But if those laws are not enforced I am not really seeing the point of passing new ones that will not be enforced either and solve a rather minimal problem. This is just a group of politicians want to make it look like they are doing something and show they care about the children.
 
For all of Obama's blustering .. his budget proposal for 2013 in the Justice Department

The ATF, which has been battered this year with allegations of “gunwalking” to Mexico in a botched firearms operation out of its Phoenix division, would have its funding cut by $12 million. ATF officials and agents have long complained about a lack of resources.
Click to expand...

But more money would be fine for ....

Justice Department officials cite “an alarming rise in intellectual property crimes” as the reason behind $40 million devoted to identifying and defeating intellectual property criminals, an increase of $5 million over the 2012 budget. Federal officials have already shut down 350 Web sites engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works, such as the recent shutdown of the popular Megaupload Web site.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...funding-boost/2012/02/13/gIQArUiCBR_blog.html
 
Individual laws are one thing, but I wasn't (mainly) asking you this. Your own comments on the constitutional right of people to own (& presumably use) firearms was what I was questioning. You stated "[...] whatever .. it does not matter, people have the right to own one." You state this is as if it is unchallengeable. The constitution states this, therefore it must be obeyed/upheld. This is what I was asking you about. I'm simply curious. In the UK (& Europe) people don't hold this view.
 
It looks like he finds the constitution more important than changing the current situation (easy weapon access, also for instable people).
 
That is my point it is a Constitutional Right, same as freedom of the press, separation of Church/State, etc. The Constitution can be changed, but there is not the will in this country to do it. The Supreme Court has allowed for some restrictions of this right (for example, I cannot own a bazooka or a tank and have to have a waiting period to buy a gun). There are many reasons why people would want to own a weapon, I am not sure all of the reasons ... I do not own one my self and really have no desire to own one. But so long as people legally purchase guns, I do not think there is an issue. The majority of injuries caused by guns are from people who illegally have them. So, not all people have a right to own one (felons for example) and those that do have to jump through some hoops to buy one.
 
Forostar said:
It looks like he finds the constitution more important than changing the current situation (easy weapon access, also for instable people).
Click to expand...

See my above post, there are limits to who can own guns, the problem is those laws are not enforced and the bill proposed would not have done anything to prevent the recent shootings in CO or CT. But yes, I find the constitution most important because it lays out the fundamental rights that citizens enjoy in this country that are above common laws and is intentionally designed not to be changed at a whim based on current events. It protects gun owners, it protects the press, it protects freedom of speech, the right to vote, and on and on.

You may not like this right, but I suspect that if some events happened that made a large group of people think we should reduce the ability of the press to print the news/censor the internet, a group of people should not be able to vote, etc you would not be so supportive because "a lot of people agree"
 
Forostar said:
Why do you think screening does not help?
Click to expand...

What's actually relevant isn't whether or not you think it helps, bearfan, but why would it not be constitutional to have a background check? Rights have reasonable restrictions - all of them. Speech does, assembly does, the press has tons and tons of restrictions. As we saw with the Boston terrorist, so does Miranda rights, lots and lots of rights have restrictions.
 
A few things, first of all, there is screening already. Federal law is

License gun dealers must check each person who tries to buy a firearm through the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). On average, only about one percent of firearms transfers are denied by the NICS system, mainly because most convicted criminals already know they are not eligible to own a gun
Click to expand...
http://crime.about.com/od/guns/a/Reasons-You-Can-Be-Denied-A-Firearm-Transfer.htm

This goes really to the point that people who are criminals are not going to go through legal channels to buy a gun to begin with and that a better focus would be to make efforts to stop illegal guns that cause the vast majority of gun deaths in this country.

It is already illegal for people to buy guns if they meet any of these conditions
    • Convicted of a felony. Convicted in any court of a crime which in punishable by a term of more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years.

    • Indicted for a crime punishable by more than one year.


    • A user of illegal drugs or an addict.

    • Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

    • An illegal alien.

    • Dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.

    • Renounced your U.S. citizenship.

    • Subject to a restraining order for threatening a family member.

  • Convicted of domestic violence.

Various states have more restrictive laws, though some of the more strict (like outright bans) have been overturned by the court.

Whenever this comes up, people trot out the "US has more gun deaths by far than other Western Countries chart". I have not found one, but I would like to see a breakdown of crimes/deaths with legal guns versus illegal guns. I am pretty sure it would show that illegal guns represent the majority. No one would have an issue with a crackdown on illegal guns and it would not violate the 2nd amendment

This issue came up again from the two recent shootings. Neither of those would have been prevented by these screenings.

These laws and screenings already cover all licensed dealers, I am not sure it is realistic to have private owners to submit background checks.

If Obama really wanted to do anything about this, he could divert resources in the ATF and states could focus resources on tackling the problem of people that have guns that should not have them.
 
LooseCannon said:
What's actually relevant isn't whether or not you think it helps, bearfan, but why would it not be constitutional to have a background check? Rights have reasonable restrictions - all of them. Speech does, assembly does, the press has tons and tons of restrictions. As we saw with the Boston terrorist, so does Miranda rights, lots and lots of rights have restrictions.
Click to expand...


I think background checks are constitutional, they have already been ruled so. My argument is that the proposed bill would have done little if anything to prevent the gun issue in the US. It was a "let's feel good about ourselves because we did something" effort.

There are also some issue when you bump up against other rights. Take the mentally ill, there are numerous laws (constitutionally backed by right to privacy Supreme Court decisions) that cause problems putting people in a registry if they are mentally ill but have not been convicted or a doctor has not said that the patient is of imminent threat .. and that does not address the issue that they could do the same thing criminals do and buy a gun on the street.
 
I have actually looked for those numbers as well - I would love to see them too, because it would be good public policy, and they should target appropriately. Whatever the outcome, I respect reality. I think that suicides and injuries should also be included in that number check too, because that's just as important to pushing the policy discussion. However, legal gun crimes still occur, and we should take pains to stop those as well. I believe the extended background checks may help in a small percentage of cases, so why not? Especially if they have the same time spent with a regular gun owner in the shop and aren't inconvenienced.

I guess what I want to see are smart restrictions - but I definitely want them coupled with more money for ATF and changes to the way illegal guns are handled. But hey, that would make sense.

For reference, white collar crime is very damaging to the economy, and I also support increases there. But try convincing Congress that the place where the most money exists to be cut is the military. Won't happen.
 
I am not sure how valuable suicide rates are ... there are plenty of ways to do that if someone really wants to. That would be like someone killing themselves in the garage with the motor running as vehicular manslaughter.
 
You're still (both) avoiding the question of why it is necessary or beneficial to own or use a firearm. Your constitution is a practical reality of why things might not be able to change (as you both discuss) --it is not an explanation of why you personally believe you (or any other American) have an innate right to possess & use firearms. Firearms are weapons. Why do you defend a piece of paper which says you can have one?

In the UK the law says a Catholic cannot succeed to the throne. People find this unacceptable. The mechanics of changing law obviously allow for the argument that it's too complicated (or time consuming) to remedy this; and, perhaps, that it's not of pressing importance right now. However, it would be totally unacceptable for your counter argument (to changing this historical bigotry) to simply be "but the law says so". This is essentially the only argument you (bearfan) have so far put forward in defending your stance on gun ownership.

You keep talking about illegal & legal gun ownership; why not zero gun ownership? This is ideally, or in principal; I'm not suggesting this is practical or possible.
 
Becuase zero gun ownership is not ideal. The question of legal versus illegal is very important for a few reasons. 1) it shows the constitution is flexible enough to place some restrictions on ownership 2) The fact that some guns are misused should not be an excuse to ban all guns. People abuse painkillers, but they should not be banned. 3) There would be incredibly minimal support in this country for an outright ban on guns even if the constitution was not an issue.
 
I can see valid reasons to own guns in many areas of the USA. Besides, deal with reality. Anyway, the right to bear arms is a British common law tradition. British philosopher John Locke said it was an inalienable right.

Cried, the US Constitution is the core governing document of the nation. They defend the living shit out of it. It is also one of the most important things ever written, up there with the Magna Carta, the US Declaration of Independence, and the various holy books. It changed everything, and the fact that it isn't immutable is incredible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top