When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...
Started by Recusant, October 02, 2017, 06:58:25 PM
Quote from: Dragonia on October 06, 2017, 03:23:59 AMHere's my 2 cents worth (ok, maybe 15 cents) on this issue: I feel like I don't fit in anywhere on the issue of guns. It seems like such an all-or-nothing issue. I am not a member of the NRA, but I do believe that responsible, sane Americans should be allowed to own weapons. Especially growing up in Alaska, and spending many years of my adult life there, a weapon equals food for your family, and protection for yourself and your family. We would have never gone on our trips into the woods without a gun. We never had to use ours, for protection or signalling, but we knew plenty of people who would have been dead without one. I also support owning a weapon for self-or home-defense. Again, I have known a woman whose shotgun saved her life/health/property (she wasn't sure what the intruder was after, only that he turned and ran when he saw the gun aimed at his head.)These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over. Now, I think it's wise and prudent to outlaw modifications on weapons, silencers, bum stocks (whatever it's called), among other stuff. I don't mind a limit on the number of weapons a person can own. I don't mind a mandatory waiting period before someone can purchase a gun. I support thorough background checks. These beliefs have gotten me sneered at and verbally jumped all over. Some new laws would be a logistical nightmare / witch hunt, trying to enforce the newly passed law, ie. limiting the number of weapons you can own. I have no idea how this would be accomplished and it could be that lawmakers are afraid of the uprising that instituting these laws would cause. I feel like these issues are more complicated and possibly riotous than at first thought. Not saying we shouldn't try. Just saying I don't envy the enforcers.
Quote from: Recusant on October 06, 2017, 04:40:33 AM ....Also, that sort of law would incite the gun zealots, some of whom are all too willing to contemplate living out their "armed patriot" fantasies.
Quote from: Recusant on October 06, 2017, 04:40:33 AMInstead, I'd support a stringent trigger lock and locked secure gunsafe storage law for weapons. I also think it's worth seriously considering making it mandatory for all weapons sold after a certain date to be equipped with smart gun technology.
Quote from: Dave on October 06, 2017, 07:31:06 AMI see your points regarding hunting for food - the only real justification for any kind of hunting in my mind. However I am sorry that there are those who have to rely on "wild food" to survive in a modern, industrial nation. But I would have thought trapping would be a surer method of gaining this anyway.
Quote from: Dave on October 06, 2017, 07:31:06 AMYour prtection point I have heard so often before, it scales al the way up to having enough thermo-nuclear wespons to "protect" yourself by wiping out civilization. There are two reasons for needing such protection, a) because your fellow vitizens are "protecting" themselves against the likes of you, who carry protection against them, and, b) your society is so damaged by mental health problems and disadvantaged members that your life is almost constantly at risk; at home, at work, just out shopping etc. That latter makes your society the equal of those in Honduras, Somalia and other 2nd, 3rd world states.So, the final outcome is, as Father Bruno said, that you have a very sick society, so sick it cannot, in the whole, recognise its own disease. No true insight, no rational balance. "Mutual protection" is just another facet of "mutual paranoia".
Quote from: Davin on October 06, 2017, 03:57:34 PMThere are very loud people that are the all or nothings. And the NRA has been pushing the idea that any gun regulation is or will lead to a complete gun ban.Most people want some common sense gun regulations. I want some studies done, but the NRA has squashed that too with their ban on gun violence research by government agencies. Any gun research that has been don in the last 30 years has been from private sources. We don't have a good idea about what exactly will work in our case, or what is a good direction to take because we've been blinded by the NRA.At the very least, legislation could be put in place that expires in a few years.But something has to be done. There are a few people trying to replicate the Mumford Act nationwide. I'm down with that.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 07, 2017, 02:24:25 AMThe Second Amendment says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Nobody in the government is seriously advocating total abolition of firearms. People in the US will continue to have the right to keep and bear arms. But that does not mean that individuals can own nuclear weapons. There is a limit, and the question is simply where that limit is. There is a middle ground between "no limitations" and "abolition of arms". That's where we need to have the discussion, but that gets lost in the emotional fog.
Quote from: SisterAgatha on October 07, 2017, 08:04:46 PMI wonder if it is any conincidence that the shooting took place in Las Vegas, with all its gambling, prostitutes and alcohol as opposed to some sleepy little town in Iowa or Kentucky, where people go to church every sunday.Not saying it has anything to do with it..just food for thought.
Quote from: Dave on October 07, 2017, 07:16:58 AMYour are saying things that I have long thought, Bruce! I said elsewhere that a training period, in use, safety and maintenance, including ethics, should be mandatory before a permit to buy and own a firearm will be issued. Also much tighter control on the types of weapon available, as you say.But, really, why does a nation like the US need such a militia at all in the 21st century? I know that the Swiss maintain an armed (but officially trained) public because they have been surrounded by historically aggressive neighbours for centuries. In any modern world war, even a conventional one, I feel that resistance movements (the only justifucation for such a militia) in a scenario where any nation invading the US would require massive aerial overkill to come anywhere near success, would be pretty futile - unless they still massively outnumbered the occupying enemy troops and had an almost endless supply stock. I doubt that any such invader would play by the Geneva Convention rules, attacks on their troops would almost certainly incur retaliation against unarmed civilians. After all, it is really the real estate and resources and/or an end to the "American-Way-of-Life", and its perceived threat to their own, that the enemy wants - not millions of dependant and resentful "prisoners" that must be maintained and controlled 24/7. Recent actions seem to indicate that most potential enemies seem to consider some form of mass extermination of the enemy a valid weapon of war and control.Is it possible that this hanging on to an historical, but possibly obsolete, ammendment is really an excuse to justify a national tendency towards violence? Aggression as much as defence? A large part of the early, and possibly later, immigrant "psychotype" was concentrated on those fleeing oppressive or genocidal regimes or seeking to "make their fortune". Justifiably, in some ways, being willing to fight against the chance of recurrence of those experiences or for that ambition became the norm. After a very few generations such might become a national stereotype, an officially accepted policy. But it has stepped out of the debating room and into the physicality of violence so many times.