Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spoiler as long quote train.

 Vash108 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies for bringing the 2nd into the debate, but IMO, it's OT.

We all know the well regulated militia part of the 2nd, so here's my question for American dakka members:

how much training do you have to have before being a gun owner? Obviously it would vary from state to state, but is there mandatory training for gun ownership, especially concealed permit?

By training I also include knowledge of firearm laws in your part of the USA. Is that included in the training?

It seems like some gun owners don't know what SYG is IMO, so perhaps that should be included in the future, and would adhere to the well regulated militia section of the 2nd.

To gain a car licence you need some knowledge of road signs and theory, so it would not be unreasonable to expect gun owners to know gun laws in their state.

I own guns myself and wholeheartedly think there should be a test and courses you must have to gain a license to own a gun, just like you would car.

You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

*One of the terms of Mexico's relinquishment of Texas and enshrined in the Texas Bill of Rights.

IMO that is an idiotic stance to take when we are just handing out guns to just about anyone and everyone. I still don't see how someone could be pro-life but so pro-gun to anyone and especially those with mental issues.

What is an idiotic stance to take? This is pretty basic.

The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.



*And presciently the Right to Boogie. Look up Section 27 of Article Two under "the Rights of the People to Get Down and Get Jiggy With It Shall Not Be Infringed, " its written in the margin of the original version and is in actuality the only right actually noted in the original Constitution. Some scholars say that was a just a joke written in Ben Franklin, but those people are lame and have never danced in their lives because they just can't keep a beat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

I'd love a Beretta Storm carbine myself.

 Frazzled wrote:

The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.

Lets be a little fair here though Frazz, at the time of writing the constitution the idea of a car wasn't even conceived. Does the constitution really hold up when you compare the technology between then and now?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The Rights of the People are innumerable, however certain key ones were specifically noted in the Bill of Rights.
The right to a car is not one of those enumerated rights. While the system was originally done as only granting specific powers to the Federal Government, with FDR and the ACW that has effectively fallen away, such that any right not specifically enumerated is no longer really a right (privacy, right to play Space Invaders, right to a car). However the Right to Bear Arms* was specifically enumerated.

Lets be a little fair here though Frazz, at the time of writing the constitution the idea of a car wasn't even conceived. Does the constitution really hold up when you compare the technology between then and now?

Cheers

Andrew

As I noted, the actual constitution took that into account.
Originally, the Fed only had the powers specifically noted in the Constitution, all other rights and duties were at the state level and not to be infringed. Later (thanks Lincoln ) it became defacto that Government has all the rights not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights. Don't blame me, my guys fought against the Evil War of Northern Aggression.

Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.

If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.

 sebster wrote:
As I've said a bunch of times before, Americans are free to have whatever gun laws they want. But you just need to be honest about what gun proliferation does. The reality is that in all societies at all times there are events that escalate, from a breach of manners up to threats of violence or even in to violence. When one or more parties in those situations have deadly weapons then there's a greater chance of the situation ending with lethal force. It's pretty hard to see how a squabble between two guys in a movie theatre is going to result in a death when both parties are armed with nothing more deadly than Junior Mints.

This is not the only reason the US has a higher murder rate than other developed countries, but it is a significant part of the reason. This is just a basic part of the price of having a lot of guns in society.

Again, this doesn't mean the answer is that guns must be banned. The deaths from alcohol are way higher, but that doesn't mean alcohol is wrong, it certainly doesn't mean alcohol should be banned or even more restricted. It is possible to accept that there is a cost associated with a product, and still think the benefits outweigh the costs, or even if that isn't true, that banning or restricting won't minimise the costs.

My only point in all these gun threads is that people should just start being honest that there is a cost.

I don't think people shy away from honestly admitting that we're ok with the cost of our freedom and our "gun culture." There are aspects of freedom that are terrifying, dangerous and messy but that doesn't outweigh the benefits of guaranteeing people their right to make their own choices and accept the responsibility of firearm ownership. The vast majority of gun owners take that responsibility seriously and a relative handful of bad actors isn't a good enough reason to take that freedom away. Two things always happen after a mass shooting in the US, a heated debate over gun control and a spike in gun sales. Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

And there is only Americans to hold those values. Every one else in the world disagree.
(In the far future Communist America, Private Property is abolished… except for GUNS GUNS GUNS!)

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.

I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.

Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?

I forget no one uses hyperbole to describe anything ever at any time on these threads.

But I digress.

Just because you can't afford your dream gun doesn't stop you from going out an purchasing one dirt cheap from a gun show with minimal effort.

If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.

Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?

Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.

 Vash108 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Please tell me where guns are being handed out to anyone and everyone, I'm on the lookout for a new 1911 and AK and the budget is a bit tight this year.

1911 is a $900 gun, i know because I own a Kimber. There are many guns that are less than half that cost. Gun shows and all.

I'm well aware, but you seemed to know of a place that was giving them away to anyone that wanted one.

Or was that just hyperbole to push the idea of licensing?

I forget no one uses hyperbole to describe anything ever at any time on these threads.

But I digress.

Just because you can't afford your dream gun doesn't stop you from going out an purchasing one dirt cheap from a gun show with minimal effort.

If someone wanted to get a gun today within a short span of time they could. Even if you live in one of the so-called tighter restrictions states. What is to stop you from getting one from a "friend" the next state over, which is usually sometimes an hour or less drive. The accountability is low. For all the people who seem to say they give a rats gak about human life you seem to just hand wave that accountability with it comes to firearms.

I wouldn't ask a friend of mine to commit a federal felony and straw purchase a gun for me. The accountability for firearms is the same for anything else, if you choose to commit it crime involving firearms or using firearms then you run the risk of prosecution, prison sentences or even execution. Same as if I commit crimes with any other property I own.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document.
I'm confused, should we not live by a set of laws? Do you not have laws there or are you too busy running from the native flora and funa (Codex..Australia)?

I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.

Right. There is a methodology to changing it, and it has been frequently changed. Whats cool is literally none of that has anything to do with this incident, SYG, or self defense.

If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.

Sure.
*Its a fundamental right of all sentient species to self defense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

And there is only Americans to hold those values. Every one else in the world disagree.
(In the far future Communist America, Private Property is abolished… except for GUNS GUNS GUNS!)

Thats because you're subjects, not citizens. Everyone else in the world can suck our FREEDOM.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.

Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?

Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.

Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.

Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?

Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.

Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.

If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.

The same reasoning holds true today as it did over 2 centuries ago, nobody has to own a gun but the freedom for law abiding citizens to do so is protected. In the last 230 years we haven't found a compelling reason to take away that freedom so we haven't.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.

If you are in a room full of smokers who are all smoking, does it matter if you choose to abstain? Their smoke still impacts you right?

I choose to abstain from owning and carrying a firearm with me. However, I have no idea if the people around me have made the same choice, so I by default have to follow this new "culture" of firearms even if I myself would prefer to not have it in the first place. Therefore, all these other guns around still impacts me a lot. Where does my "choice" have meaning?

I honestly have no idea as I am now getting too far into the deep-end and I need to get back to the kiddie pool before I drown.

Irrelevant. We have open borders which you advocate for, which are a nice pipeline for illegal firearms, up to and including crew served weapons.

How's Chicago's killings going this year?

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm confused, should we not live by a set of laws?

I'm pretty sure you should discuss if the set of laws is right (and how you should change it if it isn't) rather than just stop at “This was the law chosen 230 years ago so this is the end of the discussion”.

 Frazzled wrote:
*Its a fundamental right of all sentient species to self defense.

How so? How does that require guns? How does that not require cars? You can defend yourself with a car in certain situations. You can't defend yourself with a gun in certain situations.

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats because you're subjects, not citizens. Everyone else in the world can suck our FREEDOM.

I can never tell when you are joking and when you are not. I'm beginning to guess sometimes you voluntarily blur the line so you can say what you really think and then flip-flop to “It was a joke” because despite actually believing it, you told it with a joking tone.


But you have the Electoral College (and Trump), while Switzerland has Popular Initiative. I rest my case .

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.

Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?

Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.

Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.

Swedes are from Sweden. The Swiss are from Switzerland.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.

We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.

Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.

So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.

I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain.

That's a fallacy. They can not buy gun, but they can't not have lunatic crazy old ex-cop gunning them done in a movie theater because of pop-corn. Hence why they want to change this culture. And you know all this, and are being disingenuous.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership

That's not what I am mocking. Else I would be mocking Switzerland on this too! What I am “mocking” is how the US has this huge extremely toxic debate on gun ownership. Switzerland regularly has (kinda) healthy debates on gun ownership, I respect that. The US doesn't have anything healthy. Your own post is testament to this…

 Frazzled wrote:
Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.

I have no idea why you are throwing Swedes into the mix. And last time we spoke about scientific accomplishments you said you were putting me on ignore (which you apparently didn't do). Why bring that particular subject up again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Swedes are from Sweden. The Swiss are from Switzerland.

Are you freaking serious? Is that really why he spoke about Swedes?
I'm going to assume typo because it's better like this…

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Fraz, you're kind of pointing out why the rest of the world tends to think Americans are a bit.... odd... with their gun fascination. Instead of a real discussion about gun ownership vs car ownership you just point to a 230 year old document. I'm not going to say that 230 year old document is right or wrong, but just pointing to isn't really addressing the discussion of how things might be, it's simply stating the reason why it's already that way.... because of the 230 year old document said so.

If, instead, you used arguments that pointed out why you think guns should have less restriction than cars and how that applies today vs 230 years ago, then the rest of the world would start to view Muricans as less.... odd.

They had horses back then (primary means of transportation).

Why wasn't horse ownership enshrined in the Constitution?

I'll tell you why... this whole 'car ownership' debate is ridiculous.

As for "why' we have the 2nd amendment? An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

Herzlos wrote:
and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.

Which reminds me of the reaction after a few material damage when Milo was prevented from speaking at a university. Apparently you need to overthrow a government you consider unjust, using your guns, but without causing any kind of material damage .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
As for "why' we have the 2nd amendment? An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

Is this a call to go shot Trump in the face? I'm totally taking it as one.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.

It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.

 Easy E wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Anyone residing in the US that doesn't want to participate in the culture of civilian firearm ownership is free to abstain. Nobody has to buy a gun or own one. If you want to make posts mocking our choice to embrace the freedom of civilian firearm ownership you can continue to do so but it's unlikely to have any affect on people who are content with the current culture in the US.

If you are in a room full of smokers who are all smoking, does it matter if you choose to abstain? Their smoke still impacts you right?

I choose to abstain from owning and carrying a firearm with me. However, I have no idea if the people around me have made the same choice, so I by default have to follow this new "culture" of firearms even if I myself would prefer to not have it in the first place. Therefore, all these other guns around still impacts me a lot. Where does my "choice" have meaning?

I honestly have no idea as I am now getting too far into the deep-end and I need to get back to the kiddie pool before I drown.

Maybe your neighbors own guns, maybe they don't. Are you afraid of your neighbors? Are they bad people? Why does it matter if they are gun owners or not? Some of my neighbors are gun owners too, some of my neighbors are very anti gun and most of my neighbors I don't know if they own guns or not. It's not an issue to me. I cherish my freedom to own firearms so I wouldn't want to take that freedom away from other law abiding citizens. If I didn't want to own a gun I wouldn't feel any peer pressure to get one, it's a personal choice. Owning or not owning a gun doesn't change a person's personality.

If we're both in a room and I'm smoking but you're not you still breath in the smoke from my cigarette so we're both negatively impacted. If we're both in a room together and I'm armed and you're not, neither one of us is harmed by me being armed. If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.

Is it really your opinion that if there was no guns involved, someone would have died in OP's movie theater events?
If not then that's how everyone is affected by the ex-cop owning a gun, and carrying it with him, loaded with ammo.

An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.

Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.

Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.

Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.

It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.

In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.

 Frazzled wrote:
You don't have a fundamental right to a car.
Queso yes.*
Firearms yes.
Car no.

By 'fundamental right' you mean by the existing interpretation of the constitution, which is a particularly vague bit of text that has been interpreted very differently in the past. It's funny, because the current interpretation of the constitution gives a fundamental right to abortion, but you don't see pro-gun people talking about that inalienable right.

It's almost as if there's a weird thing that happens in people's heads where interpretations of rights they agree with become fixed in stone forever, while rights they disagree with are things that must be worked on to be overturned.

Herzlos wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.

We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.

Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.

So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.

I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.

Were you planning on murdering children with the shotgun you owned? If not then no children were saved from taking away your right to own that shotgun so what was gained? You hadn't done anything wrong, you weren't a threat to anyone and you lost a right because somebody else with no connection to you committed a heinous crime. I don't see any benefit to that kind of collective punishment that lumps the innocent in with the guilty based on faulty logic. If you do something wrong you can be punished if you don't do anything wrong the govt doesn't have the right to punish you.

And it's not just the US constitution that protects our right to own firearms, most state constitutions also protect that right and many municipal and county authorities are also required to protect that right. It's quite the difficult task to get all of those laws repealed, counteract generations of accepted gun ownership and hundreds of years of social norms all in the name of creating a false sense of security.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.

Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.

Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.

Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.

Nope. I was talking about the leadup and drafting for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Individual right to defend yourself via arms against oppression was very much an important distinction.

Furthermore, I'm NOT saying that firearms is the only way either.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates.

Yeah, it's all those intolerant, bigoted strangers. I'm sure there are no US citizens that have troubles “accepting cultural differences” and that all those debates are only with foreigners.
In the meantime, Switzerland, who is the third country in the world in term of gun ownership, is mocked by no-one for it. Gasp! How comes? Why don't those intolerant, bigoted strangers mock Switzerland too?

Frankly I think you completely misunderstand why the US is so mocked for it's gun fetish. Switzerland has tons of guns, but no gun fetish.

Who cares, Swedes can't surf. We don't mock you for getting on the internet and mocking other countries that went to the moon when yours didn't....ok maybe some of us do.

Swedes are from Sweden. The Swiss are from Switzerland.

Sorry. All you Europeans look alike to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Civilian firearm ownership has been a staple of American society for our entire existence and it's codified into law on the federal, state and local level. It's who we are and who we want to be but for whatever reason other people have difficult accepting that. Instead of accepting cultural differences some people feel the need to shame, mock and insult us for being different so you get heated debates. We're happy with the way we are and don't feel the need to change to be more like country X or whatever and people don't have to like that but they need to accept it.

I think part of the reason that most of the rest of the world can't get their heads around US gun ownership is how much human life is outweighed by a 200 year old document, especially when the reasoning mentioned in that document is essentially obsolete. Admittedly, we only here about the bad shootings in the US, but as a citizen of somewhere that banned guns after a school shooting (and we had a shotgun), and then recently banned high powered air weapons (which we also had), because it seemed a perfectly valid response, I'm about as pro-gun as you get in this country without being regarded as a nutjob. I've done a bit of target shooting and won some competition medals about 20 years ago.

We don't view the rights for civilians to own firearms over the people that keep getting killed by civilians with firearms. We don't generally feel the need to carry or justify that level of force.
The US constitution says something about being part of a well formed Militia, which I don't see these days, and the arsenal (and training level) of your average gun owner is insignificant against the government you're constitutionally bound to prepare to overthrow.

Even in small scale self defense, it seems to have very mixed results.

So I (and my countrymen) just don't get it. I like guns, but I don't feel the need to try and justify anyone carrying one in public.

I can understand people like Afghan farmers owning guns, because they live in potentially wild frontier towns, but your US frontiers went away hundreds of years ago.

Ok. And?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

An armed populace acts as a check against tyranny.

I usually agree with you on a lot of things, whembly, but you're wrong on this, and worst of all, you're forgetting your own nation's history.

Martin Luther King, and others like him such as Rosa Parks, brought down Jim Crow laws, a tyranny against African-Americans, but King didn't use firearms to achieve this goal.

Gandhi gained India's independence from Britain, and the man probably never touched a firearm in his life.

Freedom can and has been won with the gun, but it can be won and has been won without the gun.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Part of the problem, IMO, is that the well of reasoned debate has been poisoned beyond repair by extremists on both sides.

It isn't extremists on both sides. It's extremists on the pro-gun side, and idiots on the anti-gun side. This doesn't make one side or the other better, but the difference does matter a lot when it comes to understanding how it can be resolved.

In my experience, it's a very fine line between extremist and idiot.

Again, and? What does this have to do with the thread?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If we're both in a room together and one of us decides to try to rob or harm the other then we're going to have a dangerous altercation regardless of whether either of us are armed.

Is it really your opinion that if there was no guns involved, someone would have died in OP's movie theater events?
If not then that's how everyone is affected by the ex-cop owning a gun, and carrying it with him, loaded with ammo.

Why are you inventing strawmen?

I stand by my statement, if two people are in a room and one of them decides to try to rob or harm the other then a dangerous altercation will ensue.

Under current Florida law that ex cop was going to have right to carry that gun in a movie theater. If he wasn't armed then obviously he wouldn't have been able to shoot anyone but that's an irrelevant hypothetical. Nobody had the right to prevent the ex cop from carrying if he chose to do so. He did and he also chose to shoot the guy who was texting and got belligerent. The ex cop is now being prosecuted and a trial will determine if he did wrong. That's how our criminal justice system woks, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, everyone gets the benefit of the doubt until they prove that they don't deserve it.