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.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:

Rifles and shotguns especially....pardon the need to clarify.

And yes..a handgun unless secured properly...is also a "no no" to keep loaded.

This is highly situational - all the states have very different rules on this. From my quick internet searches, in Colorado, for example, it is legal to carry a loaded pistol, but not a loaded rifle in your personal vehicle. In florida, it looks like it is legal to carry a loaded pistol in your personal vehicle, if the weapon is in a console or glovebox or other container.

In California or NY, for instance, carrying loaded guns of any type I think is a BIG no-no. In states like texas or Oklahoma, I imagine it's pretty lax.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Why? Because they made a mistake. A huge mistake.

I think the UN is a useless organization by the way. Largely because they have zero ability to enforce anything. They're the perfect example of what only having words gets you, lots of hot air and no real substance.

To be fair, it was in many respects designed intentionally that way by the Veto power nations, however, ask the Kuwaiti's and South Koreans how effective the UN can be when it wants to be (i.e. when the parties with Veto power dont quash things).

The UN also really does do a whole lot of good that usually never makes it into the news because it's not "flashy", stuff like food supplies, medical stuff and vaccinations, coordination for other organizations, setting up back channels, etc.

 Smacks wrote:


When no one else understands, that's usually a good sign that you're wrong.

given that the US has the 3rd or 4th largest population on the planet, its a pretty significant voice. Also, many other nations dont have governments that would allow people to have such rights because they're a threat to the state's power (and in such nations you may often find things like free speech arent functionally extant either). More fundamentally, we're getting into inherent cultural values and what people view as inherent natural rights will vary, there are certainly some societies where free speech, or protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, are not held to be fundamental rights either.

text removed.


Reds8n

..

Did you really just insult every American in the world?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you really just insult every American in the world?

Assuming I translated his post correctly, it seemed like he was insinuating we are all degenerate, and a lower form of life than Canadians.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan?
Individual weapon ownership did once secure our rights, but I would argue that is no longer the case in most first world countries.

You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan?
Individual weapon ownership did once secure our rights, but I would argue that is no longer the case in most first world countries.

You do, however, bring up the point of personal defense. Now I, personally, am not concerned with such, but that is the reason why I am not opposed to individual weapon ownership. I just find the idea that if people weren't able to own guns we'd descend into some distopian nightmare world or whatever ludicrous to the extreme.

It doesn't automatically mean you will turn into that, but it does mean that if the process ever does get started you'll lack the ability to resist as effectively. Its a safety mechanism.

And given the tighter government control all countries are experiencing you can't claim the threat isn't there.

Guns are like fire extinguishers. You hope you never have to use them, but if you do you'll be glad you had them.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
No, it's not. Simply because free speech is considered more paramount to the protection of our rights than guns. You may disagree with that, and that may even be wrong, but that it why people are OK with limiting weapons, and not speech.

No, its definitely moronic. All your rights are equally important. And the right to own weaponry is actually paramount to defending your rights, just as much as free speech. Speech, ultimately, cannot protect you from tyranny. It only serves to pass along information, but information without action is useless.

Weapons are necessary as the last resort to protect your rights, and your own life. You can't stop an attacker with mere words, you aren't the Dragonborn.

Has the UK become a tyranny? Has Japan

To be fair, the Japanese justice system is notoriously awful, relying on social pressures and often outright physical abuse to coerce confessions out of almost anyone arrested, resulting in something like a 99.9% conviction rate (and police basically can do anything for any reason and have it stand up in court) while the UK (and many parts of the US) is increasingly becoming a surveillance rich nanny state where increaingly absurd things are banned or restricted. They also have different cultures and social constructs that mean living there has different risks and threats than in the US.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you really just insult every American in the world?

Are you really going to stoop to the republican method of debate? "If all else fails, say you're opponent hates America, and feign outrage!". Please spare me the theatrics.

I said that no one else in the world considers it a human right, so YOU insisting it is exactly the same as free speech (which the majority of the free world considers to be a human right), is likely wrong I.e. YOU are wrong and purposefully being obtuse, because there are clear and pronounced differences between gun rights and free speech.

I think Grey Templar was referring to OgreChubbs' post.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did you really just insult every American in the world?

Are you really going to stoop to the republican method of debate? "If all else fails, say you're opponent hates America, and feign outrage!". Please spare me the theatrics.

I said that no one else in the world considers it a human right, so YOU insisting it is exactly the same as free speech (which the majority of the free world considers to be a human right), is likely wrong I.e. YOU are wrong and purposefully being obtuse, because there are clear and pronounced differences between gun rights and free speech.

1) I was referring to OgreChubs now deleted post.

2) Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.

So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.

So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.

1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.

2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Firstly, not all control is about banning. Secondly, you are being deliberately obtuse, if you are not able to understand why dangerous things might be reasonably restricted. Many chemicals, poisons, explosives, radioactive material, pornography, drugs, medication, animals, vehicles, machinery etc, etc, etc... are restricted. It shouldn't be an alien concept to you.

Bans =\= reasonable restrictions. The misuse of firearms by others is no justification to prohibit possession of firearms for other people that have not misused firearms.

You have quoted me, very clearly stating that not all control is about banning; do you actually read the posts you quote before spewing your stock replies?

You have also quoted me talking about reasonable restrictions, where I mentioned vehicles, which are reasonably restricted, yet are in no sense "banned". So if you had anything to say besides vapid rhetoric, I'm afraid your point was lost on me.

The reasonable restrictions regarding things like radiological materials have no bearing on the immoral prohibition against Sir Donlad owning firearms in the UK that was imposed on him due to the actions of 3rd parties with whom he has no involvement or connection. Your interjection of restrictions on things that are not analogous to firearm ownership is a deliberate act to try to make use of the transitive property with things that are wholly dissimilar. I thought I was clear in making the point that restrictions on pornography are not in any way equitable to prohibiting gun ownership.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.

So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.

1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.

2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?

If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights go put there because they were all viewed as being extremely important, and we aren't told there was any sort of order to the list so therefore they are all equally important.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.

I beg to differ seeing as guns ended up in there. And who are you to say goggles are trivial? They could save your eyesight, eyesight is pretty damned important. Goggles are kind of like fire extinguishers, better to have them and not need them I say.

And you've been reduced to making strawman arguments.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Given that the US Constitution has the Right to Bear Arms in the same document and with the same importance as Free Speech you are hardly in a position to say that they are not equivalent.

So no, in America they are of equivalent importance. You can say they aren't, but the Constitution says you are wrong. And I'll go with that over your ramblings about global consensus.

1: Sorry, Reds8n made the topic difficult to follow with his usual heavy-handed brand of editing. Sorry for my mistake.

2: As I said before, if you are only able to look at it in that single narrow context, and insist it is therefore the same, when it is clearly not the same in every other context, then you are doing the argument equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

If the constitution also said you had the right to free goggles, would you also insist goggles are as fundamental to freedom as free speech?

Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified. The right of private citizens to be protected from the government quarter in troops in their homes could be viewed as not as integral to individual liberty as free speech but that has no bearing on the level of legal protection enjoyed by that right. Every right in our Bill of Rights enjoys the same level of legal importance and protection. Every amendment conveys an equal amount of legs influence. That's the way our system works. You don't have to like the system but you look silly arguing that the system doesn't work that way.

Again we don't have to qualify or justify our rights and legal system to the rest of the world. It's the way we want it, it's been like this for centuries and we've never developed anything close to the leve of consensus required to change it. If we wanted to be just like the UK or the EU then we wouldn't have revolted in the first place. You guys should keep your colonial imperialism tendencies in check.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And you've been reduced to making strawman arguments.

It's not a straw man, your argument was that anything in the bill of rights must be equivalent to free speech, by virtue of being in the bill of rights. That's rather circular reasoning to begin with. All I have done is exposed the ridiculousness of that attitude by replacing guns with any other piece of personal protective equipment, and showing how exactly the same arguments can be made. I'm not misrepresenting what you said. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because your argument sounds ridiculous, you just can't see it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified.

How convenient for you.

However, I disagree, when people are dying as collateral for a so called "right" not to be restricted, then I would argue that is does need to be qualified and justified.

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If that hypothetical right was in the same document as free speech, yes it would indeed be just as important. But something trivial like that would not be put into a document of this importance.

I beg to differ seeing as guns ended up in there. And who are you to say goggles are trivial? They could save your eyesight, eyesight is pretty damned important. Goggles are kind of like fire extinguishers, better to have them and not need them I say.

The states' representatives to our constitutional convention negotiating on our behalf decided what was important enough to be included as a constitutional amendment. For over 200 years our representative republic hasn't reached a consensus to remove that amendment so the will of the people is that we get to keep our guns. If the people want an amendment for goggles we have a process by which we can get one ratified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And you've been reduced to making strawman arguments.

It's not a straw man, your argument was that anything in the bill of rights must be equivalent to free speech, by virtue of being in the bill of rights. That's rather circular reasoning to begin with. All I have done is exposed the ridiculousness of that attitude by replacing guns with any other piece of personal protective equipment, and showing how exactly the same arguments can be made. I'm not misrepresenting what you said. If it sounds ridiculous, that's because your argument sounds ridiculous, you just can't see it.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Enumerated constitutional rights don't have to be qualified or justified.

How convenient for you.

However, I disagree, when people are dying as collateral for a so called "right" not to be restricted, then I would argue that is does need to be qualified and justified.

Fortunately, that's not how it works in our system.

I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that, completely ignoring the fact that the right to bear arms was added in a change to the Constitution in the first place. Arguing that a law cannot be changed because the law currently says something else is not a valid argument.

And before someone jumps me for it, tighter gun laws probably wouldn't do much in the US, you'd be better off combatting socioeconomic issues like poverty.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Fortunately, that's not how it works in our system.

First amendment says it is.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that

Right.

So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.

Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.

Both are unlikely to happen.

This is what puzzles me. The constitution protects the right to bear arms. Why are states allowed to pass laws that infringe the right to bear arms? Why are swords illegal? They were common weapons -- de rigeur for gentlemen, in fact -- at the time the constitition was worked out.

Because most people who go on and on about the second amendment aren't "pro-weapon right" but "pro-gun right".

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that

Right.

So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.

Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.

Both are unlikely to happen.

That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.

Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

IDK, it's something I read earlier in the thread.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I don't get this. Someone proposes that that gun laws should change, and the argument against it is that the Constitution doesn't allow that

Right.

So if you want to enact laws that infringe upon gun ownership, you must first amend the Constitution to nullify the part that specifically protects against infringement on gun ownership.

Just like if Trump wanted to ban Islam in the US, we would first have to amend the Constitution to nullify the part that protects freedom of religion.

Both are unlikely to happen.

That's the thing: if I'm wanting to change the law, retorting with "you can't do that, you'd have to change the law" sounds like something from the Department of Redundancy Department, which is what it sounds like.

That is because you seem to be confusing 'the law' with 'the constitution'. All laws must pass constitutionality tests. Any changes to gun laws must be 'constitutional'. If you want to change these laws or pass new ones beyond what the 2nd amendment allows/forbids, you must amend the constitution. Which is a lot different from changing/passing a law.

 CptJake wrote:
Where are swords illegal that guns are not?

Most weapon laws I've seen cover more than firearms but apply to everything covered (hence a stun gun or pepper spray is just as illegal as my Glock on a federal installation).

I think it's pretty rare but when I lived in NYC, guns were very difficult to get legally, but it was possible, whereas cane swords, switchblades, throwing stars, knives over a few inches, and tasers were flat out illegal, period, full stop.

In Iowa, it's like what you describe with the latter: my conceal carry permit also covers a variety of other weapons like switchblades etc.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
I love guns - i lament and understand the firearm restrictions over here, and whenever i hear/see a story like this i facepalm.
I'm certain that every gun owner/fan is probably doing the same.

The reaction to demand banning/controlling firearms is kinda understandable, but is still based on an irrational assumption that your government can protect you from accidental death; and it's usually postualated immediately after an emotionally evocative incident like this.

Can you imagine how you would explain cars on a motorway to a H&S committee if they didn't exist already?

"so it's a metal box which weighs a ton and a half which can move more than 8 times as quickly than the peak running speed of the average human male and requires 40 gallons of highly flammable liquid in an unprotected tank in the back - these are then driven within 4 feet of each other at speeds exceeding that needed for fixed-wing flight with you and three other people inside"


Further to the 'risk in life' thing - in the UK 290 people a year die from falling out of bed.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2014/10/03/what-s-more-likely-winning-the-lottery-or-being-killed-by-your/

How many die of guns?

It makes no difference how many die of guns. There is no justification for the illogical act of banning one person, for instance Sir Donlad, from owning firearms because of the actions of another person that have no connection whatsoever to Sir Donlad. No amount of bad behavior exhibited by any number of other people guarantees similar as behavior will be done by Sir Donlad.

No lives are being saved from prohibiting Sir Donlad from owning guns unless you know for certain that Sir Donlad would, either through negligence or deliberate intent harm or murder someone with a gun if he owned one. Absent evidence proving such a certainty banning him from owning guns is a needless infringement on a citizens Liberty done purely to assuage the fears of others.

The university of sydney (?) state that in 2011 there were 146 gun deaths, down from 165 in 2010.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

The 'states eclipse our figure many times over...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

But from a purely accidental death basis...
Accidental gun deaths in 2011 for uk=2 usa=586
Population in 2011 in uk=63.26million usa=311.7

So, rough numbers have 2 accidental gun death in the uk for 118.9296118 in the us of a - i don't think thats too bad.

edit - i divided the accidental gun deaths by the populus of the usa and then multiplied the result by the number of people in the uk to reach that figure