3 ms·

> All semi-automatics should be banned My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test. Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be

> All semi-automatics should be banned My guess is this would not pass the constitutional test. Without being an attorney, I would think the question would be one of an interpretation of the second amendment in the context of the argument. That's where I am having trouble. What is the argument being made in the context of restricting a right? I know the intent or idea: If you can't fire at a rapid rate you can't hurt as many people per unit time. I get it. And this might be a solid argument. Yet I can see it having lots of holes when applied. An obvious one has to do with whether or not we can restrict criminals. The answer is obviously "no". This is where a lot of these things fall apart. If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. The other argument is one about unfairly punishing law-abiding citizens. I have presented this hypothetical in many conversations and nobody ever answers the question. It goes something like this: Suppose I have you a couple of handguns and assault rifles, all the ammunition you want and trained you in their use at a high level of proficiency. How long would it be until you take those weapons and shoot a bunch of innocent people? How long would it be if I threaten to harm your loved ones unless you do it? How long if I abduct a member of your family and threaten to harm them unless you do it? If the answers to these questions are "never", how is restricting access to any hardware make us safer? It does not. This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. If it were a matter of hardware you'd eventually become a mass murderer simply because I gave you firearms and trained you. Not the case. Which means focusing on the hardware is the wrong path. This is also the wrong path for a very different reason. Again, suppose I gave you all those guns, ammo and training. And 30 years later you haven't harmed anyone and never intend to. And then someone knocks on your door and says: You are a potential criminal because you own guns and therefore I am going to take some of your rights away. Anyone faced with such an accusation would think it is crazy, unfair, unjustified and plain wrong. Focusing on the hardware is seen by gun owners as that very scenario. They are being told they are criminals. They know they are not and never will be. This strikes a deep nerve that has nothing to do with firearms. It's like telling someone they are criminals just because they own a ski mask. Honest people don't like to be characterized that way. And, as a result, they will defend their right to not be deemed guilty for doing nothing. That's how the conversation stops and we never fix a thing. If everyone got on the same boat and we talked about dealing with the real root causes of violence and crime everyone would join in. Call half the country "criminals" and you get nowhere.

ptcampbell 7y ago
> If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. > This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. So it's the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument performed in staccato with additional tedious rhetoric. Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone with your brilliant socratic method, that you've actually just thrown up a few straw men that are not worth delving into?
- robomartin 7y ago
  > I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples. I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that. > Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone with your brilliant socratic method, that you've actually just thrown up a few straw men that are not worth delving into? No. People don't answer the question because the only honest answer exposes the fallacy in their thinking. It's very simple, if guns cause violence then giving anyone a gun should turn them into criminals. However, the only way that can happen if for the person to make that decision. The weapon is not the root cause at all. What is also interesting is that every anti-gun proponent I have presented with this scenario immediately resorts to personal attacks, insults, mischaracterization and more, anything except any approximation of an honest answer. If you can't turn someone into a killer by handing them a gun, then, what makes a killer? Well, to begin with, not the gun. Maybe magical pixie dust? I have over thirty years of work in all kinds of technology fields, from the motion picture industry to aerospace, small projects to billion dollar programs. I have yet to see anyone --ANYONE-- solve any problem by IGNORING root causes and focusing on the demonstrably irrelevant. That's the problem with this issue. It has become so polarized and political that nobody, on either side of the argument, wants to address root causes. Because, to borrow the term, these are inconvenient truths. This is equivalent to: "I have a flat tire. OK, let's change the engine!" Here's a tip: Insulting me or my argument does not fix the problem, does not save lives and does nothing towards fixing the real problem. If you are a US citizen and are truly interested in saving lives, stop pushing fantasies and get behind going after true root cause analysis. That's the ONLY way we make things better. I guess I have to ask: What do your root cause analysis of the problem?

ptcampbell 7y ago

> If you can guarantee a society without weapons then everyone is comfortable not having any. Introduce asymmetry and the arms race begins. I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. > This is a software problem. Brains. Not hardware. So it's the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument performed in staccato with additional tedious rhetoric. Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone with your brilliant socratic method, that you've actually just thrown up a few straw men that are not worth delving into?

robomartin 7y ago
> I haven't seen any evidence of an arms race in Australia or NZ, for example. Their laws prevent it. That's the problem with these comparisons. You have to compare apples to apples. I'm sure they have pretty good gun control in North Korea. There's an app for that. > Could it be that no one has satisfactorily answered your hypothetical questions because despite you obviously thinking that you've cornered someone with your brilliant socratic method, that you've actually just thrown up a few straw men that are not worth delving into? No. People don't answer the question because the only honest answer exposes the fallacy in their thinking. It's very simple, if guns cause violence then giving anyone a gun should turn them into criminals. However, the only way that can happen if for the person to make that decision. The weapon is not the root cause at all. What is also interesting is that every anti-gun proponent I have presented with this scenario immediately resorts to personal attacks, insults, mischaracterization and more, anything except any approximation of an honest answer. If you can't turn someone into a killer by handing them a gun, then, what makes a killer? Well, to begin with, not the gun. Maybe magical pixie dust? I have over thirty years of work in all kinds of technology fields, from the motion picture industry to aerospace, small projects to billion dollar programs. I have yet to see anyone --ANYONE-- solve any problem by IGNORING root causes and focusing on the demonstrably irrelevant. That's the problem with this issue. It has become so polarized and political that nobody, on either side of the argument, wants to address root causes. Because, to borrow the term, these are inconvenient truths. This is equivalent to: "I have a flat tire. OK, let's change the engine!" Here's a tip: Insulting me or my argument does not fix the problem, does not save lives and does nothing towards fixing the real problem. If you are a US citizen and are truly interested in saving lives, stop pushing fantasies and get behind going after true root cause analysis. That's the ONLY way we make things better. I guess I have to ask: What do your root cause analysis of the problem?