8 ms·

You Want A Gun? Then Do Something For Me

12 points by tkellogg 14y ago

orik 14y ago
Do people who want food also have the responsibility to feed society?
- astolarz 14y ago
  Straw man fallacy. Besides, I don't think I've heard of too many people going on deadly feeding rampages.
joshmlewis 14y ago
The idea isn't bad per say, but while it may be a good solution for you, it may not be the best solution for everyone. I live in the south, and I know a lot of people would be outraged at the idea of this. When it comes down to it, most people are selfish. They think having a gun is to protect them and their loved ones, not me or you. They wouldn't like the fact that they have to spend extra time and money for their 'God given right' to bear arms. An 80 hours course isn't going to stop people from being violent, look at the hijackers of 9/11, they had to go through and get their pilot training which costs thousands and a lot of time, and that just shows where there is a will there is a way and a course might help these situations but nothing is going to totally alleviate them. I don't think a lot of people who don't live in the south or a rural area understand how guns are used in normal culture in places like here. People go out and hunt. A lot. They go target shooting, they have competitions, etc. It's a big deal and it's an issue that sits very close to the heart of a southern person. I personally am not sure what should happen, but these are just some things I have seen and grown up around. Almost everyone has a gun here, most of them never get shot, but they are still really prevalent.
jaxn 14y ago
The difficulty in defining what to regulate is probably the hardest part of the problem and he just throws out a completely unworkable definition. A double-action revolver would fit his definition of an "assault rifle".
- rtkwe 14y ago
  Even better depending on what you define as a reload a single action cap and ball could qualify. Restricting to rifles only, if you define a reload as taking bullets from outside the weapon and storing then in the weapon, which seems like a reasonable enough way to define it on the surface, a bolt action rifle with an internal box magazine (aka most rifles) would qualify. Also what would be the mission of the proposed volunteer police force? when would they be called in/up? who would govern and organize them?
danso 14y ago
> “No person can own or operate an assault rifle as a civilian except for honorably discharged veterans, current military officers or enlisted personnel at E3 level or higher, or persons who have passed an 80 hour course. All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police (or some other analogous public safety service).” Because nothing could go wrong with conferring special rights only to members of the military, right? This proposed solution would have had limited impact on the recent killings that have stoked the current gun control argument. Adam Lanza would've have passed the 80-hour training requirement. Columbine and Virginia Tech was perpetrated by handguns and shotguns. Aurora did involve a rifle but VT still resulted in more fatalities with just handguns. The older perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks was an Army veteran. This is not to say that gun control is bad. But the reasoning behind this solution is very specious.
- cpursley 14y ago
  He did mention an 80 hour course.
  - danso 14y ago
    Right...and that provision would've likely been passed by Adam Lanza. And it seems likely he would've been able to inflict such a massacre with lesser weapons; the VT killer caused more casualties with handguns. The point is, the logical reasoning used to single AR-15s is so flimsy that the argument should be about regulating a much wider category of firearms. To single out AR-15s is just pandering.
  - CodeMage 14y ago
    Expecting an 80-hour course to somehow deter a psychopath from shooting up a bunch of people strikes me as rather naive.
    - dbecker 14y ago
      I agree with your claim, but it's also my understanding that the CT killer (and many murderers in general) stole the gun from a friend or relative. So a killer wouldn't need to attend the 80 hour course if he had access to a gun purchased by someone who did attend the course.
Bobble 14y ago
Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.
- tkellogg 14y ago
  That is in fact the logic of the the pro-gun party. Since politics is about compromise, might as well run with it...
  - Bobble 14y ago
    In what way, in fact, is that the logic of the "pro-gun party?" I myself have not heard the NRA or others ever say that non-gun owners deserve to die. Please elaborate.
    - tkellogg 14y ago
      They say that "guns protect us". How do they protect us? Is a bystander supposed to lift up their shirt, revealing a gun tucked into their waist, forcing the bank robbers to run away? I think the NRA and Republican party have already assumed that they're instructing the general public to kill, or at least wound, on behalf of public safety.
      - Bobble 14y ago
        Having the ability and/or willingness to protect others is entirely different from mandating it. The NRA is asking for the ability to exercise the right to defend oneself (and others) if needed, without censure. You would require that civilians purposefully put themselves in that situation - to go looking for trouble - in order to have that right of defense.
dbecker 14y ago
All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police If someone wants to use a gun for criminal purposes, it's hard to imagine that giving them a badge first is going to solve anything. It just means they could go on their power trip under the guise of police work in addition to doing it criminally.
RyJones 14y ago
This isn't how rights work.
andyjohnson0 14y ago
"the constitution specifically highlights firearms as a method reserved for future use to revolt against the government, if it ever becomes evil." I keep reading this, but I don't believe the us constitution says any such thing. Am I (European) correct?
- ej_campbell 14y ago
  It was in the Declaration of Independence, but not the constitution.
- hanleybrand 14y ago
  You are correct - the 2nd amendment prohibits the US government from infringing the right to "to keep and bear arms" - it does not specify what kind of arms, so knives and swords (and theoretically but not actually) nuclear weapons would all be equally covered - supposedly as a check against tyranny, but this is not spelled out in the constitution, and sedition was made illegal about 10 years after the constitution was ratified. My personal view, therefore is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment are a ridiculous fiction - as I imply above, US citizens can not actually build up an arsenal of weapons that would enable them to successfully challenge the US Government successfully (see Waco, Move, etc. - build up a big enough armory, you will be taken out). So in my view gun rights only exist at this point to enrich arms dealers and give the citizenry an illusion of control, at the low, low cost of 80-something of our citizens per day.
secondChrome 14y ago
..."but military service has a way of vouching for their sanity." Sadly, there are too many who lose their sanity thanks to the military.
sleighboy 14y ago
I wish people would stop using the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. There is only one assault rifle ever, the Sturmgewehr 44.
- pohl 14y ago
  To start making your wish a reality, go update this page and address any concerns various WP editors may have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
  - sleighboy 14y ago
    That page gets it right in the "Definition" section saying the term is basically slang derived from the StG44 and that to be considered an "assault rifle" it must be select-fire. Those are Class III weapons in the US and already very restricted, assuming you have enough disposable income to buy one and find a seller. The example given in the post has nothing to do with Class III weapons, so the term is used improperly, that is my point.
regis 14y ago
I will never support any sort of gun control that does not also include disarming law enforcement. Is this not something other people are concerned with?

12 points by tkellogg 14y ago

orik 14y ago

Do people who want food also have the responsibility to feed society?

astolarz 14y ago
Straw man fallacy. Besides, I don't think I've heard of too many people going on deadly feeding rampages.

joshmlewis 14y ago

The idea isn't bad per say, but while it may be a good solution for you, it may not be the best solution for everyone. I live in the south, and I know a lot of people would be outraged at the idea of this. When it comes down to it, most people are selfish. They think having a gun is to protect them and their loved ones, not me or you. They wouldn't like the fact that they have to spend extra time and money for their 'God given right' to bear arms. An 80 hours course isn't going to stop people from being violent, look at the hijackers of 9/11, they had to go through and get their pilot training which costs thousands and a lot of time, and that just shows where there is a will there is a way and a course might help these situations but nothing is going to totally alleviate them. I don't think a lot of people who don't live in the south or a rural area understand how guns are used in normal culture in places like here. People go out and hunt. A lot. They go target shooting, they have competitions, etc. It's a big deal and it's an issue that sits very close to the heart of a southern person. I personally am not sure what should happen, but these are just some things I have seen and grown up around. Almost everyone has a gun here, most of them never get shot, but they are still really prevalent.

jaxn 14y ago

The difficulty in defining what to regulate is probably the hardest part of the problem and he just throws out a completely unworkable definition. A double-action revolver would fit his definition of an "assault rifle".

rtkwe 14y ago
Even better depending on what you define as a reload a single action cap and ball could qualify. Restricting to rifles only, if you define a reload as taking bullets from outside the weapon and storing then in the weapon, which seems like a reasonable enough way to define it on the surface, a bolt action rifle with an internal box magazine (aka most rifles) would qualify. Also what would be the mission of the proposed volunteer police force? when would they be called in/up? who would govern and organize them?

danso 14y ago

> “No person can own or operate an assault rifle as a civilian except for honorably discharged veterans, current military officers or enlisted personnel at E3 level or higher, or persons who have passed an 80 hour course. All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police (or some other analogous public safety service).” Because nothing could go wrong with conferring special rights only to members of the military, right? This proposed solution would have had limited impact on the recent killings that have stoked the current gun control argument. Adam Lanza would've have passed the 80-hour training requirement. Columbine and Virginia Tech was perpetrated by handguns and shotguns. Aurora did involve a rifle but VT still resulted in more fatalities with just handguns. The older perpetrator of the Beltway sniper attacks was an Army veteran. This is not to say that gun control is bad. But the reasoning behind this solution is very specious.

cpursley 14y ago
He did mention an 80 hour course.
- danso 14y ago
  Right...and that provision would've likely been passed by Adam Lanza. And it seems likely he would've been able to inflict such a massacre with lesser weapons; the VT killer caused more casualties with handguns. The point is, the logical reasoning used to single AR-15s is so flimsy that the argument should be about regulating a much wider category of firearms. To single out AR-15s is just pandering.
- CodeMage 14y ago
  Expecting an 80-hour course to somehow deter a psychopath from shooting up a bunch of people strikes me as rather naive.
  - dbecker 14y ago
    I agree with your claim, but it's also my understanding that the CT killer (and many murderers in general) stole the gun from a friend or relative. So a killer wouldn't need to attend the 80 hour course if he had access to a gun purchased by someone who did attend the course.

Bobble 14y ago

Taking the argument to its logical conclusion: if you aren't willing to kill on behalf of the unarmed, you aren't worthy of defending yourself. Kill for me, or you deserve to die. That logic seems flawed.

tkellogg 14y ago
That is in fact the logic of the the pro-gun party. Since politics is about compromise, might as well run with it...
- Bobble 14y ago
  In what way, in fact, is that the logic of the "pro-gun party?" I myself have not heard the NRA or others ever say that non-gun owners deserve to die. Please elaborate.
  - tkellogg 14y ago
    They say that "guns protect us". How do they protect us? Is a bystander supposed to lift up their shirt, revealing a gun tucked into their waist, forcing the bank robbers to run away? I think the NRA and Republican party have already assumed that they're instructing the general public to kill, or at least wound, on behalf of public safety.
    - Bobble 14y ago
      Having the ability and/or willingness to protect others is entirely different from mandating it. The NRA is asking for the ability to exercise the right to defend oneself (and others) if needed, without censure. You would require that civilians purposefully put themselves in that situation - to go looking for trouble - in order to have that right of defense.

dbecker 14y ago

All assault rifle owners are required to serve as volunteer police If someone wants to use a gun for criminal purposes, it's hard to imagine that giving them a badge first is going to solve anything. It just means they could go on their power trip under the guise of police work in addition to doing it criminally.

RyJones 14y ago

This isn't how rights work.

andyjohnson0 14y ago

"the constitution specifically highlights firearms as a method reserved for future use to revolt against the government, if it ever becomes evil." I keep reading this, but I don't believe the us constitution says any such thing. Am I (European) correct?

ej_campbell 14y ago
It was in the Declaration of Independence, but not the constitution.
hanleybrand 14y ago
You are correct - the 2nd amendment prohibits the US government from infringing the right to "to keep and bear arms" - it does not specify what kind of arms, so knives and swords (and theoretically but not actually) nuclear weapons would all be equally covered - supposedly as a check against tyranny, but this is not spelled out in the constitution, and sedition was made illegal about 10 years after the constitution was ratified. My personal view, therefore is that the arguments for the 2nd amendment are a ridiculous fiction - as I imply above, US citizens can not actually build up an arsenal of weapons that would enable them to successfully challenge the US Government successfully (see Waco, Move, etc. - build up a big enough armory, you will be taken out). So in my view gun rights only exist at this point to enrich arms dealers and give the citizenry an illusion of control, at the low, low cost of 80-something of our citizens per day.

secondChrome 14y ago

..."but military service has a way of vouching for their sanity." Sadly, there are too many who lose their sanity thanks to the military.

sleighboy 14y ago

I wish people would stop using the term "assault rifle" incorrectly. There is only one assault rifle ever, the Sturmgewehr 44.

pohl 14y ago
To start making your wish a reality, go update this page and address any concerns various WP editors may have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
- sleighboy 14y ago
  That page gets it right in the "Definition" section saying the term is basically slang derived from the StG44 and that to be considered an "assault rifle" it must be select-fire. Those are Class III weapons in the US and already very restricted, assuming you have enough disposable income to buy one and find a seller. The example given in the post has nothing to do with Class III weapons, so the term is used improperly, that is my point.

regis 14y ago

I will never support any sort of gun control that does not also include disarming law enforcement. Is this not something other people are concerned with?