19 ms·

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of yo

> School shooting - new gun laws. I agree with the sentiment of your post, but as a non-American this one jumps out at me. I don't think it fits the rest of your argument, adding more control and checks for something as dangerous as gun ownership is a good thing.. in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. I have read some arguments about private protection against excessive government excesses, but I don't really buy it.

pjc50 11y ago
I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection, as the 2nd is much more strongly defended than the 4th or 5th or even the 1st. (This argument obviously doesn't make any sense in the UK, where we should lean on article 1 and 6 ECHR). A country where you can have an AR-15 but not AES-CBC makes no sense, but we have to work with the politics as they are. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044529/decryption-orders-could-violate-human-rights-dutch-judiciary-council-says.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044529/decryption-orders-cou...
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > Politicians think encryption is in the first category. This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. That puts it firmly into the second category for many people. (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)
  - cesarb 11y ago
    > This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. For some time, only online banking was allowed to use strong encryption on the web. There was a special kind of certificate, which could be issued only to financial organizations, which told browsers they were allowed to use strong cipher suites.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.) For one thing, most people have at least some money, while the desire to photograph one's genitals (and especially, after having done so, to keep the results private) is relatively rare.
    - dpeck 11y ago
      honestly, with the economy as it is today and the growth of social media based image/sexting/hookup services I'd argue the opposite is true.
      - elektromekatron 11y ago
        They'll probably be the next generation of internet currency.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Not necessarily; I don't think they're quite stupid enough to think that encryption is not needed. (Perhaps once upon a time that was the case, when encryption was a munition regulated by ITAR.) Rather, politicians are under the impression that it is, or should be, possible to have encryption that protects against anyone except their own government, that that's something they should get to ask for in the first place, and that that's just as good as un-broken encryption. None of those things are true, but good luck telling a politician that something necessarily needs to be beyond their control in order to function correctly.
- wl 11y ago
  The first amendment is actually far more strongly defended than the second. It's settled law at this point that exceptions to the first amendment must pass strict scrutiny, which means that there must be a compelling government interest in play, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to protect just that interest, and the restriction must be the least restrictive way possible to protect that interest. In practice, few laws pass strict scrutiny. In contrast, courts are still hashing out which level of scrutiny must be used when deciding second amendment cases.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  > I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection I never understood that position. Based on the argument that encryption is a mechanism for speech, why not classify it as speech?
  - pluma 11y ago
    Encryption is like armor for information. Armor is a weapon. Don't ask.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    It's not an entirely serious position.
leppr 11y ago
Not only governments do excessive excesses. In some places the government's caring hand might not be very present, in which case criminals being the only dispensers of firearms has some interesting (and predictable) consequences.
- cloakandswagger 11y ago
  I find that most of the people calling for the control (and ultimate abolition) of gun ownership have had the luxury of never living in a place where there is a real threat of danger, either from animals or other people.
phkahler 11y ago
I just wanted to throw that in there for variety and because the existing controls don't actually stop the problem (I don't deny that they may help). Any place that still has guns in some form can still have those kinds of incidents. The guy at Sandy Hooke used someone else's legally obtained gun. Or in other words, the previous attempts to legislate away the problem didn't work in that case. There are other less controversial examples, but they don't come to mind as quickly.
wl 11y ago
Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass shooting, regardless of whether or not it would have stopped the incident that justifies the legislative push. The most recent example is the reaction to the Charleston church shooting, where some politicians pushed for an "assault weapons" ban (which is political term about cosmetics—these are not machineguns) and background checks for private party sales, despite the shooter not using a weapon that would have been covered by the proposed ban, purchased from a licensed gun dealer after passing a standard background check. While universal background checks are arguably a good thing regardless of what motivated the push, the "assault weapons" ban is pure political nonsense. Such guns are almost never used in crime and previous bans were shown to not have any effect on crime. When a gun is used in a crime, it is almost always a handgun.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking. I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?
  - wl 11y ago
    An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. The rest is cosmetic.
    - homunculus 11y ago
      I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.
dmix 11y ago
The problem is that you people like to extrapolate from one small scenario where the law will work without considering the greater practicality or long-term effectiveness of the law. The scenarios ignore basic facts about humans and technology. The simple fact is humans are resourceful and criminals have proven to be very dedicated. Consider two things, a) Regarding: > in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. The technological different between an 'assault rifle' and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is very small. As Cody Wilson has demonstrated, with a few 3d-printed parts you can turn a simple rifle - which is already restricted by law from being an assault rifle - into a fully blown assault rifle with a relatively small amount of technical knowledge. The same was true for decades with anyone with metal machining skills. So how much of a difference will it make if the tech available is merely restricted and not banned? If you can easily modified the technology? b) The proposed encryption laws must insist that they won't interfere with American corporations from creating, selling, and exporting encryption to valid purchasers. The development of better-and-better encryption will not stop. It will still be one of Americas greatest exported technologies. An industry the US dominates (software). So now taking that into consideration, will it be feasible to stop criminals from getting access to encryption? Similar to encryption, America is the largest exporter of weapons in the world - unlike the UK or Scandinavian countries. The simple fact is that there will be a huge market of both weapons and people (with specialized-skills) which will leak their guns/knowledge onto the black market. Combine that with the internet and decentralized tech and you have a very challenging regulation environment. At best, it will be become yet another 'arms race' between criminals/police that is ultimately a net-negative investment for society (see: drugs).
- ryanmarsh 11y ago
  > The same was true for decades with anyone with metal machining skills. This. Also consider there are people with machine shops all over the country that make AR-15's from scratch. These are so-called "custom" firearms. Would we have to go around shutting down all machine shops if we outlawed "black" (named for the blueing) guns?
microcolonel 11y ago
First of all, assault rifles are not on the open market in the U.S. and haven't been for quite some time. U.S. armed violence has a lot more to it than the availability of weapons; statistics are easy to misinterpret as well, since they're really just the proportion of violent crimes that are committed with one particular tool. Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost the same proportion of violence with guns, despite fairly hefty controls. The U.S. really just seems to have more violent crime in general than many other countries, and my understanding is that this has been true since well before anyone else had harsh restrictions on the legal ownership and use of firearms. > I have read some arguments about private protection against excessive government excesses, but I don't really buy it. The theme of the article is these excesses; if you're not making the connection here, you're never going to make it. Also, incidentally, that's the reason it's in the constitution; I hear that it's an important document over there, but what would I know? The other good reason for widespread private ownership of firearms is protection against occupation by an invading force, which history has shown to be an unpopular tactic; though perhaps this is not comparable. IIRC the imperial Japanese even stated this as why they weren't interested in occupying U.S. soil.
- ryanmarsh 11y ago
  I once read that the largest standing army on the planet is in the U.S. on the opening day of deer season. Not sure if that's factually accurate but it does sound formidable. Consequently the best firearm a guerrilla fighter can own is a high powered hunting rifle with a good scope. Also, the average hunting rifle sold in the U.S. is better than the sniper rifles we recovered in Iraq. Nothing is more demoralizing to an invading force than snipers, except perhaps anti-personnel mines.
  - Sideloader 11y ago
    Are all those rifle owners regular active hunters? How many of the hunters possess military caliber marksmanship? Stalking a deer through a forest and sniping members of an invading enemy both involve shooting rifles at moving targets. Being holed up in a sniper's nest during a shooting war and taking out human targets that are aware of your presence and either shooting back directly or trying to relay your position to better placed or equipped comrades and all the while moving fast and erratically would be extremely challenging for non military trained folk, hunters and otherwise. More significantly, which countries do you think are in a position to attack the lower 48 states? Canada and Mexico. Can't see that happening any time soon. Sadly, an American on American conflict seems far more likely than a foreign invasion, but even that would require a a civil society and social order break down of unprecedented scale.
cloakandswagger 11y ago
It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.
- misnome 11y ago
  I think you mean an "Amendment" e.g. a "Change" to your countries founding document, subject to interpretation that pretty much throws out the first half. If you are going by the founding document, then you wouldn't have the rights anyway (and a hell of a lot less in general) And if amendments are permanent, well, then prohibition should still be in force.
  - jakeogh 11y ago
    The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying. Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved. > That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.
saiya-jin 11y ago
I am not american either, so what? you completely disregard that any handgun, including these mythical "assault rifles" (which is stupid term by definition, it's usage which defines purpose, so why there aren't any assault pistols?) is just a tool, needing a trained hand to be used. as described below, automatic weapons are not purchasable for civilians, only their modified versions that allow single shot per trigger pull, thus making them effectively small caliber hunting rifles. If you need those, only with special hard-to-get permits, or you need to join the army (and kill few poor people for free) if you want to stop some crazy people killing with these "assault guns" (why not called home defense guns?), you should focus on removing given dangerous individual from society, and not trying remove their access to weapons. Anything can be used to kill, including scissors, saw, pipe, baseball, knife or just good old pure hands. with current logic, all these things should get outlawed too. No statistics in hand, but I am damn sure the amount of people killed by legally purchased "assault rifles" compared to say hit & run with cars is neglible. with similar logic I say ban cars! (and it would do so much good in other ways...) P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun! Ah wait, we're talking maybe to same people that banned almost harmless marihuana and happily kept tobacco and alcohol roaming free on markets... DISCLAIMER: I never owned any handgun that would require any form of registration, yet before having strong statements about what should/shouldn't be banned, I at least educate myself. Gun ban laws are, apart for some corner cases, just pure crowd idiocy and hypocrisy.
- KnightHawk3 11y ago
  I am Australian and mostly agree with the gun laws in my country. >P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun! From my understanding, removing these guns will save lives, at least one. Why is having fun more important than peoples lives? I genuinely do not understand. Things like Marihuana only `hurt` the user for the most part where guns, if they hurt someone, is almost always not the user.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tomschlick 11y ago
The vast majority of gun violence in the US is gang / drug based. We have a violence problem, not specifically a gun problem. Thats due to a number of issues like poverty, lack of education, drugs, and the cycle of poorer people going in and out of prison. Excluding suicides, the rest is what I consider the cost of our country owning guns. We will never have the utopia of zero gun violence with 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in this country and the 2nd amendment isn't changing anytime soon. What we could reduce though are the problems I outlined first. Poverty, education, drug use, and the jail cycle. Those are harder problems than just pointing at guns though, so they don't get suggested as much.
TheGrimDerp1 11y ago
disarming a population is generally the first step towards oppression of freedoms and loss of rights recognition. 'Sides, everybody's far more polite when everyone's packin heat.

pjc50 11y ago

I think this comes down to the difference between banning things that nobody really wants (lead in paint) versus things that people really want (drugs, alcohol). In America, guns are in the second category. Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Edit: given how this discussion is going, I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection, as the 2nd is much more strongly defended than the 4th or 5th or even the 1st. (This argument obviously doesn't make any sense in the UK, where we should lean on article 1 and 6 ECHR). A country where you can have an AR-15 but not AES-CBC makes no sense, but we have to work with the politics as they are. http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044529/decryption-orders-could-violate-human-rights-dutch-judiciary-council-says.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2044529/decryption-orders-cou...

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> Politicians think encryption is in the first category. This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. That puts it firmly into the second category for many people. (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.)
- cesarb 11y ago
  > This -- until people realise that their online banking is not secure without encryption. For some time, only online banking was allowed to use strong encryption on the web. There was a special kind of certificate, which could be issued only to financial organizations, which told browsers they were allowed to use strong cipher suites.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  (It's my experience that people are more worried about their money than their dick pics.) For one thing, most people have at least some money, while the desire to photograph one's genitals (and especially, after having done so, to keep the results private) is relatively rare.
  - dpeck 11y ago
    honestly, with the economy as it is today and the growth of social media based image/sexting/hookup services I'd argue the opposite is true.
    - elektromekatron 11y ago
      They'll probably be the next generation of internet currency.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> Politicians think encryption is in the first category. Not necessarily; I don't think they're quite stupid enough to think that encryption is not needed. (Perhaps once upon a time that was the case, when encryption was a munition regulated by ITAR.) Rather, politicians are under the impression that it is, or should be, possible to have encryption that protects against anyone except their own government, that that's something they should get to ask for in the first place, and that that's just as good as un-broken encryption. None of those things are true, but good luck telling a politician that something necessarily needs to be beyond their control in order to function correctly.
wl 11y ago
The first amendment is actually far more strongly defended than the second. It's settled law at this point that exceptions to the first amendment must pass strict scrutiny, which means that there must be a compelling government interest in play, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to protect just that interest, and the restriction must be the least restrictive way possible to protect that interest. In practice, few laws pass strict scrutiny. In contrast, courts are still hashing out which level of scrutiny must be used when deciding second amendment cases.
marcosdumay 11y ago
> I think we're back to the idea that encryption should be classified as a weapon in the US and subject to second amendment protection I never understood that position. Based on the argument that encryption is a mechanism for speech, why not classify it as speech?
- pluma 11y ago
  Encryption is like armor for information. Armor is a weapon. Don't ask.
- pjc50 11y ago
  It's not an entirely serious position.

leppr 11y ago

Not only governments do excessive excesses. In some places the government's caring hand might not be very present, in which case criminals being the only dispensers of firearms has some interesting (and predictable) consequences.

cloakandswagger 11y ago
I find that most of the people calling for the control (and ultimate abolition) of gun ownership have had the luxury of never living in a place where there is a real threat of danger, either from animals or other people.

phkahler 11y ago

I just wanted to throw that in there for variety and because the existing controls don't actually stop the problem (I don't deny that they may help). Any place that still has guns in some form can still have those kinds of incidents. The guy at Sandy Hooke used someone else's legally obtained gun. Or in other words, the previous attempts to legislate away the problem didn't work in that case. There are other less controversial examples, but they don't come to mind as quickly.

wl 11y ago

Civilians haven't been allowed to buy new assault rifles in the US since 1986. As a result of the severely restricted supply, they're very expensive and rather rare. But even before the registry was closed to civilians, registered machineguns were only used in a handful of crimes since they were regulated in 1934. In the US, there is a pattern of politicians pushing for their pet gun control measures after some mass shooting, regardless of whether or not it would have stopped the incident that justifies the legislative push. The most recent example is the reaction to the Charleston church shooting, where some politicians pushed for an "assault weapons" ban (which is political term about cosmetics—these are not machineguns) and background checks for private party sales, despite the shooter not using a weapon that would have been covered by the proposed ban, purchased from a licensed gun dealer after passing a standard background check. While universal background checks are arguably a good thing regardless of what motivated the push, the "assault weapons" ban is pure political nonsense. Such guns are almost never used in crime and previous bans were shown to not have any effect on crime. When a gun is used in a crime, it is almost always a handgun.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
NOTE I don't want to get into the politics of gun ownership. Just fact seeking. I was under the impression that the AR-15 is very readily available? Do these not count as assault rifles?
- wl 11y ago
  An assault rifle is a select-fire (having the option of more than one shot per trigger pull) rifle shooting an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle because it isn't a select-fire. The M16, which the AR-15 is based on, is an select-fire weapon and is thus is an assault rifle. The main difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle is that the hunting rifle tends to use a more powerful cartridge. The rest is cosmetic.
  - homunculus 11y ago
    I'm not trying to be obtuse but don't most hunting rifles still work on a bolt action model thus requiring an operator to chamber a round manually whereas the AR-15, and rifles like it, 'automatically' chambers the next round in a fraction of a second.

dmix 11y ago

The problem is that you people like to extrapolate from one small scenario where the law will work without considering the greater practicality or long-term effectiveness of the law. The scenarios ignore basic facts about humans and technology. The simple fact is humans are resourceful and criminals have proven to be very dedicated. Consider two things, a) Regarding: > in particular, it would take a lot to convince me that private ownership of assault rifles is anything but bad news. The technological different between an 'assault rifle' and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is very small. As Cody Wilson has demonstrated, with a few 3d-printed parts you can turn a simple rifle - which is already restricted by law from being an assault rifle - into a fully blown assault rifle with a relatively small amount of technical knowledge. The same was true for decades with anyone with metal machining skills. So how much of a difference will it make if the tech available is merely restricted and not banned? If you can easily modified the technology? b) The proposed encryption laws must insist that they won't interfere with American corporations from creating, selling, and exporting encryption to valid purchasers. The development of better-and-better encryption will not stop. It will still be one of Americas greatest exported technologies. An industry the US dominates (software). So now taking that into consideration, will it be feasible to stop criminals from getting access to encryption? Similar to encryption, America is the largest exporter of weapons in the world - unlike the UK or Scandinavian countries. The simple fact is that there will be a huge market of both weapons and people (with specialized-skills) which will leak their guns/knowledge onto the black market. Combine that with the internet and decentralized tech and you have a very challenging regulation environment. At best, it will be become yet another 'arms race' between criminals/police that is ultimately a net-negative investment for society (see: drugs).

ryanmarsh 11y ago
> The same was true for decades with anyone with metal machining skills. This. Also consider there are people with machine shops all over the country that make AR-15's from scratch. These are so-called "custom" firearms. Would we have to go around shutting down all machine shops if we outlawed "black" (named for the blueing) guns?

microcolonel 11y ago

First of all, assault rifles are not on the open market in the U.S. and haven't been for quite some time. U.S. armed violence has a lot more to it than the availability of weapons; statistics are easy to misinterpret as well, since they're really just the proportion of violent crimes that are committed with one particular tool. Here in Canada, we have higher instance of violence with knives, but unsurprisingly almost the same proportion of violence with guns, despite fairly hefty controls. The U.S. really just seems to have more violent crime in general than many other countries, and my understanding is that this has been true since well before anyone else had harsh restrictions on the legal ownership and use of firearms. > I have read some arguments about private protection against excessive government excesses, but I don't really buy it. The theme of the article is these excesses; if you're not making the connection here, you're never going to make it. Also, incidentally, that's the reason it's in the constitution; I hear that it's an important document over there, but what would I know? The other good reason for widespread private ownership of firearms is protection against occupation by an invading force, which history has shown to be an unpopular tactic; though perhaps this is not comparable. IIRC the imperial Japanese even stated this as why they weren't interested in occupying U.S. soil.

ryanmarsh 11y ago
I once read that the largest standing army on the planet is in the U.S. on the opening day of deer season. Not sure if that's factually accurate but it does sound formidable. Consequently the best firearm a guerrilla fighter can own is a high powered hunting rifle with a good scope. Also, the average hunting rifle sold in the U.S. is better than the sniper rifles we recovered in Iraq. Nothing is more demoralizing to an invading force than snipers, except perhaps anti-personnel mines.
- Sideloader 11y ago
  Are all those rifle owners regular active hunters? How many of the hunters possess military caliber marksmanship? Stalking a deer through a forest and sniping members of an invading enemy both involve shooting rifles at moving targets. Being holed up in a sniper's nest during a shooting war and taking out human targets that are aware of your presence and either shooting back directly or trying to relay your position to better placed or equipped comrades and all the while moving fast and erratically would be extremely challenging for non military trained folk, hunters and otherwise. More significantly, which countries do you think are in a position to attack the lower 48 states? Canada and Mexico. Can't see that happening any time soon. Sadly, an American on American conflict seems far more likely than a foreign invasion, but even that would require a a civil society and social order break down of unprecedented scale.

cloakandswagger 11y ago

It doesn't matter whether you "buy" the arguments about why gun ownership is necessary. It's a guaranteed right codified in our country's founding document, end of discussion.

misnome 11y ago
I think you mean an "Amendment" e.g. a "Change" to your countries founding document, subject to interpretation that pretty much throws out the first half. If you are going by the founding document, then you wouldn't have the rights anyway (and a hell of a lot less in general) And if amendments are permanent, well, then prohibition should still be in force.
- jakeogh 11y ago
  The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying. Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved. > That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.

saiya-jin 11y ago

I am not american either, so what? you completely disregard that any handgun, including these mythical "assault rifles" (which is stupid term by definition, it's usage which defines purpose, so why there aren't any assault pistols?) is just a tool, needing a trained hand to be used. as described below, automatic weapons are not purchasable for civilians, only their modified versions that allow single shot per trigger pull, thus making them effectively small caliber hunting rifles. If you need those, only with special hard-to-get permits, or you need to join the army (and kill few poor people for free) if you want to stop some crazy people killing with these "assault guns" (why not called home defense guns?), you should focus on removing given dangerous individual from society, and not trying remove their access to weapons. Anything can be used to kill, including scissors, saw, pipe, baseball, knife or just good old pure hands. with current logic, all these things should get outlawed too. No statistics in hand, but I am damn sure the amount of people killed by legally purchased "assault rifles" compared to say hit & run with cars is neglible. with similar logic I say ban cars! (and it would do so much good in other ways...) P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun! Ah wait, we're talking maybe to same people that banned almost harmless marihuana and happily kept tobacco and alcohol roaming free on markets... DISCLAIMER: I never owned any handgun that would require any form of registration, yet before having strong statements about what should/shouldn't be banned, I at least educate myself. Gun ban laws are, apart for some corner cases, just pure crowd idiocy and hypocrisy.

KnightHawk3 11y ago
I am Australian and mostly agree with the gun laws in my country. >P.S. one last thing - pro-gun-ban people completely disregard gun shooting as a means for hunting and as a fun activity at range. Many weapons, including mentioned AR-15 (civilian version of popular M16) will never be shot outside shooting range. Why use higher caliber guns instead of some puny .22? Because it's more fun! From my understanding, removing these guns will save lives, at least one. Why is having fun more important than peoples lives? I genuinely do not understand. Things like Marihuana only `hurt` the user for the most part where guns, if they hurt someone, is almost always not the user.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tomschlick 11y ago

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is gang / drug based. We have a violence problem, not specifically a gun problem. Thats due to a number of issues like poverty, lack of education, drugs, and the cycle of poorer people going in and out of prison. Excluding suicides, the rest is what I consider the cost of our country owning guns. We will never have the utopia of zero gun violence with 300,000,000 privately owned firearms in this country and the 2nd amendment isn't changing anytime soon. What we could reduce though are the problems I outlined first. Poverty, education, drug use, and the jail cycle. Those are harder problems than just pointing at guns though, so they don't get suggested as much.

TheGrimDerp1 11y ago

disarming a population is generally the first step towards oppression of freedoms and loss of rights recognition. 'Sides, everybody's far more polite when everyone's packin heat.