4 ms·

Another way to explain the first argument, without the cartoon, is to compare it to a woman's right to an abortion. This is also a constitutionally protected ri

by dalke 11y ago

Another way to explain the first argument, without the cartoon, is to compare it to a woman's right to an abortion. This is also a constitutionally protected right, but in many states laws have been passed to make it ever harder for women to exercise those rights. With that comparison it's easy to both capture the gist of the cartoon, but also the ridiculousness of it. There is one abortion clinic in Mississippi and 10 in Texas. In the strictest of states there is far more than 10 gun stores. But I write to object to your "two sides" viewpoint. You write: > We have seen gun control laws used to victimize minorities and immigrants, by removing their ability to defend themselves Certainly Regan and others introduced gun control legislation to make it hard for the Black Panthers to arm themselves. But you left out at least two factors. 1) easy access to guns means that police can justify a shooting Tamir Rice because the toy gun might be a real one, or Ricardo Diaz-Zeferino because "officers said they could not see one of Diaz Zeferino’s hands and believed he was going to reach for a weapon." 2) the co-existence of a weapon during some other crime can be used to "enhance" the penalty, even if the weapon wasn't used to commit the crime. If weapon restrictions were equivalent to that of, say, Norway (which also has 'statistically tiny mass shooting', but definitely not non-existent), then there would be less justification for police killings of suspects, and less ability to apply even more charges. I'm totally willing to talk about the wholesale use of gun control similar to what's in Norway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway . I don't see anything I want to avoid addressing. Therefore your statement makes no sense to me.

angersock 11y ago
Those two points you bring up are more of an issue with the widespread corruption and behavior of police than any problem with guns. They'll shoot you reaching for a wallet, and the answer is going to be "knife, mace, taser, whatever" once "gun" is no longer in vogue, and it'll still be bandied about by saying "it could've been a firearm from the time before we banned them". Norway's rules are reasonable--for them--but again I am hesitant given the history of abuse of authority we have in the United States. It's been shown in the last fifteen years that mandatory firearms registration (of a sort similar to Norway's here) may result directly in confiscation of private and legal firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_respon... It was not long ago that we've seen the effective use of an impromptu militia to maintain order: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police...
- dalke 11y ago
  Your first sentence is as best only partially correct. You would have to include corruption by the prosecutors, who are the ones who file the charges. In any case, you have attempted to distinguish between "behavior of police" and "problem with guns". This is impossible, as everything to do with police response is an issue with the "behavior of police", including their response to an often armed citizenry. You can only use your argument by begging the question, and assuming that these entangled issues are easily separated. Your best example, which you say is "not long ago", is at 23 years old almost a generation ago. Your justification is even weaker than mine! You argue that an 'impromptu militia' has (occasionally) helped protect property during civil unrest and therefore must be preserved. Yes, and probably somewhere a pistol butt was used to break the window of a car and rescue a baby that was trapped inside, so we have to make sure everyone has a pistol handy during hot weather. Your example with the Katrina response is equally tenuous. That appears to have been an illegal order by the local police, which then lied to the courts about their actions. Census records were used to round up Japanese during WWII. Do we therefore stop taking a census? Police have also illegally misused driving license information and similar records (see http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html ). Do we therefore stop tracking those records? The answer to those rhetorical questions is "no". You haven't explained why this example of illegal police use of the records is meaningful, other than to say that no records should be kept, for fear of abuse. But all of this is besides the point. You said "The reason we can't talk about gun control is because both sides have problems which neither side wants to address.", but I still say that your characterization of the two sides is 1) limited, because there are more than two sides, 2) incorrect, or at least highly selective about the issues, and 3) hasn't pointed out the issues that someone like me, who is for much more restrictive gun control, isn't willing to address.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    "Do we therefore stop taking a census?" No, but maybe we should stop asking people questions about their ethnicity. The census was intended to apportion legislative seats. Nothing else. There's no reason or constitutional justification for any of the other questions that they ask.

by dalke 11y ago

angersock 11y ago

Those two points you bring up are more of an issue with the widespread corruption and behavior of police than any problem with guns. They'll shoot you reaching for a wallet, and the answer is going to be "knife, mace, taser, whatever" once "gun" is no longer in vogue, and it'll still be bandied about by saying "it could've been a firearm from the time before we banned them". Norway's rules are reasonable--for them--but again I am hesitant given the history of abuse of authority we have in the United States. It's been shown in the last fifteen years that mandatory firearms registration (of a sort similar to Norway's here) may result directly in confiscation of private and legal firearms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_respon... It was not long ago that we've seen the effective use of an impromptu militia to maintain order: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-car http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police...

dalke 11y ago
Your first sentence is as best only partially correct. You would have to include corruption by the prosecutors, who are the ones who file the charges. In any case, you have attempted to distinguish between "behavior of police" and "problem with guns". This is impossible, as everything to do with police response is an issue with the "behavior of police", including their response to an often armed citizenry. You can only use your argument by begging the question, and assuming that these entangled issues are easily separated. Your best example, which you say is "not long ago", is at 23 years old almost a generation ago. Your justification is even weaker than mine! You argue that an 'impromptu militia' has (occasionally) helped protect property during civil unrest and therefore must be preserved. Yes, and probably somewhere a pistol butt was used to break the window of a car and rescue a baby that was trapped inside, so we have to make sure everyone has a pistol handy during hot weather. Your example with the Katrina response is equally tenuous. That appears to have been an illegal order by the local police, which then lied to the courts about their actions. Census records were used to round up Japanese during WWII. Do we therefore stop taking a census? Police have also illegally misused driving license information and similar records (see http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html ). Do we therefore stop tracking those records? The answer to those rhetorical questions is "no". You haven't explained why this example of illegal police use of the records is meaningful, other than to say that no records should be kept, for fear of abuse. But all of this is besides the point. You said "The reason we can't talk about gun control is because both sides have problems which neither side wants to address.", but I still say that your characterization of the two sides is 1) limited, because there are more than two sides, 2) incorrect, or at least highly selective about the issues, and 3) hasn't pointed out the issues that someone like me, who is for much more restrictive gun control, isn't willing to address.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  "Do we therefore stop taking a census?" No, but maybe we should stop asking people questions about their ethnicity. The census was intended to apportion legislative seats. Nothing else. There's no reason or constitutional justification for any of the other questions that they ask.