Guns, Guns Guns

Is the solution to simply deny EVERYONE access to guns or address the grievances that foster these levels of violent crime?

When I refer to grievances, I do not automatically point to racial grievances. The data is not conclusive. There are however, policies in place that limit access to opportunities in our nation. Those need to be addressed. There are beliefs that foster division and self segregation within our society. These need to be countered.

Guns are simply tools used to exert violence. Violence has its time and place well down the list of possible options. If a nation's government has been corrupted as Germany's was by the Nazis, the option for violent resistance must be available. That option also needs to exist to defend an individual from criminals where seconds count and the police are minutes away. It will take time to change the fundamental drivers of criminal behavior. Even if those drivers are successfully addressed, laws abiding citizens need tools to protect against violent criminals.

So bottom line is that restricting access to guns for criminals is already being done and expanding the restrictions to include the law abiding only serves to limit options we have to protect ourselves.

Daryl wrote:Thanks SMR. Exactly what I was talking about. Because we have had strict gun laws for decades very few low echelon criminals have access to guns. If they do get one it is often a sawn off single shot rifle. Our cops don't automatically assume that they are facing someone with a revolver, automatic pistol or assault rifle.
I'm not saying that in an entire continent occupied by 24 mill pretty well off people there aren't some baddies with serious weaponry, but it is rare.

smr wrote:What a felon with a unlicensed and unregistered handgun, that's just shocking! Oh, he was carrying 2 different illegal drugs!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/25/police-release-graphic-dashcam-footage-showing-what-happens-in-the-seconds-after-felon-appears-to-reach-for-officers-gun/

Except Peter, in the US it isn't being restricted.
There are so many holes in the US gun laws that it is easier to illegally buy a gun there than to legally buy one here in Oz.

And it's pure politics. It's gotten wrapped up in the extreme partisen politics that you guys have, and that we seem to be heading for here.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Its already illegal for felons to own firearms. Making more laws won't stop criminals and will further limit law abiding citizens. Also, Oz doesn't have the same constitutional protection. That's our different tradition at work. I wouldn't change our protections such as they are for yours as you wouldn't change ours for yours.

Annachie wrote:Except Peter, in the US it isn't being restricted.
There are so many holes in the US gun laws that it is easier to illegally buy a gun there than to legally buy one here in Oz.

And it's pure politics. It's gotten wrapped up in the extreme partisen politics that you guys have, and that we seem to be heading for here.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:Its already illegal for felons to own firearms. Making more laws won't stop criminals

Data from every other develloped nation with stricter gun control gives the lie to this statement.

Will it 100% stop any criminal from ever getting a gun? Of course not. Will it curtail their ability to do so? Damn right it does.

And ever other developed state DOES restrict gun ownership for law abiding citizens. They do not limit the government constitutionally with regard to restricting gun ownership. I know you want to change that. Ain't happening yet and hopefully never.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Its already illegal for felons to own firearms. Making more laws won't stop criminals

Data from every other develloped nation with stricter gun control gives the lie to this statement.

Will it 100% stop any criminal from ever getting a gun? Of course not. Will it curtail their ability to do so? Damn right it does.

I'd concede that when you compare the US to all the other developed nations there are a number of differences in other matters that may influence the gun violence. (I almost didn't put the "other" in but decided to be nice).

The developed nations have national health and welfare nets that ensure that none of their citizens have to starve or die from common illnesses (Some still do but you can't regulate human behaviour to prevent stupidity in all cases).
Thus it is possible that some US citizens become desperate as they have nowhere to turn but to violence. The incarceration rates would indicate that there is some truth in this.
So the solution to this would be to get a strong central government, copy the many successful health and welfare systems, then wait a couple of generations for society to change as the desperation fades away.


As a gun owning law abiding citizen I accept that our government has both the right and responsibility to regulate my gun ownership. Small price to pay to know that our streets are quite safe overall. The definition of a law abiding citizen could well mean not caught yet, or about to blow, or about to have their non secured guns stolen.

How many advances in technology as measured by patents were developed by the US? How many have been developed by the rest of world? Not trying brag. I am asserting that our unique way of viewing the world contributes to this. Part of that uniqueness is the belief that we are individually sovereign. This belief is supported by our Second Amendment. Government does NOT hold the monopoly on the use of force. Government can regulate it with laws but ultimately the sovereign citizen has the right to use force to protect his/her life, property and sovereignty.

Discarding the Second Amendment is to cede that right to government agents. To many American that means to cede their individual sovereignty to the State. That will have a large impact on how most American view themselves and their responsibilities. It will have a huge impact on our willingness to discard conventional wisdom and yes to disagree with it.

Let's consider this discussion, Daryl. You repeatedly assert the opinion of the rest of the world disagrees with me as if that was a valid reason to change my mind. That conforming to conventional wisdom was a virtue to be cherished. That is not a cherished virtue in the US. We charish.....well we used to universally cherish those that tested conventional wisdom and prod innovative change. There is a huge resentment directed at political correctness as witnessed by Trump's success. We resent PC because deep down we still revere those that challenge conventional wisdom not to drive change for its own sake, but to innovate better solution.

That spirit of innovation more prevalent here than anywhere else in the world is inherently tied to the responsibility we believe we have that is tied to our individual sovereignty. Changing our view to conform to the rest of the world will dilute our ability to innovate so that we become no better at it than anyone else.

PeterZ, I'd respectfully disagree with much of your last post. Per head of population there are many countries that are at least as inventive as the US, if not more so. Tiny New Zealand has a disproportunate share, as does Australia, and don't forget the UK who invented computers, jet engines, radar, and much else. With the commercial realities nowadays where large research centres tend to be in the US (attracting people from all over) I sure that a disproportunate number of patents are now coming from the US, but they tend to be minor commercial variations for big corporations, not significant breakhroughs.

As to your claiming the royal "We", the US with 320M people is a diverse country, and I'm sure that many progressive and inventive thinkers would laugh at the suggestion that the 2nd amendment is an inspiration, or contributes to this individually sovereign concept of your subset of society.
That the " spirit of innovation is more prevalent here than anywhere else in the world", is simply not true and jingoistic bull shit.

And finally for about the tenth time I'm not trying to change your mind. I admit to using you as a sounding board, and a resource by which I can try to understand a unique mind set that puzzles many (the US patriotic religious right). Not meaning to offend by this, just to educate myself as your (and others here) values are so different to mine and others I know.

Hey daryl, dont forget, as we found out this week, not all of them should have been patents either.... (samsung v apple)

Daryl wrote:PeterZ, I'd respectfully disagree with much of your last post. Per head of population there are many countries that are at least as inventive as the US, if not more so. Tiny New Zealand has a disproportunate share, as does Australia, and don't forget the UK who invented computers, jet engines, radar, and much else. With the commercial realities nowadays where large research centres tend to be in the US (attracting people from all over) I sure that a disproportunate number of patents are now coming from the US, but they tend to be minor commercial variations for big corporations, not significant breakhroughs.

As to your claiming the royal "We", the US with 320M people is a diverse country, and I'm sure that many progressive and inventive thinkers would laugh at the suggestion that the 2nd amendment is an inspiration, or contributes to this individually sovereign concept of your subset of society.
That the " spirit of innovation is more prevalent here than anywhere else in the world", is simply not true and jingoistic bull shit.

And finally for about the tenth time I'm not trying to change your mind. I admit to using you as a sounding board, and a resource by which I can try to understand a unique mind set that puzzles many (the US patriotic religious right). Not meaning to offend by this, just to educate myself as your (and others here) values are so different to mine and others I know.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm

Daryl,

I am not implying there are no innovative people elsewhere. There are. Most of the most innovative in the US had been immigrants. My point is that our weird way of thinking is fundamental to the environment where the US has been granted more patents since 1977 than any other country. This mindset isn't just in the religious right. Even our PC liberals are less enamored with conventional wisdom.

That independent mind set is fundamental to the US. We tend to be a stubborn and cantankerous lot. All of which add up to being measurably more innovative than anywhere else. We are 5%(?) of the population yet produce more than half of all patents. This is a fact.

This fact is driven by that belief in individual sovereignty. Some identify the Second Amendment as the symbol of that sovereignty. Other identify other symbols. Bottom line is that Americans don't accept constraints and limitations nearly as well as the rest of the world.