RE: Come and Take It!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
The fact that you fixate on the AR-15 and you defend this misleading information means that you aren't actually interested in protecting children. If you actually cared, you would be proposing Russian-style gun laws. What I mean by that is that roughly two thirds of all gun crime in the US (including school shootings) is committed with handguns, whereas semi-automatic rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crime. Handguns are flat-out illegal for private citizens to own in the Russian Federation, but semi-automatic rifles are not (@apnigrich can fact-check me on this). I know of four school shootings that have taken place in Russia since 2009, and in every single one, the weapon used wasn't a rifle of any kind, it was a shotgun, which is the only type of weapon that a Russian citizen may own for the first five years of holding their firearm license. Everyone I've ever spoken to agrees that the five-year smoothbore restriction is the dumbest of Russia's gun laws, primarily because a shotgun does a hell of a lot more damage than a rifle.
I'm not fixated on the AR-15.
You said that knife crime is more of an issue than guns, and I was pointing out that someone armed with a high powered weapon is more dangerous than someone with a knife... and that knives don't seem to rank too highly in the stats of children's death in the United States.
I would absolutely support regulations on handguns in the USA. 100%! Completely agree. Making handguns illegal for private citizens in the USA sounds like an incredible step forward and I think lots of lives would be improved in the world's richest country if that were to happen.
OK. I have no intention of complying with your proposed regulation. What now? Do you believe your fears really justify using violence to coerce me into compliance? How does that make you the good guy in this scenario?
Just to be clear, I'm advocating for common sense gun regulations, not a ban on guns.
I'd love a ban on handguns, but I also know it would be extremely difficult and maybe impossible... so I think there are a number of important steps before it came to making handguns illegal:
1.) Require licensing/permits for firearms.
2.) Ensure all firearms are tracked and recorded.
3.) Impose gun safety requirements (lockers, separation of ammunition and firearms etc).
4.) Removal of firearms license/permits for other crimes.
Even these steps will be difficult, but I definitely think it's worthwhile to reduce the gun violence in the USA.
I see it similar to owning a car. You can drive around without a license and never be caught... but if you are caught then you risk fines and jail time. if you're firing guns on your property, hunting grounds or shooting ranges then you'd also expect to prove that you have the correct permits/licenses, or else risk fines or jail time.
Calling it "common sense" does not make it common sense.
A license or permit is, by definition, paying for permission to do something which is otherwise illegal. It does not guarantee competence, it just creates a revenue stream for government while creating a "crime" of mere non-compliance. Do you believe failure to comply with a regulation where no person or property suffered any injury really justifies fines, imprisonment, or death? That is the necessary and unavoidable consequence of your proposal.
One of the chief reasons to own firearms is to resist governments. A government which registers and traces firearms is antithetical to this purpose. Again, democide is a leading cause of death worldwide. Governments fundamentally do not represent the people as a whole or serve their interests.
Another reason to own a firearm is to defend yourself against two- or four-legged threats. Mandates for locks, separation of firearms and ammunition, etc. are antithetical, and serve only to again make "criminals" out of people who have committed no crime.
Revoking licenses for crimes sounds great until you see, again, how many acts and objects which are fundamentally not criminal are declared "crimes" by governments.
If people can drive safely without a license, and yet be criminals with its absence, where is the crime? I say the crime is with the law and its enforcement.
First principles: no victim? No crime. Simple as. You are advocating violence against people who have done nothing wrong because you imagine it will make you feel safer.
Drugs are illegal. Machine guns without a $200 tax stamp and registration are presently illegal in the US. Criminals manufacture or smuggle drugs anyway, and prohibition creates a violent black market which fuels a demand for guns. Blaming guns for gang violence is dumb.
Back to my initial point of press freedom, historically speaking, printing pamphlets and books without a government license was even illegal. People could face fines, imprisonment, or even execution for printing unapproved literature. How is that just? Sure, it was The Law, but legality doe snot define rationality or morality. You demand similar legislative threats against peaceful people and call it "common sense," when you are (knowingly or not) demanding violence against them. How can you justify this without appealing to emotion or some status quo in other countries?
@steampunkkaja, do you have anything to add?
Well, since we've so thoroughly covered both the moral and statistical angles to write a book on the subject, I think we should also mention the civic angle. Because the US is a constitutional republic, the legislature cannot simply pass a law to solve something. Look, I know that the government does unconstitutional stuff all the time, but the chief reason that gun control advocates will never get what they want is because it would set a dangerous precedent. Here, have another meme:
Outright repealing the 2nd Amendment (which a lot of people would love to see) would allow the government to repeal any of the other first ten. "Hate speech laws" for example, have also been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Thus, the government engages in constitutional "workarounds" with Silicon Valley corporations in order to manipulate the narrative because "private companies can do what they want," never mind that most big tech companies are publically-owned.
Furthermore, the massive surveillance state (think NSA spying scandal) was a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment. Either citizens have a constitutionally-protected right to privacy or they don't.
Despite what the current dementia patient-in-chief has repeatedly said, Constitutional Amendments are absolute, and the statement that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is just as invalid as the statement "you couldn't buy a cannon when the 2nd Amendment was written." The reason I bring that up is because far too many people who go after gun rights are also after free speech; maybe not in Australia, but it's certainly the case in every other country that has introduced stricter gun control in recent years; Switzerland, Canada, and Serbia are prefect examples.
The purpose of licenses and permits aren't to pay governments for access... the purpose is to prove competency. Lots of permits and licenses don't carry any cost.
You don't get a driver's license by paying the DMV, you have to pass a series of tests.
A gun permit shouldn't be provided to someone who knows how to handle a firearm safely.
Ideally you would want a licensed electrician, plumber, accountant, mechanic, etc to provide their expertise instead of some random who has no experience but is filled with unearned confidence they can do the job for you.
When flying interstate, I'm confident that the people in charge of the 787 are all appropriately licensed. Same if I need surgery.
Licenses aren't a revenue stream, they are the way that people can find an expert they need without needing to do all the background work themselves.
The way to resist governments isn't with firearms - it's with collective action. Physically fighting the entire US military will just end in lots and lots of death. Governments are there to represent you and your wishes, if they're not doing that then the people need to collectively change that. Shooting someone isn't productive, it takes organizing and protesting and getting representatives in that will look after your interests to make actual meaningful change.
There is a whole ecosystem in the United States to keep people divided, to keep people scared... fearful of other groups or anyone different, fearful of the government, fearful of criminals, etc... all to keep people in the US buying more and more weapons and accessories. It's obviously a huge business and extremely profitable, especially since fear also helps get clicks and views too. Keeping people divided is extremely profitable for so many reasons... but the solution to that is for people to unite and work together. A united people is an unstoppable force.
You are conflating licenses with certificates. A certificate is usually a prerequisite for a license, I am aware, but licenses expire; certificates don't. I don't need to prove I know how to hunt (or even how to shoot straight) in order to get a hunting license. All I needed to do was pass a safety/regulation exam and pay a small fee.
To hire, yes. But I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in another house built by one; electricians and electrical engineers understand the principles well enough to know what they can get away with doing, regardless of code. Ask any building inspector what sorts of illegal shit they've seen licensed electricians do in their own houses... I'll wait.
Yes, they are. Fees that pay for hunting licenses and game permits support state-funded wildlife conservation efforts. Likewise, public transportation infrastructure is paid for by drivers' license fees, vehicle registration fees, and petrol taxes.
"Коллективные действия"? Пффффт ХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХАХА!!!
Right... and if the work of Jordan Shanks-Markovina is anything to go by, those are rare, even in Australia. People who go into politics do so to make money, and they get elected on empty platitudes and false promises; Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the ultimate example of that.
Yes, and literally every single organisation that you have cited as a source thus far is part of that ecosystem. Throughout this entire discussion, you've been projecting your own propaganda-induced fear and paranoia onto us. I do not fear criminals precisely because I am armed. Almost everyone in my neighbourhood is... and so far, the only house that has been broken into has been one with no guns in it.
Remember, division is only one layer of propaganda, its ultimate purpose is demoralisation, and that's what makes it so evil.
I was a loyal Soviet citizen until the age of twenty. What that meant was to say what you were supposed to say, read what you were permitted to read, vote the way you were told to vote, and at the same time, to know it was all a lie. - Natan Sharanskii
I think you're right... but in the situation of obtaining your driver's license... I don't think you get a certificate first. Apologies if I don't have the semantics right... but my point was that you often have to prove something in order to be allowed to do it.
In the example of your hunting license, you had to prove that you knew some rules on safety before you're allowed to hunt.
My understanding is that in some states of the USA, you can purchase a high-powered firearm and ammunition at a gun show, with cash, and take it home the same day without anyone knowing you have it nor having to prove to an expert that you know how to use it safely.
If I'm trying to solve the problem of the high number of school shootings in the USA, that might be a scenario to tackle. You're not allowed to drive a car in the USA without proving to an expert that you can, I don't see any reason a high-powered weapon should be all that different.
Sorry, I should have said that licenses don't exist for the sole purpose of only being a revenue stream.
Politicians in the UK and Australia and many countries in Europe don't go into politics to make money... the public service is usually paid lower than corporate pay. This does often mean that the only people who can afford to go into politics are already independently wealthy or they are chasing power... but all that aside... the use of deadly force by the people shouldn't be the only way to make change. The people change governments in many countries without a deadly coup all the time.
In the case of dictatorships, yes, violence might be necessary, but hopefully a politically engaged population can prevent a dictatorship from occurring.
My intention wasn't to project my fears onto you.
My intention was to that I think the idea of banning books and weed is stupid, but the idea of banning guns is far more complex, and a problem like US school shootings can't be solved if people are against even discussing changes in firearm ownership.
You don't fear criminals because you are armed... but the majority of parents in the US fear for their children's safety in school. That is not usual in developed countries and I'd love for the US to try something to address that.
I agree with competency. Why do you believe a government monopoly is the best, or even only, way to train people? You clearly have zero experience with firearm culture in the US, just distorted media representations. What if trade unions offered guarantees for the work of union members instead of outsourcing to governments and insurance corporations? You appeal to the status quo and just assume it is right and proper without any examination.
I am not advocating civil war. I am advocating the same deterrence for the individual against trespassers you believe threat of legal action from government will impose on people who fail to comply. You, however, are advocating for open war against non-criminals because you believe in arbitrary laws enforced by men with guns.
People like you demanding government violence against peaceful people are divisive. However, unity is not inherently proper. Progress always comes through deviation from the norm, and appeals to popularity and consensus are irrational.
If I refuse to obey new laws, but do not violate the life, liberty, or property of others, how am I a criminal, and how is violence against me justified? Just answer that simple question.
I don't believe a government monopoly is the best.
I'm not advocating for open war against non-criminals.
I'm definitely not demanding for government violence against peaceful people.
The problem is the number of school shootings in the USA.
The solution, I think, is increased mental health services, increased resources into lower-income communities, increased gun regulations and police reform.
They're all complicated and expensive solutions but I think the number of mass shootings and school shootings is worth the increased effort and expenditure.
For school shootings in particular, I believe part of the issue is the ease and speed in which people can legally get themselves a high-powered weapon and then use that weapon on the innocent.
You think that the solution is to deter the shooters by increasing the number of guns in schools. I don't agree with that solution.
I personally think that limiting who can access those weapons (ie, people with a history of domestic abuse) and increasing the requirements so that people have to prove their competency would help reduce the numbers of school shootings. If a non-government agency is in charge of that process, that's fine, as long as there are results. It may take years to work out the systems and processes, which is unfortunate but understandable.
I know this answer is frustrating... but I think this is too simple a question.
All of our actions affect others.
Let's say you're choosing to purchase a pair of shoes.
There's two that you like... and you don't know anything about them.
One pair is made by child slavery overseas and the other is made by an American shoemaker.
You probably don't think you're violating the life, liberty or property of others... you're just buying a pair of shoes! People do exactly that all the time.
But buying the pair made by child slavery provides incentives, which forces more children into shoe-making slavery and you have actually, unknowingly, violated the liberty of someone else.
I see this in a similar way.
You having the freedom to buy an AR-15 in a private sale with no records whatsoever and no checks on your safety knowledge or intentions, also means someone with ill intent can do the same. By voting for representatives that push for unlimited access to firearms you do end up affecting the lives, liberty and property of others, even if that's not what you intended.
Living in a society is amazing. We don't have to do literally everything ourselves for ourselves. We can share resources and specialize and look after each other, but for society to work we do have to make small sacrifices in personal freedoms for the health and wellbeing of the group. From a purely selfish perspective, the healthier the group is, the better it can look after us.
Just curiously, how do you know you'll never violate the life, liberty or property of another? What stops you from snapping one day and shooting hundreds of people? What if you get drunk and accidentally shoot your neighbor's house? How can you be sure you won't develop dementia, get confused and shoot a girl scout in the face? What happens if someone breaks into your house when you're not home, steals all your guns and ammo and shoots up into a crowd?
If I had a mental health crisis, I'm probably pretty limited in the damage I could do... but if you had a crisis you could potentially destroy thousands of lives. That's a lot of responsibility.