National School Walkout

[Pluto]

I have no problem with this kind of post manipulation. Your intent is not to distort or ridicule what was posted, but to organize your response in a logical fashion. I am in support.



Nothing you say here is wrong, AFAICT, I just consider it irrelevant. The damage done by cars is a by-product of their use, and the damage done by NOT having them would be extensive. We are continually working to make vehicles safer, and are (hopefully) moving to a time when automation will significantly reduce accidents by taking human judgment/impairment out of the equation. The gun is designed to do harm. It is in a different class. The first is a mode of transportation that has damaging side effects. The second is a weapon designed to do harm.



I am not questioning the right to self defense, and I have never heard anyone else do so. THAT is what the second amendment SHOULD be about, IMO. Instead, the language is specifically about "arms" so it has fed the gun-rights contingent for decades, perhaps centuries. So this is what I see.

Because the 2nd Amendment has been used to foster a "gun culture" (as some call it), we are awash in guns. Because we are awash in guns, we have the very thing that the second amendment purports to protect killing our citizens in un acceptable numbers, including children in our schools - which has become a #1 target. Countries that have shifted to "guns as a privilege" instead of "guns as a right" have seen extreme reductions in their incidence of gun-related crime/violence. Yes, it will take us some time to get there. But the gun-rights advocates own some responsibility in creating this mess. They created the proliferation of guns, and now they are using the high incidence of gun-violence as an excuse for why they need to not only keep their guns, but demand more. They refuse any reasonable request to improve safety by requiring simple things like gun lockers, universal background checks, and so forth. Every attempt to say, "we don't want to take your guns - just help us keep people safer" falls on deaf ears. So I believe the time has come to say, "enough." The majority of this country does not have to be targets in a shooting gallery because the minority "wants their guns" and refuses to help do anything to reduce the violence. Someone's claim to "right of self-defense" ends when their method kills their fellow citizens in enormous numbers. Today, statistically, 3% of our population owns 50% of the guns. That means about 10 million people own 160 million guns. That's an average of 16 guns per person! Someone tell me this is all about "self-defense?" Just the simple rule of limiting people to 2-3 guns would cut our domestic arsenal almost in half!

Now I do not know what "guns as a privilege" would look like. Limit the number of guns a person can own? Require mandatory training and testing repeated at specific intervals? Mandate gun lockers? Smart weapons? Limit guns to "tool use (e.g. ranch/farming)? Require hunters to "borrow/lease" a weapon to go hunting? I have no idea. That is to be worked out.

Yes, it will take years to bring the gun count down. We will have a period of uncertainty in that process. But when we have reversed what the gun-rights advocates have wrought, then the argument "I need a gun to protect myself from people with guns" will simply no longer be a factor, because guns will be rare.

The fly in the ointment, IMO, is the coming of 3D printers with the ability to create firearms. It can be done today, but imperfectly at best. However, someday soon we will be able to download a template, buy the raw materials, and print pretty much anything we need at home. That will create an entirely new problem. I have no idea how we're going to deal with that.

[Roy]

The right to own property is a globally recognized right.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/

No right to bear arms is listed there...

[seer]

The case still has not been made as to why owning a "thing" is an inherent right. Until that case is made, the FFs were simply wrong. The inherent right is self-protection.

So you think the Founders were wrong? Based on what? Why would your opinion be correct and theirs wrong?

[seer]

The original claim was not about regulations or background checks, but about whether obtaining a gun is easier. The ease of purchase due to technological advances, coupled with the much greater supply, far outweigh any minor delays for background checks.

Pure BS Roy. Yes regulations or background checks do make it more difficult to buy guns - period. And what technological advances? You could order firearms from a catalog when I was a kid and have it shipped to your door. And supply has nothing to do with the ease of purchase.

No matter how you try to pretend otherwise, you can still walk into a gun store and buy a shotgun. That has not changed.

More BS, I need a background check and in my state a gun safety course is first required. Never mind the costs of permits.

[carpedm9587]

Alright, we have definitely exited the more quantitative area then and entered a more philosophical territory. Which is much more difficult than numerical stuff. This post is intended for me to fully understand your position, which I will likely get wrong and need to be corrected.

It looks like you have several dominate concerns:
1) The sheer quantity of guns (And an attendant gun culture. Are these separate concerns?) MICHEL: Frankly, the number is a lesser concern, and so is the "gun culture." They are only a concern insofar as they impact #2
2) Their use to harm others MICHEL: Definitely
3) Potential misuse by those who possess many guns MICHEL: Again, the number is a concern only with respect to the potential for harm.
4) Guns being weapons(Probably their specific type?) MICHEL: Not sure this is a "concern." It is a fact.
5) Refusal of gun owners to take reasonable steps MICHEL: DefinitelyMICHEL: #2 is the dominant concern. I see the others largely as data points contributing to #2

To fully explore these concerns I have a couple of questions.

First, I have taken the liberty of inserting clarifications in your post above. The bolded words are my own, for anyone reading. It just seemed easier than hacking it up line by line. Now on to your questions.

No.

2) Similarly, if a gun owner with many guns never uses them improperly, is his ownership still a problem?

Right now, yes. The problem lies in the ability to sort out truly responsible gun owners from those who simply refuse to take proper steps to protect others from harm because it "infringes on their rights." But, frankly, if all steps were taken that could be taken and the harm-rate were still excessive, I would see the number of guns as the only remaining way to reduce that effect.

That's actually a very good question. I cannot give you a number - and even if I did the inevitable response from many would be "defend why it can't be X+1 or X-1." What would be acceptable to me is reaching a point where gun controls have made guns no longer the dominant choice for suicide, mass shootings are eliminated (or made exceedingly rare - on par with airliner crashes), accidental harm due to gunfire is no longer more prevalent than criminal harm, and the statistics for criminal use of firearms is no longer "predominantly with stolen firearms." Generally speaking, if the ratio of gun-related deaths per capita falls in line with what is happening in countries that have imposed solid gun control (i.e., generally below 1 per thousand per year), I think we will have achieved levels that are "reasonable." We will never achieve perfection.

4) What are the negatives about the current gun culture?(Is it just the quantity of guns, and the refusal to take reasonable steps? Or are there other reasons you disapprove of it?)

#1 - The current harm/death rate due to gun violence
#2 - The intransigence of the gun-culture to accepting reasonable gun controls
#3 - The continued drive to proliferate guns in the absence of those controls
#4 - Most recently - the position taken that they will use those guns against their fellow citizens if provoked (i.e., gun control laws).

I cannot even begin to tell you. In the current culture, we would seem we really have no choice but to equip school windows with bullet-proof glass, put metal-detectors in, station armed guards, require backpack searches and random locker searches. But the reality is, in the current culture, we cannot protect these kids. Once the school building is securely locked down (at enormous expense) the next attack will be on a school bus - or outside the school as students are arriving or leaving - or on the next school field trip, bypassing all security measures put in place. That makes all that security nothing more than "security-theater."

We will never get rid of all the crazies. There will always be that one person that decides to do great harm. But we CAN take some concrete steps to help reduce the likelihood:

1) Education programs about bullying - with a hardline school policy on incidents
2) Education programs about cultural and racial diversity
3) Get rid of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons
4) Reduce the size of magazines permitted (and manufactured) on weapons
5) Provide a police presence at schools to provide both a school-to-cop connection and local protection
6) More aggressive intervention programs for troubled kids (this one I know is vague, and I have no idea who to even begin - but I am sure there are people out there who KNOW this area and can provide some insight and ideas.

That's what came off the top of my head.

[JimL]

So you think the Founders were wrong? Based on what? Why would your opinion be correct and theirs wrong?

The FF didn't say that owning a gun was an unailianable right, they said that in defense of the state the right to bear arms could not be infringed. State militia's are no longer required and no longer exist.

[carpedm9587]

So you think the Founders were wrong?

Yes

Based on what?

Based on these observations:

1) The "gun" is the only "thing" specifically identified in the constitution with a claim to "inherent" or "fundamental" right. That claim is implied by the 2nd Amendment. This raises the question - what is it about the gun that specifically makes it a "right" to own, when nothing else we need for survival has that status? I find no answer to that question.

2) An inherent right is one we have by virtue of being human (in your belief system) and by virtue of being almost universally valued by human beings (in mine). It is about our humanness. So life, liberty, happiness, etc. are all inherent rights and we have always had these rights. A gun is an invention. Before a particular point in time, it did not exist. Before that point in time, we apparently didn't have this inherent right because there was nothing there to have the right about. Then the gun is invented, and suddenly we have the right? What exactly is it about the gun that is so linked to "humanity" that we immediately derived this right - and why only the gun? These questions have been ignored in post after post, but they get to the heart of the problem.

Why would your opinion be correct and theirs wrong?

That's somewhat of a silly question, Seer. Why do any two people disagree? There is either a flaw in reasoning or they disagree on the premises.

[Sparko]

Yes - I have the right to "own things." I do not have an inherent right to own a specific thing. I just have the right to "personal property."



Correct



Also correct



Also correct



Incorrect. My point was that we do not have an inherent right to own "Thing X." For example, because I have a right to "own things," does not incur on me the right to own a nuclear bomb. It does not incur on me the right to own a strain of the ebola virus. I also do not, as you have said yourself several times, have an inherent right to own a car. Indeed, almost any time the parallel is made between gun ownership and car ownership, the response almost invariably comes back "you don't have a constitutional right to own a car."

You are confusing the right of private property with the right to own "that specific thing."

So if the people determine that gun ownership is a danger and the laws change accordingly, they do not have the right to simply seize your guns (you do, after all own them) without just compensation and without due process of law. THAT is what the 5th says.

You are now claiming "arms" is a single thing? Arms are personal weapons. They are a category like "property" - property includes land, homes, guns, gummy bears, etc. "arms" includes slingshots, hand guns, rifles, muskets, knives, baseball bats, swords, etc.

There is no conflict here except in your own mind. The right to BEAR arms includes the right to OWN arms, but the right is about USING weapons, not owning them per se. We have the right to keep and use weapons (arms). Just like we have the right to keep and own property.

[carpedm9587]

You are now claiming "arms" is a single thing? Arms are personal weapons. They are a category like "property" - property includes land, homes, guns, gummy bears, etc. "arms" includes slingshots, hand guns, rifles, muskets, knives, baseball bats, swords, etc.

There is no conflict here except in your own mind. The right to BEAR arms includes the right to OWN arms, but the right is about USING weapons, not owning them per se. We have the right to keep and use weapons (arms). Just like we have the right to keep and own property.

First, "guns" is not a "single thing." It is a class of weapons, and there are many members of the class. And the term is fairly widely accept to mean "firearms." I have NEVER heard anyone use the second amendment to defend their right to own a hunting knife. But even if you DID take your wider definition, widening the class to include other weapons doesn't change the problem. It still asserts that we have an inherent right to own "this thing(s)."

Beyond simply repeatedly asserting that "you have this right," no one has shown why this class of things gets the stamp of "inherent right" and all of the other things we need to survive (or anything else, for that matter) do not. If someone shows how/why this is so, I'll re-examine my position. Until then - IMO, the FFs were wrong and the 2nd needs to be repealed.

BTW, a baseball bat is not a "weapon." Because something can be used to do harm or defend does not make it a weapon. A baseball bat is for playing baseball. It's a toy, or equipment for a game. Just because I can kill someone by running them over with my lawn mower, shoving the handle of my garden rake through their eye, or killing them with a 1,000 bleeding paper cuts does not make my lawn mower, my garden rake, or a piece of paper a "weapon." If you believe it does, then pretty much everything we own is a weapon, because we can probably find some way to kill with it. In which case, I'm not compromising anyone's ability to find ways to defend themselves by removing "guns" from the list.

[seer]

Based on these observations:

1) The "gun" is the only "thing" specifically identified in the constitution with a claim to "inherent" or "fundamental" right. That claim is implied by the 2nd Amendment. This raises the question - what is it about the gun that specifically makes it a "right" to own, when nothing else we need for survival has that status? I find no answer to that question.

2) An inherent right is one we have by virtue of being human (in your belief system) and by virtue of being almost universally valued by human beings (in mine). It is about our humanness. So life, liberty, happiness, etc. are all inherent rights and we have always had these rights. A gun is an invention. Before a particular point in time, it did not exist. Before that point in time, we apparently didn't have this inherent right because there was nothing there to have the right about. Then the gun is invented, and suddenly we have the right? What exactly is it about the gun that is so linked to "humanity" that we immediately derived this right - and why only the gun? These questions have been ignored in post after post, but they get to the heart of the problem.

Carp, you are not making sense, you already agreed that inherent rights don't actually exist, it is just the language you use to point to common moral threads. That being the case no right is inherent even if common, therefore we, or the Founders, are free define inherent rights as including or excluding whatever we wish.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, you are not making sense, you already agreed that inherent rights don't actually exist, it is just the language you use to point to common moral threads.

Seer, you're not making sense. I offered both your definition and my definition. You cannot show guns to be an "inherent right" in either. The same is not true of the other rights protected by the constitution.

That being the case no right is inherent even if common, therefore we, or the Founders, are free define inherent rights are including or excluding whatever we wish.

Based on the previous, this also fails. You keep dodging the basic problem with your argument, Seer, and you keep trying to wrap it around my moral relativism. Here's the problem with your claim. Let's break it down to a simple Pascalian matrix:


My worldview - there are no inherent rights: then the FFs were not only wrong in #2, they were also wrong in all of the other inherent rights.
My worldview - there are inherent rights - then you still have to show how owning/bearing arms is magically the only "thing(s)" we have an inherent right to, which you have not done.
Your worldview - there are inherent rights - then you still have to show how owning/bearing arms is magically the only "thing(s)" we have an inherent right to, which you have not done.
Your worldview - there are no no inherent rights - then the FFs were not only wrong in #2, they were also wrong in all of the other inherent rights.

So, whether my system or yours is the correct one, you are left with either no inherent rights at all, or you have to make the case for why "this thing" (arms) merits special treatment as an "inherent right." In so doing, you have to explain why no other "thing" we need to survive merits this amazing status.

Make sense?

[Sparko]

First, "guns" is not a "single thing." It is a class of weapons, and there are many members of the class. And the term is fairly widely accept to mean "firearms." I have NEVER heard anyone use the second amendment to defend their right to own a hunting knife. But even if you DID take your wider definition, widening the class to include other weapons doesn't change the problem. It still asserts that we have an inherent right to own "this thing(s)."

Beyond simply repeatedly asserting that "you have this right," no one has shown why this class of things gets the stamp of "inherent right" and all of the other things we need to survive (or anything else, for that matter) do not. If someone shows how/why this is so, I'll re-examine my position. Until then - IMO, the FFs were wrong and the 2nd needs to be repealed.

BTW, a baseball bat is not a "weapon." Because something can be used to do harm or defend does not make it a weapon. A baseball bat is for playing baseball. It's a toy, or equipment for a game. Just because I can kill someone by running them over with my lawn mower, shoving the handle of my garden rake through their eye, or killing them with a 1,000 bleeding paper cuts does not make my lawn mower, my garden rake, or a piece of paper a "weapon." If you believe it does, then pretty much everything we own is a weapon, because we can probably find some way to kill with it. In which case, I'm not compromising anyone's ability to find ways to defend themselves by removing "guns" from the list.

You are merely equivocating here Carp.

Yes we have a right to own "a thing" if you want to say "a thing" is a class of things called "guns" or "weapons" - it says so right there in the constitution! Your argument that no other right gives you the right to own a thing is wrong. The right to own property gives you the right to own cars, or houses, or land, or any number of "a things" including guns.

Your argument is silly anyway. I can say the right to free speech is not really a right because no other right gives you the right to freely speak. It's just a dumb excuse.

[Sparko]

Carp, you are not making sense, you already agreed that inherent rights don't actually exist, it is just the language you use to point to common moral threads. That being the case no right is inherent even if common, therefore we, or the Founders, are free define inherent rights as including or excluding whatever we wish.

Yeah he seems to want his cake and eat it too. But I find that happens a lot with relativists. They can't remain consistent and eventually start arguing that something isn't "fair" or "right"

[Pluto]

First, I have taken the liberty of inserting clarifications in your post above. The bolded words are my own, for anyone reading. It just seemed easier than hacking it up line by line. Now on to your questions.



No.



Right now, yes. The problem lies in the ability to sort out truly responsible gun owners from those who simply refuse to take proper steps to protect others from harm because it "infringes on their rights." But, frankly, if all steps were taken that could be taken and the harm-rate were still excessive, I would see the number of guns as the only remaining way to reduce that effect.



That's actually a very good question. I cannot give you a number - and even if I did the inevitable response from many would be "defend why it can't be X+1 or X-1." What would be acceptable to me is reaching a point where gun controls have made guns no longer the dominant choice for suicide, mass shootings are eliminated (or made exceedingly rare - on par with airliner crashes), accidental harm due to gunfire is no longer more prevalent than criminal harm, and the statistics for criminal use of firearms is no longer "predominantly with stolen firearms." Generally speaking, if the ratio of gun-related deaths per capita falls in line with what is happening in countries that have imposed solid gun control (i.e., generally below 1 per thousand per year), I think we will have achieved levels that are "reasonable." We will never achieve perfection.



#1 - The current harm/death rate due to gun violence
#2 - The intransigence of the gun-culture to accepting reasonable gun controls
#3 - The continued drive to proliferate guns in the absence of those controls
#4 - Most recently - the position taken that they will use those guns against their fellow citizens if provoked (i.e., gun control laws).



I cannot even begin to tell you. In the current culture, we would seem we really have no choice but to equip school windows with bullet-proof glass, put metal-detectors in, station armed guards, require backpack searches and random locker searches. But the reality is, in the current culture, we cannot protect these kids. Once the school building is securely locked down (at enormous expense) the next attack will be on a school bus - or outside the school as students are arriving or leaving - or on the next school field trip, bypassing all security measures put in place. That makes all that security nothing more than "security-theater."

We will never get rid of all the crazies. There will always be that one person that decides to do great harm. But we CAN take some concrete steps to help reduce the likelihood:

1) Education programs about bullying - with a hardline school policy on incidents
2) Education programs about cultural and racial diversity
3) Get rid of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons
4) Reduce the size of magazines permitted (and manufactured) on weapons
5) Provide a police presence at schools to provide both a school-to-cop connection and local protection
6) More aggressive intervention programs for troubled kids (this one I know is vague, and I have no idea who to even begin - but I am sure there are people out there who KNOW this area and can provide some insight and ideas.

That's what came off the top of my head.

Excellent, this is just what I was looking for. Unfortunately I don't have time to respond right now :(. Would you mind if you did the reverse? Tell me what you think my concerns are and ask any question you might have.

[carpedm9587]

You are merely equivocating here Carp.

Yes we have a right to own "a thing" if you want to say "a thing" is a class of things called "guns" or "weapons" - it says so right there in the constitution!

But apparently, if we repeal the 2nd and it no longer says so in the constitution, you apparently retain that right, correct? So your right, as you claim, is not granted by the constitution - you claim it is recognized by the constitution. You cannot have it both ways. If it is granted by the constitution, repealing it eliminates the right. If it is recognized by the constitution, you have to show that the right ACTUALLY exists - otherwise, the FFs just made a mistake.

Your argument that no other right gives you the right to own a thing is wrong. The right to own property gives you the right to own cars, or houses, or land, or any number of "a things" including guns.

No. You are not being consistent with previously stated positions. I have been told numerous times that I cannot use "owning a car" as an analogy because "we have no constitutionally protected right to own a car." The fact that I have the right to own private property does not give me a constitutionally protected right to own any particular thing. I have given you several examples of things I am not permitted to "own" and nobody defends my right to own those things on the basis of the 5th amendment.

We can quickly see this by noting that, if I have cash to buy a house, and owner after owner turns me away and I cannot buy one, I cannot appeal to my constitutional right to own a house. If the government bans flourocarbons to protect that atmosphere, I cannot appeal to my constitutional right to own an aerosol can propelled by flourocarbons. If there is in my community prohibiting me from erecting a wind turbine in my backyard, I cannot appeal to my constitutionally protected right to own a wind turbine. No other thing is explicitly consitutionally protected EXCEPT firearms. And no case has been made for why this ONE "class of things" and no other. No link has been made to what it is about the relationship between guns and the human person that confers this right.

Your argument is silly anyway. I can say the right to free speech is not really a right because no other right gives you the right to freely speak. It's just a dumb excuse.

What? Your objection here makes no rational sense, Sparko. It doesn't even begin to align with what I have been saying.