National School Walkout

[Juvenal]

Because they are used for the defense of all other rights. If you can't defend your rights, then they might as well not exist.

We defend our rights with arms under the rule of law by arming our law enforcement agents. Defending them with arms as individuals is called vigilantism.

[Juvenal]

Nobody is opposed to sensible gun control.

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

[TheWall]

Marco Rubio is working with one other senator for something I heard about from Ben Shapiro. I think the name was gun violence probation, but I can't remember.

On a somewhat related note I thought yelling fire in a theatre is wrong because it is a call to action that endangers lives as well as being a lie.

[Sparko]

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

Where?

[One Bad Pig]

Not in this thread, please.

Jesse, is one not allowed to call a spade a spade? Just wondering.

[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.

I don't have a problem with what you did with my post :). It was divided by complete thoughts, and any additions were short and to the point.

As I said in my previous post, this was exactly what I was looking for. The specification that 2)[Saving lives] was the most important was excellent(though expected), and the indication that 5)[Recalcitrant gun owners] seems to come in at a solid number two also helped me understand your position. Avoiding +-X and instead indicating guidelines was what I had in mind, and the variety at the end was good. The only part that was unclear was my fault.(Its the guns as weapons comment). Obviously, guns are weapons. What I was interested in(and totally unclear about), was that I got the impression that guns being weapons meant that they should be more strongly regulated than other non-weapon objects, even if those non-weapon objects inflict similar harm on average.

This request was mostly to get an understanding of your position, and I don't plan on doing a detailed analysis of it at this time. Part of this is that you have indicated that you are leaving this thread to greener pastures. The other part is that I expect we would circle uselessly unless you perform a similar exercise for me(That is, indicating what you think my concerns are and asking any question that you think are relevant. Obviously since I have a very small number of posts, that makes it a bit more difficult, but I think the exercise is useful regardless). We might circle uselessly even then, but we might be able to figure out why we circle uselessly instead.(As there might be conflicting non-negotiables that would not be explicitly stated. As an example, when I first wrote my post I did not initial have point 5 as a concern. It was only in my review that I realized that this was important to you, even going so far as to be the second concern you said 'Definitely' too. This concern is mitigated by other factors in my own position, which made it harder to spot the importance when looking at another's.)

[Cerebrum123]

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

Evidence please.

[RumTumTugger]

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

You mean the no fly list? Lao sorry when anyone can be put on it with no evidence that they are a terrorist I.E Senator Ted Kennedy was on such a list as well as not telling you that you are on it it is not sensible. Until they can make sure no one gets put on that list that shouldn't be on it it is not sensible to use such lists. it isn't that we oppose a mesure that would make sure that terrorist dont' get guns it is that if they take guns away from non terrorists because someone falsly accuses somone else of being one it isnt' sensible.

[Juvenal]

Jesse, is one not allowed to call a spade a spade? Just wondering.

"People like you ..." is a personal attack, and I'm not allowing that in these threads. The quality of the responses suffers when the frame shifts from attacking and defending ideas to attacking and defending persons.

[Terraceth]

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

I'm not sure if "many" were actually opposed, but if you're referring to the no fly list, opposition to forbidding people on it from buying guns is generally because the no fly list has no real oversight and seems just downright random a lot of the time as to who ends up on it. Kids under the age of 10 have ended up on the list. Now I'll admit that those kids wouldn't be buying guns even if they weren't on the list, but it's an example of how unreliable that list is.

[Juvenal]

Where?

Evidence please.

Let me see if I can dig up an example ...

You mean the no fly list Lao sorry when anyone can be put on it with no evidence that they are a terrorist I.E Senator Ted Kennedy was on such a list as well as not telling you that you are on it it is not sensible. Until they can make sure no one gets put on that list that shouldn't be on it it is not sensible to use such lists. it isn't that we oppose a mesure that would make sure that terrorist dont' get guns it is that if they take guns away from non terrorists because someone falsly accuses somone else of being one it isnt' sensible.

I'm of the opinion that the watch lists need fixing, but also of the opinion that the risk of allowing known terrorists to escape restrictions is greater than the benefit of, temporarily, restricting the gun purchasing rights of citizens inadvertently placed on these lists who do not belong there.

In fact, righting the injustice of one rights the injustice of the other, making for a win-win outcome scenario.

[Juvenal]

I'm of the opinion that the watch lists need fixing, but also of the opinion that the risk of allowing known terrorists to escape restrictions is greater than the benefit of, temporarily, restricting the gun purchasing rights of citizens inadvertently placed on these lists who do not belong there.

In fact, righting the injustice of one rights the injustice of the other, making for a win-win outcome scenario.

What in hell did I just write.

*that the benefit of imposing restrictions on known terrorists is greater than the risk of ...

[Juvenal]

Do you think Asperger's or OCD makes people violent? Or could there have been some other reason? Heck they might have mentioned he was left-handed, so maybe we should restrict guns from left-handed people.

In the case cited by Roy, the restriction was imposed on those with impairments who were also incapable of handling their own affairs.

[Jedidiah]

I consider prohibiting gun sales to individuals on our terrorist watch lists sensible, yet many TWebbers were opposed to this measure.

According to my memory the only objection was to strong mistrust of the list. Many errors were spelled out and many innocent folks would not be allowed guns, and many dangerous folks would be so allowed. If you can point to one post that simply says what you claim (let alone many) I would be surprised.

[One Bad Pig]

"People like you ..." is a personal attack, and I'm not allowing that in these threads. The quality of the responses suffers when the frame shifts from attacking and defending ideas to attacking and defending persons.

Point taken.