Firearms - The US Discussion Thread

[a_majoor]

Outside of all the other deconstructions of Lumber's post, the right to bear arms is the practical expression of "Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Property rights and the unfettered use of property are the other practical expression of individual liberty, so, yes, they are indeed intrinsic rights. Rights you cannot express or use in a practical manner are not rights at all.....

 

[cupper]

From what I have seen in my years down here, the issue isn't whether one has the right to own a fire arm, that is settled law. As Kevin pointed out SCOTUS has reaffirmed that all individuals have the right to own firearms.

The issue is what limits can government put on that right. This is what has both sides turning themselves inside out trying to justify their view points.

With respect to the No-Fly list, I agree with Kevin that there is no due process and no reasonable means to appeal or have your name removed from that list. One issue with the list is that there is no easy means to distinguish between persons who have the same name as individuals who have been placed on the list. Passengers have been delayed or denied boarding simply because another John or Jane Q Citizen did something that was considered a threat to airline safety or national security.

Also, there is a unique situation for Canadian airline passengers traveling on flights that pass through US airspace but do not land in the US. The US frequently reviews Canadian airline passenger lists for flights passing through US airspace. And passengers can be denied boarding if they are deemed a threat, even though they have no intention of entering the US.

 

[Jarnhamar]

You have a right/s until the government decides you don't.

Generally in the west we don't have governments making such brash decisions as to revoke rights but the whole 'greater good' stick can be pretty wide.

 

[Lumber]

One issue with the list is that there is no easy means to distinguish between persons who have the same name as individuals who have been placed on the list. Passengers have been delayed or denied boarding simply because another John or Jane Q Citizen did something that was considered a threat to airline safety or national security.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the spirit of what Obama was saying was that people who are actually on the no-fly list shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. This isn't a comment on whether the no-fly list as it stands is accurate or just.

Has the states officially ruled that to bear arms is incorrectly interpreted as the right to own a gun?

Ugh.. that's not what I was saying! Despite any official legal ruling, I was merely using the fact that there are many people who still don't believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own a gun to show that gun ownership is not universally seen as an intrinsic right. To further my point, in both McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the SCOTUS decisions were 5-4 decisions. So, even in the SCOTUS there was significant disagreement.

 

[Lumber]

Once normalization of removing gun rights is set to the low bar of someone was on a list with no due process, it becomes much more easy to justify taking all gun owner's rights away. Then his next limit to freedom will be compared to how guns were taken away and done in a similar fashion.

I concede. To take away the legal right to own a gun based on the being on the no-fly list does seem sloppy. From what I've read, it is far to easy to be place on the no-fly list. Perhaps the Terrorist Watch-List instead? However, I think you are being overly paranoid. You say the "next limit to freedom" as if Obama has a grocery list of rights he wants to take away from Americans. What other rights are you worried about him taking away? Is it just the precedent you are worried about?

Maybe next time it will be something that you like...

I won't go and dissect everyone of your examples, but I will address your central argument.

Your main argument (as I read it, correct me if I'm off the mark): Obama wants to ban those on the no-fly list from owning guns. Banning people from owning guns based on a poorly implemented security measures is unjust. Ergo, how would I like it if I was banned from doing things I like, such as owning a fast car or travel across state/provincial lines, based on a poorly implemented security measure?

My counterargument: Banning people from owning guns (or banning anything else) based on a poorly implemented security measure is unjust (as I conceded above). However, banning someone from owning a gun (or some other ban, such as travel) based on a well thought-out and implemented security measure is just. If they could come up with a solid, makes-sense criteria of reasons to put someone on a no-fly list, or no-travel list, or no-fritos list, then power to them! How do you think Bill C-51 came to be?

Additional comments: I feel like you, and many others here, too easily connect one decision with potential future decisions. I feel, and I don't mean to be insulting, that you assume these decisions set dangerous precedents. It's like you have a very strong distrust for the system and the government. I do not believe that decisions in one matter so easily translate into other matters. Even if Obama just went ahead and banned anyone on the no-fly list (as it stands) from owning guns, I do not believe that would translate into other rights being taken away, such the rights of regular gun owners, cars going over 30km/h or my non-intrinsic right to eat fritos.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would guess that the reason that some (many?) of us are wary of bad precedents and future decisions is that many of us have been the actual victim of a not so veiled attempt to remove the freedom of gun ownership in Canada (you will all note that I did not say "right". In Canada, we enjoy no such right).

I am deeply suspicious of any politician or party (of any persuasion) that calls for the limiting of freedoms- especially in the name of some emotional greater good. That is usually about when the herd mentality gets it wrong, and good people get trampled in the ensuing stampede.

 

[Lumber]

There is no Right to Life, in real terms, unless one can freely exercise that right. Doing so requires the means to successfully defend oneself, ie effective weaponry.

First part, agree. Second part, disagree. Weapons are not the only way ensure the right to life. In fact, the whole idea of using deadly weapons to ensure life just feels contradictory to me. It would be far more effective for governments to work toward creating a society that, as a whole, is more conducive to the preservation of life. I don't want to live in a place where the only reason I feel safe is the gun I have at my waist.

I do not know the formula. All I know is that I feel perfectly safe walking around large cities and Canada, and we have no legal right to carry weapons, concealed or open. I also know that I've felt perfectly safe walking around Savannah, Charleston, Seattle (to name a few); cities where open and concealed carrying of weapons is allowed.

If I feel safe in both places, and one doesn't allow wide spread carrying of guns, then is it really the guns that are keeping me safe?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Also a as i recall it's an offense to attempt to purchase a gun when barred to do so due to a a criminal record, yet after such a person is denied a purchase, no legal action is taken against them for clearly breaking the law once again. Basically they can't enforce the existing laws properly, so the answer is more laws without any more resources.

I am so going to enjoy this "drone operator registry" they just created, will be quite the gravy train for someone.

 

[Kilo_302]

First part, agree. Second part, disagree. Weapons are not the only way ensure the right to life. In fact, the whole idea of using deadly weapons to ensure lift just feels contradictory to me. It would be far more effective for governments to work toward creating a society that, as a whole, is more conduscive to the preservation of life. I don't want to live in a place where the only reason I feel safe is the gun I have at my waiste.

I do not know the formula. All I know is that I feel perfectly safe walking around large cities and Canada, and we have no legal right to carry weapons, concealed or open. I also know that I've felt perfectly safe walking around Savannah, Charleston, Seattle (to name a few); cities where open and concealed carrying of weapons is allowed.

If I feel safe in both places, and one doesn't allow wide spread carrying of guns, then is it really the guns that are keeping me safe?

The question should be, in which place are you actually safer? And the answer is, the society with less firearms (Switzerland is a unique case, as nearly all gun owners have military training, and little access to ammunition). Study after study bears this out. In the end it's a question of the importance we place on individual freedom versus public safety. A classic, "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" question. The Americans have emphasized personal liberty over public safety.

This makes sense, as American society traditionally is more suspicious of government and regulation (outside of the national security apparatus) than other Western nations.  But let's not forget the market aspect to this. Gun makers are very active lobbyists, and recent figures show that after every highly publicized mass shooting gun sales spike because Americans believe that more guns might lead to a safer society. Why do they believe this? A lot of it has to do with the innate emphasis on personal liberty I mentioned above, but a lot of is also tied to the misleading information coming from the gun lobby as well as a lack of American data on the subject. This last point is also largely due to effective lobbying by gun manufacturers and the NRA.

The CDC for example has been trying to study the problem of gun deaths as a public health issue, but it's efforts have been repeatedly blocked by Congress. This is a direct result of NRA lobbying, and the NRA as we know is largely a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers. In fact in 1996, Congress went so far as to cut funding to the CDC by the exact amount it had spent on gun related research. This is as clear as a message can be. If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it. This is exceedingly difficult in a country like the United States, where freedom of speech laws now protect corporate/lobby group donations to politicians, and those politicians actively block any attempt by a public health institution like the CDC to do what it does best, form policy based on independent research.

 

[Journeyman]

If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it.

And yet some people here continue to "debate" as though they, and only they, have all the facts and anyone holding a contradictory view is an idiot.


I'm not arguing either side of this; I just have an innate preference for informed opinion. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Quote from: OBAMA
“Right now people on the no-fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That’s insane,” Obama said. “If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous by definition to buy a gun.”

Probably too dangerous to be on the street also.

Obama went way off message with that quote. He's admitting, contrary to his normal stance, that it's the person, not the gun, that's responsible for their actions.  Face palm for POTUS.

 

[KevinB]

Gun Death research is a red herring.
  It is a waste of the CDC - as that is not it's mandate, and that is why Congress cut it, as Center for Disease Control, is not the Statistics Bureau.

One can draw opposite opinions from looking at the gun issue and I'm not that ignorant to ignore my enemies  .  However when you look at the criminal use of firearms, the focus should be on solving the issues of causation for lowering the incidents.  For most gun violence in the USA, it is crime related - and major cities (most with strict gun laws) suffer the worse.
  Now is that a Gun Problem, a Crime Problem, an Urban Problem, , or is it honestly a multifaceted Societal Problem...

  Perhaps a better look at societal issues and placing more value on human life would help from the start, as well as giving more people jobs that are rewarding and don't require criminal activities to get "ahead".
Removing guns is never the answer, as folks who want to do evil will still get guns, or someone weapon. For a while up here in NoVA, the
  The vast majority of mass shootings/attacks occur in "safe areas" where guns are either forbidden or highly restricted.
Why, well because predators want to reduce their risks.

Far many more people die from vehicle, alcohol and drugs than guns.  Maybe it's just not guns...

 

[Kilo_302]

Gun Death research is a red herring.
  It is a waste of the CDC - as that is not it's mandate, and that is why Congress cut it, as Center for Disease Control, is not the Statistics Bureau.

One can draw opposite opinions from looking at the gun issue and I'm not that ignorant to ignore my enemies  .  However when you look at the criminal use of firearms, the focus should be on solving the issues of causation for lowering the incidents.  For most gun violence in the USA, it is crime related - and major cities (most with strict gun laws) suffer the worse.
  Now is that a Gun Problem, a Crime Problem, an Urban Problem, , or is it honestly a multifaceted Societal Problem...

  Perhaps a better look at societal issues and placing more value on human life would help from the start, as well as giving more people jobs that are rewarding and don't require criminal activities to get "ahead".
Removing guns is never the answer, as folks who want to do evil will still get guns, or someone weapon. For a while up here in NoVA, the
  The vast majority of mass shootings/attacks occur in "safe areas" where guns are either forbidden or highly restricted.
Why, well because predators want to reduce their risks.

Far many more people die from vehicle, alcohol and drugs than guns.  Maybe it's just not guns...

And the CDC is able and does conduct research on deaths related to vehicles, alcohol and drugs. Pretty much anything that can be considered a public health issue. Guns stand out as one area that the CDC is unable to touch.

Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.

 

[George Wallace]

Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.

No it wouldn't.  Someone intent on murder or suicide will find a means, and not necessarily with a firearm.

 

[Loachman]

The question should be, in which place are you actually safer? And the answer is, the society with less firearms (Switzerland is a unique case, as nearly all gun owners have military training, and little access to ammunition).

This is false.

Just sticking with one country, where crime stats are at least mostly uniform (British and Japanese homicide rates are artificially low, for example, for various reasons), that can be seen.

Homicide rates vary from State to State within the US. They also vary between other US jurisdictions as well. Homicide rates are lower in those States that impose the least restrictions on firearms ownership and carry. Several States that border Canada have lower homicide rates than their neighbouring Canadian Provinces. Major cities, which tend to impose draconian restrictions and are rife with drug gangs, have dramatically higher rates. And one is far more likely to be robbed, assaulted, or raped in Jolly Old England (my Country of Origin) than in the Wild West US.

Study after study bears this out.

Again, false.

Just one simple observation disproves this notion: whereas the number of privately-owned firearms in the US has skyrocketted in recent years, thanks to the best firearms salesman that America has ever known (Barack Hussein Obama), homicide and other violent crime rates have plummetted over the last three decades.

Your claim has also been picked apart in excruciating detail - county-by-county (and there are more than 3000 of them in the US) by John Lott in "More Guns Less Crime".

The Americans have emphasized personal liberty over public safety.

Personal liberty and matching responsibility are the best guarantors of public safety. The freedom to own and carry firearms has been the major influence that has driven down violent crime rates in all categories. Criminals simply do not like to be shot, and they fear armed private citizens more than they fear police, as police are more easily identifiable.

Gun makers are very active lobbyists

Gun makers are fulfilling a demand by ordinary citizens. Many, in fact - and ammunition manufacturers especially - are having a hard time meeting that demand. And that's all without the expensive advertising that automobile manufacturers, for example, have to buy.

recent figures show that after every highly publicized mass shooting gun sales spike because Americans believe that more guns might lead to a safer society.

And recent figures prove that they are correct.

a lot of is also tied to the misleading information coming from the gun lobby as well as a lack of American data on the subject.

There is no "misleading information" coming from the "gun lobby", or lack of credible data. The only misleading information is being pushed by the gun-grabbers. Misleading information and appeals to base emotion is all that they have.

And who is this "gun lobby"? Millions of ordinary citizens, simply exercising their rights, including their electoral rights.

This last point is also largely due to effective lobbying by gun manufacturers and the NRA.

Who is the NRA?

Over four million private citizens - the biggest single voting block in the US. No other issue has been able to generate that level of support, consistently, over any length of time.

Do you have some objection to ordinary people indicating their wishes to their politicians?

The CDC for example has been trying to study the problem of gun deaths as a public health issue

Which is not within its lanes, anymore than the study of epidemics falls within the purview of criminologists.

but it's efforts have been repeatedly blocked by Congress.

And rightfully so. Organizations dedicated to the study of disease should study disease. Until guns can replicate themselves and attack people independent of human control, there remains a huge difference between firearms and bacteria or viruses.

This is a direct result of NRA lobbying, and the NRA as we know is largely a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers.

No, "we" do not "know" that. Many misguided and ignorant people may believe that, but they are wrong. The NRA is the "mouthpiece" of over four million private citizens, and, although it is the largest, it is far from the only firearms organization active in resisting idiotic, poorly-aimed, and dishonest legislation.

In fact in 1996, Congress went so far as to cut funding to the CDC by the exact amount it had spent on gun related research.

Which was exactly perfect.

If a truly honest and open debate were to take place, we would need reliable data to frame it.

There is plenty of that around, but your side consistently fails to either comprehend or accept it.

public health institution like the CDC to do what it does best, form policy based on independent research.

Neither lawful nor unlawful firearms use is a public health matter.

 

[KevinB]

And the CDC is able and does conduct research on deaths related to vehicles, alcohol and drugs. Pretty much anything that can be considered a public health issue. Guns stand out as one area that the CDC is unable to touch.

It should have ZERO to do with vehicles, however drugs and alcohol, which are now considered diseases, I guess I can understand.
The issue is certain Doctors who feel it is their business to meddle in other issues want to be able to speak from their presupposed position of superiority, MD's should stay in their lane, the same way I am sure folks would be appalled if I started giving out health advice...

Removing guns isn't the sole answer no, but it would have an immediate and direct effect on fatalities and injuries related to murder, suicide and NDs.

And knives, cars, baseball bats and hammers wouldn't be used?

England and Australia who imposed draconian gun laws have had MASSIVE upswings in their armed assaults - why, because some people will resort to whatever they can.

 

[c_canuk]

I think you are being overly paranoid. You say the "next limit to freedom" as if Obama has a grocery list of rights he wants to take away from Americans. What other rights are you worried about him taking away? Is it just the precedent you are worried about?

Whatever law he comes up with next, by definition will limit freedom. You have to understand that basic fact.

Right now for example a freedom that has been taken away from me is that I cannot purchase or sell cigarillos and flavoured tobacco products in ON.

Just out of nowhere it became illegal.

They've put out of business shops that catered to people such as myself who enjoyed a pipe or a cigarillo in the field to keep the bugs away, or just something to do for a moment with our hands while we drink a cup of coffee.

Yes I know in the grand scheme of things it's not a very important issue. However, I've lost that right. Why? Because apparently, and I'm not making this up, these are the products of choice for children who are taking up smoking.

Seriously, anyone been by a high school and seen the kids there smoking anything but bargain butt cigarettes? but keep in mind, cigarettes are still legal.

Apparently if I have my dwelling unhooked from the power grid and run my own solution, I still have to pay the service, delivery, maintenance and debt retirement fees because the gov said so. My last bill was for 36 dollars of power with 110 dollars of fees.

Ontario has the lowest speed limits in Canada, it's been proven in multiple studies that more people die in accidents every year because of it, yet limits are not raised in accordance to engineering reports. Why not?

Do you understand now why some of us are opposed to sloppy legislation based on emotion rather than fact? Based on manufactured "facts" that aren't?

Your main argument (as I read it, correct me if I'm off the mark): Obama wants to ban those on the no-fly list from owning guns. Banning people from owning guns based on a poorly implemented security measures is unjust. Ergo, how would I like it if I was banned from doing things I like, such as owning a fast car or travel across state/provincial lines, based on a poorly implemented security measure?

My main argument is that he's decided he doesn't like guns, and wants to get rid of them anyway he can regardless of the facts and consequences of his methods. How would you like it if someone picked something arbitrarily that you liked or relied on to be targeted the same way, with no rationality using the same tools and zealotry.
Make no mistake, once we’re all gone, they will come for you. But there will be no one left to speak up for you.

My counterargument: Banning people from owning guns (or banning anything else) based on a poorly implemented security measure is unjust (as I conceded above). However, banning someone from owning a gun (or some other ban, such as travel) based on a well thought-out and implemented security measure is just. If they could come up with a solid, makes-sense criteria of reasons to put someone on a no-fly list, or no-travel list, or no-fritos list, then power to them! How do you think Bill C-51 came to be?

You mean how it's done already?

Additional comments: I feel like you, and many others here, too easily connect one decision with potential future decisions. I feel, and I don't mean to be insulting, that you assume these decisions set dangerous precedents. It's like you have a very strong distrust for the system and the government. I do not believe that decisions in one matter so easily translate into other matters. Even if Obama just went ahead and banned anyone on the no-fly list (as it stands) from owning guns, I do not believe that would translate into other rights being taken away, such the rights of regular gun owners, cars going over 30km/h or my non-intrinsic right to eat fritos.

I think you have your head in the sand, quite frankly.

Once guns are banned, do you think he'll just stop making laws and taking rights away, or.... do you suppose the alarmists that live among us who constantly cry "won't someone think of the children!" and "If we save only one life!!!!" won't pick some other right or freedom to take away from us in some ill thought out non-plan to fix a non-existent problem or target merely the symptom of a greater problem that won’t be addressed.
You know those people with no facts or data who constantly use lies to paint us as "irresponsible" jerks who apparently don't want to save lives or protect the children because we don't support their half bakery that impacts us but not them in grossly unfair ways?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Could fit in either thread
https://mises.org/blog/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada?fb_action_ids=10154464010193957&fb_action_types=og.likes

 

[stealthylizard]

Yep, that Obama wants to go around and grab everyone's guns which is proved by all the gun control legislation that has been passed under his administration, which by my last count is ZERO.  Gun rights have actually increased under the infamous gun hater.

This could be because nothing would ever make it through the current congress and senate.  Or maybe, while he personally does care much for firearms, despite pictures of him clay shooting earlier in his administration, he realizes those feelings shouldn't guide legislation.  He hasn't even signed any executive orders concerning guns, like everyone keeps fearing he will.

Note:  I realize that the president doesn't introduce legislation, but it wouldn't be hard for him to get someone else to do it for him.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Oh he would if he could. But they know that it would get shot down before coming into law and would alienate the gun owning democrats and the growing female gun owner demographic. They are also afraid of court challenges that would enshrine the rights further.