"You have a red dot on your forehead," said a child. Then a man shot his nephew.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots?

No, but it's tight checks to see if you're responsible enough to own weapons because giving you a weapon licence.

As far as we know, this man is a "law abiding citizen" who has no criminal record. While I support background checks, this wouldn't have been prevented by them. You can't predict this type of accident. This is the wrong type of incident to base an anti-gun argument off of, IMO.

You need a licence to drive, why not a licence to own guns?

I'm not against that at all, but it still would not have prevented this individual incident. A permit and background checks are perfectly reasonable ideas.

[AkSaber]

Why is it everyone in these situations always claims they "accidentally" pulled the trigger. Like... the weapon should have known the shooter had no intention of harming the person he was aiming the weapon at, therefore the weapon should have known not to discharge.

Besides, modern firearms have so many internal safety features to prevent unintended discharges. So basically, when a handgun goes off it was meant to.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Here's a question - why does a 34 year old who lives in his parents' basement with his minor child need a gun? Multiple guns, actually. He clearly didn't have his ducks in a row to begin with. And we're to assume he's responsible enough to own deadly weapons?

There's no reason to assume someone in that situation would do something like this.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.

Except you are advocating an inappropriate way of regulating guns by requiring people to justify owning one.  You're getting it all wrong in my opinion.  People should never have to justify a priori why they possess anything, rather the state should have the burden of justifying why a particular person shouldn't have a particular possession, be it a gun or any other item.  Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that most adults can be treated as responsible adults and that the state needs to show that a particular adult is not responsible before not doing so.  If that presumption is false, then so is the idea that democracy will provide the best system of governance.

[bedstuy]

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.

Except you are advocating an inappropriate way of regulating guns by requiring people to justify owning one.  You're getting it all wrong in my opinion.  People should never have to justify a priori why they possess anything, rather the state should have the burden of justifying why a particular person shouldn't have a particular possession, be it a gun or any other item.  Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that most adults can be treated as responsible adults and that the state needs to show that a particular adult is not responsible before not doing so.  If that presumption is false, then so is the idea that democracy will provide the best system of governance.

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

[bedstuy]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

How many people could actually afford them?  More seriously, do you really think that the laws we have about machine guns, explosives, and nuclear weapons accomplish the intended task of keeping nefarious people from acquiring them?

[bedstuy]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

How many people could actually afford them?  More seriously, do you really think that the laws we have about machine guns, explosives, and nuclear weapons accomplish the intended task of keeping nefarious people from acquiring them?

Pretty much.  Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

When you make doomsday devices illegal, only criminals will have doomsday devices.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

[traininthedistance]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

It's funny how you bring up "negative consequences" now but seemed blithely unaware about the existence of (intended or not) negative consequences in your first post upthread:

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide.

Even if that was its intent, that sure as shootin' ain't its effect.

And I think bedstuy gave your "guns 4 revolutionary socialism" hypothesis all the respect it deserved.

[traininthedistance]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

This well-trod talking point always amuses me, in large part because... well y'all probably can guess what my response would be by now, so.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

No, I'm advocating no banning, not no regulation.  Just because I have libertarian tendencies doesn't not mean I'm one of those nuts who sees no role for government.  However, I do tend to be fairly skeptical about whether what government can do will accomplish what it intends to do.

Let's take for example the most extreme example, a nuclear weapon.  First off, there's all the health, safety, and environmental laws that would need to be followed in the production of a nuclear weapon.  Plus once you have the weapon, requirements concerning safe storage of the warhead and trigger locks to prevent accidental detonation.  Given all the expense involved, especially if suppliers would potentially be liable for the damages should their product be used for such a purpose, you'd need to be a billionaire to own one, and I doubt that billionaires would be all that interested in them unless they become the latest status symbol of those who have more money than they could possibly use.  Even then, background checks to ensure that those who are unstable mentally or financially would not be able to obtain the nuclear cores would be quite necessary.

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

No, I'm advocating no banning, not no regulation.  Just because I have libertarian tendencies doesn't not mean I'm one of those nuts who sees no role for government.  However, I do tend to be fairly skeptical about whether what government can do will accomplish what it intends to do.

Let's take for example the most extreme example, a nuclear weapon.  First off, there's all the health, safety, and environmental laws that would need to be followed in the production of a nuclear weapon.  Plus once you have the weapon, requirements concerning safe storage of the warhead and trigger locks to prevent accidental detonation.  Given all the expense involved, especially if suppliers would potentially be liable for the damages should their product be used for such a purpose, you'd need to be a billionaire to own one, and I doubt that billionaires would be all that interested in them unless they become the latest status symbol of those who have more money than they could possibly use.  Even then, background checks to ensure that those who are unstable mentally or financially would not be able to obtain the nuclear cores would be quite necessary.

You're just obsessed with not making anything illegal per se.  I think we've had this discussion before and it's pointless, abstract nonsense.

But, suffice to say, I think we ought to regulate guns and dangerous toys more tightly than you do.  Your whole line of argument about cars, homemade IEDs and privately held nukes is just ridiculous pedantry about some minor philosophical point that nobody besides you cares about.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't really think most gun control laws are effective, but people like Snowstalker and right-wing militia nuts with their sooooooooo bad arguments make me want to support them.

[IceSpear]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

A government by and for the 1% which violates human rights at home and abroad isn't reason enough?

Explain how people are going to fix that with guns.

You seriously think a bunch of people with assault rifles and handguns will be able to do anything against the US military? They'd meet the same fate as the Yemeni funeral you never stop harping about.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seriously think a bunch of people with assault rifles and handguns will be able to do anything against the US military? They'd meet the same fate as the Yemeni funeral you never stop harping about.

Unlike Yemeni militants, hypothetical American militants would be operating from here and thus be able to make life dangerous for our political and military leaders and for their families in a way that militants abroad never will be able to do.

[IceSpear]

You seriously think a bunch of people with assault rifles and handguns will be able to do anything against the US military? They'd meet the same fate as the Yemeni funeral you never stop harping about.

Unlike Yemeni militants, hypothetical American militants would be operating from here and thus be able to make life dangerous for our political and military leaders and for their families in a way that militants abroad never will be able to do.

I highly doubt it, since their "movement" would be destroyed before it even got off the ground.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you. 

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life. 

You know that the gun control movement started with white Southern racists in the 1960's who were afraid of blacks, right?

[Oakvale]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you.  

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life.  

You know that the gun control movement started with white Southern racists in the 1960's who were afraid of blacks, right?

Who cares? Margaret Sanger was a racist but birth control is still a good thing. When did you regress back to the 'Blue Dog'/populist/whatever MUH GUNS nonsense?

The idea that wanting to put some kind of limit on the amount and accessibility of things that literally exist only to be murder weapons is "paternalistic" is so American (and libertarian) that it's impossible to take remotely seriously.

E: Southern racists (you dubiously claim) supported gun control at one point, ergo gun control is a racist policy? What's up Oldiesfreak?

I'm going to hazard a guess that racist rednecks in the South aren't big fans of gun control in the year of our lord 2014.

[dead0man]

People that think guns only exist to murder are impossible to take remotely seriously. 


Is there ANY other political debate where one side is so overwhelmingly ignorant of the thing being debated as this one.  Perhaps AGW, but there is plenty of ignorance on both sides of that one (and that's not to say there isn't ignorance on the pro gun side as well, clearly there is, but nowhere near the level of ignorance on the gun control side).


I know I know..."we don't have to know a lot about a subject to know it's wrong and should be banned".....yeah....good luck with that.