The 2nd Amendment needs to go

[string555]

Well when someone uses a truck to kill 50 and injure 400+ in the space of about 20 minutes, we can have truck control. But right now I think the focus should be on guns.

Okay, how about this realistic scenario, that I'm really surprised hasn't happened yet: A terrorist or some insane individual uses easy to get material to make a decent-sized IED (It's called 'improvised' for a reason), has it loaded up with a truck or van, then runs into a crowd at full speed and detonates it partway into the crowd. Seems like this would easily do at least the same amount of harm, and no guns involved.

It does scare me that this kind of thing can not only happen, but we might very well see it one day. :(

 

[Kanzler]

Okay, how about this realistic scenario, that I'm really surprised hasn't happened yet: A terrorist or some insane individual uses easy to get material to make a decent-sized IED (It's called 'improvised' for a reason), has it loaded up with a truck or van, then runs into a crowd at full speed and detonates it partway into the crowd. Seems like this would easily do at least the same amount of harm, and no guns involved.

It does scare me that this kind of thing can not only happen, but we might very well see it one day. :(

Just because we cannot solve one problem does not mean we shouldn't try to solve another problem.

 

[Arsenic]

"'Act of terrorism' means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to cause great bodily harm or death to the general population."

-Nevada statute

Terrorism.

Unless you want to try and tell me what the motive for recent attacks in Europe have been. As far as I am aware, "Kill the west" isn't much of a message for political change.

 

[Kanzler]

-Nevada statute

Terrorism.

Unless you want to try and tell me what the motive for recent attacks in Europe have been. As far as I am aware, "Kill the west" isn't much of a message for political change.

Honest to God, that Nevada statute is a terrible definition of terrorism, and one that goes against how that word is used by literally everybody else. By their logic, if someone kidnapped and held at gunpoint a hostage in exchange for their political agenda to be fulfilled (perhaps I'm protesting an oil pipeline - we can call that eco-terrorism), Nevada would not consider that to be terrorism insofar as threatening one person is a poor representation of "great bodily harm or death to the general population". What if someone wanted to arson the houses of Republican voters in order to intimidate them from voting? Under Nevada's definition, that act of political violence would not be defined as terrorism, since it was not intended to "cause great bodily harm or death to the general population" (only property damage). Actually WOAT definition.

Terrorism usually involves some kind of political/ideological agenda as well as intimidation or, for lack of a better word, terrorizing the target. As for ISIS terrorist attacks, their political agenda is to establish an Islamic Caliphate and their strategy for doing that is striking fear into their enemy, Western countries. There's an obvious terroristic motive.

 

[Tek]

Repealing the 2nd amendment isn't really necessary, there just needs to be actual gun control.

I think that if this was really going to work, it would've shown signs of working already. But it hasn't, so....

A tool's nature depends completely on the intent of the person wielding it.

Even if you took away all guns from the world, there would still be malicious people. As recently seen, even a tool as innocent as a car or truck can be wielded by a malicious person to cause harm. So again, even if you took away all guns from the world, people with malicious intent would still find ways to carry out their attacks.

Either way, sadly, I really can't think of a valid solution to these problems. It always seems to either be ISIS involved, or it's simply someone with severe mental health problems. I guess in the case of the mental health problems, better mental health care might help, but the problem is getting the people to the help before it escalates into a real problem. As for ISIS, they can go psyduck themselves. >:/

What about America though, where most of these mass shootings aren't terrorist attacks? If both sides are stupidly wrong, then how could we proceed to something better?

...

So that leaves me with both sides wrong. But that still leaves the question of if both are wrong, how do we go forward. And that is by figuring out a third option, whether that be better control and checks on weapons, or something else entirely, I don't know. I do not see either as a solution to end tragedy, because there is no easy way to make all this stop.

...

What is apparent to me is that only top-down solutions are being considered here. The thought process is something like "which government policy should be enacted for people to obey?" It may be useful to examine the issue from the bottom up - how can individuals, families, and communities act in such a way that makes mass killings with guns less likely to happen? At the very least, it seems possible that a combination of both approaches simultaneously (bottom-up and top-down) is more likely to succeed than either one alone.

To begin such an inquiry, I think we should establish that what happened was evil. We may not know why or in the name of what god this man acted, but the public's reaction makes clear that most of us agree it is morally wrong to kill innocents.

 

[Kanzler]

What is apparent to me is that only top-down solutions are being considered here. The thought process is something like "which government policy should be enacted for people to obey?" It may be useful to examine the issue from the bottom up - how can individuals, families, and communities act in such a way that makes mass killings with guns less likely to happen? At the very least, it seems possible that a combination of both approaches simultaneously (bottom-up and top-down) is more likely to succeed than either one alone.

To begin such an inquiry, I think we should establish that what happened was evil. We may not know why or in the name of what god this man acted, but the public's reaction makes clear that most of us agree it is morally wrong to kill innocents.

Unfortunately, individuals, families, and communities - as far as gun policy is concerned - do not appear to be cohesive actors capable of bringing about positive change. It would be nice if there was a grassroots movement petitioning for reforms in government and gun culture, but there just isn't.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

And don't first-world countries where gun control is active also have high crime rates and poor governments?

Could you, uh, name some...? Because Japan, Australia, china, the UK, Germany and Canada don't fit that description at all (And not only that, there's no correlation between those things and gun control? Also, America HAS gun control, there's legislation around gun ownership, it's just "gun control" colloquially in the us means stricter legislation around weapon ownership rather than having any at all)

And aside from protecting ourselves from criminals and terrorist attacks,

People having weapons during crimes literally never helps anyone and just results in more injuries as untrained gun owners fire weapons in uncontrolled high stress situations.

there's also the fear of a zombie apocalypse caused by an unknown virus (there exist videos on youtube explaining how it can happen in real life). And from what we learn from fiction, long-range weapons like guns are more effective against zombies than close-range weapons like knives because you're much safer from getting bitten by them. The game ZombiU took place in the UK, where gun control is active thus fewer guns available in-game, which is why London has fallen to the zombies in its story.

Uh, this is.... a stretch? Beyond the weird implausibility of a zombie-like disease existing at all, there's incredibly massive logistical problems with traditional zombie traits that'd make them incredibly ineffective as an actual threat against people.

Beyond that, how is "maybe zombies will be real one day" an actual argument for allowing continued real mass shootings

Why was the second amendment added to the bill of rights?

Mostly because England's bill of rights had it, but historically it was part of concern that giving the centralised government control over a national army (Something argued to be necessary to defend against foreign invaders ect) raised concerns that the government could defund/disarm state militias and oppose it's will on states by force.

 

[Arsenic]

Uh, this is.... a stretch? Beyond the weird implausibility of a zombie-like disease existing at all, there's incredibly massive logistical problems with traditional zombie traits that'd make them incredibly ineffective as an actual threat against people.

Beyond that, how is "maybe zombies will be real one day" an actual argument for allowing continued real mass shootings

That's because it's a sarcastic-ass comment made to embody perceived stupidness of owning a firearm. Ala an insult not a serious argument.

 

[string555]

You know one thing to consider is that no matter which side you're arguing for, it's not like anyone is going to suddenly change their stance on it simply because they read a few people's arguments, right? So instead, what's the middle ground here? I mean, is there actually a fair compromise between both sides on this issue?

 

[Kanzler]

You know one thing to consider is that no matter which side you're arguing for, it's not like anyone is going to suddenly change their stance on it simply because they read a few people's arguments, right? So instead, what's the middle ground here? I mean, is there actually a fair compromise between both sides on this issue?

The middle ground between banning guns and doing nothing is having more gun control.

The middle ground between more gun control and doing nothing, well there is no middle ground there.

But if you think that the middle ground doesn't involve some kind of gun control, you're deluding yourself. You have to concede at the very minimum -something- to get to a middle ground.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Could you, uh, name some...? Because Japan, Australia, china, the UK, Germany and Canada don't fit that description at all (And not only that, there's no correlation between those things and gun control? Also, America HAS gun control, there's legislation around gun ownership, it's just "gun control" colloquially in the us means stricter legislation around weapon ownership rather than having any at all)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes

Says here that Japan, the UK, Germany, and Canada have higher crime rates alongside with the U.S. in the millions (Australia only being the odd one out). And speaking of the U.S., gun violence is not the main factor of its high crime rate.

Spoiler:

Uh, this is.... a stretch? Beyond the weird implausibility of a zombie-like disease existing at all, there's incredibly massive logistical problems with traditional zombie traits that'd make them incredibly ineffective as an actual threat against people.

Beyond that, how is "maybe zombies will be real one day" an actual argument for allowing continued real mass shootings

A zombie-like disease isn't implausible. Here's one of the videos I'm talking about:

That's because it's a sarcastic-ass comment made to embody perceived stupidness of owning a firearm. Ala an insult not a serious argument.

It wasn't sarcasm, I was actually serious about the possibility of a zombie apocalypse with firearms being the best weapons to deal against them.

 

[string555]

But if you think that the middle ground doesn't involve some kind of gun control, you're deluding yourself. You have to concede at the very minimum -something- to get to a middle ground.

Okay, how about that on top of passing a background check, also having to pass some kind of mental health assessment, possibly on a somewhat regular basis (Maybe every 2 years, if that's not too much). Also, I think making it so you also have to pass a mandatory training course on top of that.

How about that? :3

 

[Kanzler]

Okay, how about that on top of passing a background check, also having to pass some kind of mental health assessment, possibly on a somewhat regular basis (Maybe every 2 years, if that's not too much). Also, I think making it so you also have to pass a mandatory training course on top of that.

How about that? :3

I think that makes common sense, maybe not the regular mental health assessment. And yeah, that would be considered a form of gun control.

 

[Esper]

Real gun control won't happen in America because of the NRA. The NRA's members are single-issue people. They ONLY care about guns and ONLY care about stopping gun control. They're very easy to lead around because of that. So gun control attempts are ALWAYS challenged, blocked, protested by an army of angry NRA members.

How the NRA can be so powerful is another issue, mixed up in the way we do politics (money + corruption + gerrymandering), the national myths of American ("we fought the tyrannical Brits off with our GUNS"), and our fear-mongering mass media.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Says here that Japan, the UK, Germany, and Canada have higher crime rates alongside with the U.S. in the millions (Australia only being the odd one out). And speaking of the U.S., gun violence is not the main factor of its high crime rate.

High compared to..... what...? You didn't actually link to anywhere that explained it, and just showed me some graphs of crime rates as if the idea of a country not having guns automatically gives it sky high crime rates for.... some reason? "thetruthaboutguns" blog isn't exactly a reliable source here either

A zombie-like disease isn't implausible. Here's one of the videos I'm talking about:

I mean that's.... fun, I guess, but still not incredibly compelling to assure me that we totally need to keep these massacres because maybe someday zombies will spawn inside american homes.

Besides that, the idea of something wide spread isn't that grounded in reality anyway given the logistics. There's a lot of reasons why that thing is pretty deep in fiction
http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly.html

Okay, how about that on top of passing a background check, also having to pass some kind of mental health assessment, possibly on a somewhat regular basis (Maybe every 2 years, if that's not too much). Also, I think making it so you also have to pass a mandatory training course on top of that.

How about that? :3

It kind of throws the mentally ill under a bus and is completely ineffective to curb accidental gun deaths, deaths involving guns that aren't owned by the person using them but it's got some good merits and works pretty well as a start to build off of

 

[gimmepie]

The idea that guns are going to prevent violent crime is hilarious to me. Firstly, if you have a handgun, you're not going to stop the guy already aiming an assault rifle into the crowd from killing or wounding everyone in the room. You'll just be a priority target.

Secondly, having more people with more guns absolutely means more gun violence. All these mass shootings? A lot of them - this one included .- are committed with high-powered firearms that were legally bought. In some cases, like this one, en masse.

Third, you can't have a gun on hand for protection and be responsible with it. If it's locked in a safe, it's not protecting you from an armed invader. If it's not in a safe, children and drunk people can get at it real easily and hurt themselves or others.

Fourth, human beings are extremely unpredictable. It's painfully easy to lash out and hurt someone when you're angry, people do it a lot. Now let's put guns in those people's hands! It's a bit harder to make amends with a person you just shot in the head. Then there's the possibility of your own life falling apart. A lot of people hit rock bottom. Let's make it even easier to kill yourself. This is all ignoring drugs, alcohol and stupidity as factors.

On that note, yes there is a middle ground here. That is, you don't require a total gun ban because that's stupid. You ban crazy things like assault rifles and powerful scoped completely. You require stringent background checks and mental health clearance as well as a justifiable reason for owning a gun (hint: defence isn't one).

 

[Arsenic]

Mostly because England's bill of rights had it, but historically it was part of concern that giving the centralised government control over a national army (Something argued to be necessary to defend against foreign invaders ect) raised concerns that the government could defund/disarm state militias and oppose it's will on states by force.

So the people could rise up against the government if they thought the government was being tyrannical.

Today, obviously, the government could mow down anyone they want with ease, assault rifles to defend them or no.

Woo two answers!

So with this, I will raise that the Second Amendment is not something we need until we need it, yes?

I think there is another part to it though, and that is foreign invasion, and the ability to resist in the case our military partially or fully is defeated. You may say as well, that "If someone invaded us they could completely wipe out a bunch of civilians with semi-auto rifles and handguns." And I say in frontal conflict yes, obviously. But Civilian resistance is never a frontal conflict, and I ask you to go read on the Vietnam War, or the French resistance during WWII (Or polish, etc...) Bigger army + Better equipment /=/ victory.

Finally to those who say something like this is never likely to happen. Bad things always happen when you least expect them and let your guard down.

I guess this is more a counter to OP than anything. Or just ranting. It's a reason not to get rid of the second amendment though none-the-less.

And like I've said before, I'm fine with additional (or any) reasonable gun control. Better background checks, mental health exams, maybe even require a reason deeper than self defense to get a license. But then again that's similar to Australia's gun laws, and if I'm not mistaken while it did reduce gun-crime, only did so by a third (Not that there was a lot to begin with)

 

[string555]

It kind of throws the mentally ill under a bus

Well, just my personal opinion, but since I suffer from certain mental health problems, I think that I should not be allowed to own a gun. The only exception is in that 'foreign invasion' scenario mentioned by someone above. In the event of that scenario... PROTECT THE LOLIS AT ALL COSTS! And no, I'm not actually joking about that. :/

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

High compared to..... what...? You didn't actually link to anywhere that explained it, and just showed me some graphs of crime rates as if the idea of a country not having guns automatically gives it sky high crime rates for.... some reason? "thetruthaboutguns" blog isn't exactly a reliable source here either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

According to descriptions for Japan, the UK, Germany, and Canada, they have strict gun laws, and yet their crime numbers are still in the millions from that other source I linked you, making them worse than other countries below them and no different from the United States.

 

[MaӾiej]

I have nothing against the Second Amendment. While I could care less about owning a gun, I support it. However, there needs to be some sense of reason concerning what we can and can't own. I mean, how many people do you know of that owns a Rocket Launcher/ RPG or Flamethrower? Those are wartime weapons. I highly doubt too many people outside of the military are going to have those. I feel the same can be said about fully automatic and possibly semi-automatic machine guns.

To put it simply, I don't feel weapons with a high rate of fire have any place other than on the battlefield. Their sole purpose likely is nothing more than a high rate of casualties. We won't necessarily take them all off the streets if we ban them but I feel it's a step in the right direction. At the same time, I know this won't fix everything but I feel banning these guns will go a long way toward preventing more mass shootings.