Observations About Real America - 3 (Firearm Edition)

[Kazuha Vinland]

I feel the need to rectify my statements, as people seem to be able to twist their necks all the way around my arguments to conflict them.

I am not arguing that US citizens do not need guns, but promote the idea that a gun free society does not need being introduced to guns as a measure of defense. Which is correct. In Japan, where owning (or even touching) a gun has been a criminal offence since WWII, they have a rate of firearm murder 30x less than the U.S. Chew on that for a moment.

The issue is not about whether guns, strictly morally, should be allowed or not (it shouldn't) - but how you can remove the gun market from the US, safely. To this point, no plan for doing that has ever been convincing enough, and I think it requires a drastic change in mindset if it should ever come to happen.

What gives me hope, is that we solved a similar societal problem here in Norway. Smoking. It was unheard of that you could just ban smoking, due to its popularity. Instead, smaller initiatives were pushed through one by one to decrease smoking. Non-smoking areas being extended to restaurants and bars. Warnings on the cigarette packages. Increased price on packages etc. While people did feel intruded to some extent, the smooth transition prevented there from being havoc. These days I do not feel smoking affects the public.

If the US could do something similar for the gun industry, it would be a good initiative. Start by disallowing to carry your firearm outside your property. Increase prices substantially for ammunition, followed by the unit itself. Requiring a paid course and permit for new owners to invest in guns, as well as mental health evaluation of the person. Finally, and this has been done before too, have weapon owners be able to get money from the government by turning in firearms to the local police station, with no questions asked. Gradually, this could account for a lot.

[Veldan Rath]

Yet we have more people dying from knives, bludgeons, cars, etc.,individually mind you...not all together.
You merely object to guns...

Even GGT is saying above that you are not going to ban guns in the US. It's the 2nd freaking amendment.

And I love how you link smoking in Norway to gun ownership in the US...bravo. (actually, more like: Bravo Sierra)

[Kazuha Vinland]

...



Let me ask this straight. How can we, through a collaborate effort, make this discussion about personal firearms. We can have a million threads about knives, I don't mind. Just let this one be about personal firearms. Can we please, please, PLEASE

PLEASE!!!

talk about personal firearms.

In court, I do not interrupt a judge prosecuting a gun murderer, saying "well, there are more people killed by knives, so let's forget this incident". They BOTH exist. I mention personal firearms because they are what is addressed in this topic.

I swear, this forum has some kind of attention deficit disorder. You literally can't focus on one thing without twisting and curling yourself around the subject to make yourself seem more justified. I don't care about your aspirations to end up on top of this argument. I really don't. I just want to have a legitimate discussion about firearms.

Do I have to break it down to Yes & No kind of questioning, to make sure you answer diligently? Is that really what it takes?

And yes, I linked it to smoking in Norway, because it is the closest I could get to a stale-mate situation that was solved for once. I do not argue they are exactly the same. Far from it. I am arguing that with the same methodic approach, you might stand the best chance of impacting the market for guns. Nowhere did I speak of a total ban of guns breaking with the 2nd amendment, and even if it did in some way break with it, then that is just proof enough it needs to be changed.

But hey, I bet you're going to twist yourself around this post too. In fact, I can literally smell your brain cells at work, trying to pinpoint a single fragment of this post that you can pound and pound, ignoring the general message unconditionally. So let me just ask a simple Yes & No question, in fact, one I hinted at before. Do you believe that in a gun free society, guns are necessary as a means of personal protection? You might even get a bonus. If answer is NO (binary code 01001110 01001111), do you agree it makes sense to TRY and change the current state of the weapon industry?

I am not gonna get a straight answer, am I...

[GGT]

I'll bite.

The US will never be a "gun-free society", because our constitution protects the right to bear arms. Our 2nd Amendment will never be repealed, but it does allow for governmental regulations and restrictions. Our constitutional rights often "conflict" with one another, but that's why we have legal challenges and a Supreme Court.

Sure, it makes sense to change some federal and/or state legislation, regulation of firearm ownership, and the weapons industry. It's going through the legislative process right now, state-by-state, and US senate/congress, in messy fits and starts. It's a slow and deliberate process on purpose. (Some procedural rules may have to be changed first, but that's another debate.)

Personally, I don't buy the arguments that *better* guns laws are an unconstitutional infringement of the 2nd Amendment, OR that it's a futile pursuit because it won't prevent *all* gun violence or gun deaths.

[LittleFuzzy]

...


But hey, I bet you're going to twist yourself around this post too. In fact, I can literally smell your brain cells at work, trying to pinpoint a single fragment of this post that you can pound and pound, ignoring the general message unconditionally. So let me just ask a simple Yes & No question, in fact, one I hinted at before. Do you believe that in a gun free society, guns are necessary as a means of personal protection? You might even get a bonus. If answer is NO (binary code 01001110 01001111), do you agree it makes sense to TRY and change the current state of the weapon industry?

I am not gonna get a straight answer, am I...

No, they're not necessary. But then, in a relatively lawful society, personal protection isn't necessary at all either. A substantial majority of people will go through their lives without those lives being significantly threatened with lethal or near lethal violence. Society as a whole would still function more or less ok if the minority who are so threatened just get victimized while the police and justice systems engage in their usual proactive mitigation/retributive reaction behavior. My problem is that you appear to be taking it as your first principle that guns should be gone. Not what kind of society you'd like to see, not what the boundaries of government authority should be, not what is or is not proper to stick your nose in, but that guns just shouldn't be around for any use or reason. Not exactly a position that lends itself to discussion, is it? And you haven't done jack shit to even suggest why you think that should be the case and yeah that's to be expected for a first principle, they're just assumed but again, not exactly conducive to discussion.