Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

For instance, a 1990s Australian style buyback, which was hugely successful on all levels, would not be possible in the US due to both numbers and political climate.

If mandatory, as in Oz, it would not be possible due to the 2nd Amendment. Voluntary buybacks have been tried in several cities, with no significant impact.

Never mind the Amendments. The Constitution is being bent all over the place anyway, eg. conflicts of interest.

As I say, there are too many guns in the American community for such measures to work. The damage was done long ago. Now it's just a matter of keeping tabs of the latest mass murders, with shooters and the rest having the usual spats before arms and fossil fuels industry representatives in government ensure that the status quo remains.

Eventually people will probably tire of offering their thoughts and prayers. After a while there wouldn't seem to be much point, if there ever was. It's just more cadavers sacrificed at the alter of gun culture.

[GE Morton]

We have not tested the regulations that do not exist. You are like the guy who stood there before the first successful bridge was built long ago saying don’t try to build a bridge it’s been tried and has failed.

Well, we have not tested the regulation you suggested, because it raises numerous constitutional issues. But we've tried everything else.

The current system has problems and loopholes.

Yes, it does, and those should be resolved. But nearly all of the mass shootings involved firearms which had passed background checks; not evaded them. Also, several states have more stringent restrictions, which have had no effect:

"Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks, implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... cle/192946

Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act contains restrictions on who can buy a gun. Those who opposed it claimed it was unconstitutional, but it is the law and has not been successfully challenged. Those restrictions can, and likely will, be extended to others who can be shown to pose a danger.

The Brady Act prohibits purchase by person who have been convicted of a crime, adjudicated to suffer from a mental defect, or dishonorably discharged from the armed forces. It does not bar ownership based on mere membership in some group or based on someone's guess that the person is "dangerous."

But no, I did not claim that.

You said:

Yes, they do. Because banning guns is the only regulation that will have any appreciable impact on the problem, and where that approach must eventually lead.

Yes, I said that banning guns would have an impact. What I did not claim was that "regulations" would have an impact. My quote above was in response to this statement of yours: "This is not conclusive evidence that better regulations will reduce gun deaths. If you agree with #2, universal background checks of all gun sales, then you contradict your own claim that regulation will not have an appreciable impart."

[Sy Borg]

A gun ban would not work. The black market would be many times larger than the legal one.

Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on.

[GE Morton]

A gun ban would not work. The black market would be many times larger than the legal one.

Oh, it would work, if it could actually be enforced. Which it couldn't, any more than Prohibition could.

[Sy Borg]

A gun ban would not work. The black market would be many times larger than the legal one.

Oh, it would work, if it could actually be enforced. Which it couldn't, any more than Prohibition could.

Which is why I also noted: 'Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on'.

This is a good example of a wicked problem, and why the US has become a cautionary tale for other nations. It's been graphically, and at times disturbingly, demonstrated in the past fifty years how essential it is for a nation's civility and security not to let the gun genie out of the bottle. It's clear that letting gun ownership pass that critical threshold would cost more lives than cutting all military spending, and be far more expensive.

[Belindi]

Oh, it would work, if it could actually be enforced. Which it couldn't, any more than Prohibition could.

Which is why I also noted: 'Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on'.

This is a good example of a wicked problem, and why the US has become a cautionary tale for other nations. It's been graphically, and at times disturbingly, demonstrated in the past fifty years how essential it is for a nation's civility and security not to let the gun genie out of the bottle. It's clear that letting gun ownership pass that critical threshold would cost more lives than cutting all military spending, and be far more expensive.

Would it be worthwhile to compare the practical and ideological difficulties of gun control with those of recreational drugs? Has the US a special ideological problem about freedom of individuals to take the administration of laws into their own hands? Traditional stories about the Wild West show that personal ownership of guns sometimes has a place in maintaining law and order. So what has changed since those early pioneering days?

[Steve3007]

Should all US presidents be issued with this handy, time saving rubber stamp?

[Belindi]

Should all US presidents be issued with this handy, time saving rubber stamp?

[Sculptor1]

Which is why I also noted: 'Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on'.

This is a good example of a wicked problem, and why the US has become a cautionary tale for other nations. It's been graphically, and at times disturbingly, demonstrated in the past fifty years how essential it is for a nation's civility and security not to let the gun genie out of the bottle. It's clear that letting gun ownership pass that critical threshold would cost more lives than cutting all military spending, and be far more expensive.

Would it be worthwhile to compare the practical and ideological difficulties of gun control with those of recreational drugs? Has the US a special ideological problem about freedom of individuals to take the administration of laws into their own hands? Traditional stories about the Wild West show that personal ownership of guns sometimes has a place in maintaining law and order. So what has changed since those early pioneering days?

There is certainly some tension between these two things. Drug prohibition is most certainly a denial of basic rights. This is supposedly done on the grounds of doing self harm. But if the Government are really concerned with harm to their citizens then it begs the question (given the widespread and indiscriminate use of firearms), do they really give a ****, or is drug prohibition really about social control. Is it more to do with people turning up for work regularly and not using drugs for fun and to use them to see the world differently. There is no doubt that pot and acid in the 1960s were used specifically to alter perspectives on reality, and the is no doubt in my mind that taking a sideways look at your preconceptions has helped my to unpack the hierarchical ******** that we are all instructed to take for granted.
Taking American in particular drug prohibition is racist. As well as given higher sentences for crack and other "street" drugs, than cocaine, enforcement is often directed towards poorer communities whilst the rich and famous snort without let or hinderance. Justin Beiber can talk openly about his drug use in public forums with no fear of prosecution.

Drug use is about social control, loss of revenue, and race war.
And the "war on drugs" has never worked. It has just made criminals rich.
Whose body is it? Why can't I take the drugs I want?

What are firearms for? They are designed to maim and kill. Sadly the US is burdened with an out of date amendment which mandated the militia to use and carry muskets. Muskets that would take 30 secs to reload, were not very accurate, but could help in the war of independence.
Time to write a new amendment?
How about every citizen without a criminal record is allowed to apply for a licence to hold firearms?
It might not stop mass killings but it would give the police the ability to disarm any criminal, or unlicensed person.
Anyone with severe mental problems could also be denied a licence.

[Sculptor1]

A gun ban would not work. The black market would be many times larger than the legal one.

Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on.

A simple licencing system would help.
WE all have to get a licence to drive a car. Why one and not the other?

[Steve3007]

WE all have to get a licence to drive a car. Why one and not the other?

Presumably because there isn't an amendment to the US Constitution enshrining the rights of all citizens to drive cars.

Obviously this subject has been done to death (so to speak) so there's not really much more to say. As with so much in politics these days, it's extremely polarized. I don't think many people will ever change their views on the subject either one way or the other. These shootings are regarded as a price worth paying. Say "thoughts and prayers etc etc" and move on.

[Sculptor1]

WE all have to get a licence to drive a car. Why one and not the other?

Presumably because there isn't an amendment to the US Constitution enshrining the rights of all citizens to drive cars.

The constitution does not give the right to bear guns with magazines either.
The constitution makes no provision for cars, so by what right are there licences?
The constitution does not give the government the right to ban drugs either.

[GE Morton]

The constitution does not give the right to bear guns with magazines either.

Yes, it does.

The constitution makes no provision for cars, so by what right are there licences?

You only need a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. You don't need one to operate it on private property. The public, as the owner of its roads, may impose any restrictions it wishes on their use, just as the owner of a private road could.

[Felix]

Sculpter1: The constitution does not give the right to bear guns with magazines either.

GE Morton: Yes, it does.

There were no "magazines" (of either the sort that one loads or reads) when the second amendment was written, and the Supreme Court has decided that prohibitions against the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons” are valid.

[Sy Borg]

Which is why I also noted: 'Further, enforcing the law would not be a job anyone without suicidal tendencies would take on'.

This is a good example of a wicked problem, and why the US has become a cautionary tale for other nations. It's been graphically, and at times disturbingly, demonstrated in the past fifty years how essential it is for a nation's civility and security not to let the gun genie out of the bottle. It's clear that letting gun ownership pass that critical threshold would cost more lives than cutting all military spending, and be far more expensive.

Would it be worthwhile to compare the practical and ideological difficulties of gun control with those of recreational drugs? Has the US a special ideological problem about freedom of individuals to take the administration of laws into their own hands? Traditional stories about the Wild West show that personal ownership of guns sometimes has a place in maintaining law and order. So what has changed since those early pioneering days?

I think it's a practical difference, Belinda. Guns are used to kill other people. They are instruments of war in peacetime urban areas, which says much about the US trust of its "peace". Really, if a nation distrusts its own "peace" so much, it should be trying to fix its own problems rather than deny them and work to export them to the Middle East. We can see how that project worked out.

As a general rule of thumb, any entity that refers to itself as "United" is probably riven with longstanding internal divisions and hatreds. "United" says that someone once held enough power to force dissidents to accede, and they pass their resentments down to their children to keep the hatred alive. What happens when they cease to have enough power to demand unity? We're about the find out.

By contrast, drugs are used to make individuals feel good. Like sugary and fatty foods, their beneficial benefits tend to be short term, with some level of physical or psychological damage. Then again, getting a cortisone shot also helps one feel better while degrading tissue.

The body is a complicated machine, as are collections of bodies. This thread makes clear how far we need to go to understand the latter.