RobertX8Y

Wrongful violence is a problem. I would distinguish wrongful violence using guns from other kinds of wrongful violence, because guns have a peculiar ability to cause a lot of damage at a distance much further than hand-to-hand fighting (usually a gun would trump some other weapon), and because guns are so numerous, and relatively so untracked, compared with how it is in some other countries which have much less wrongful violence using guns.

You say that to _you_, [whether] "the government has a need to know who owns guns" "is an 'either/or' issue". I say, it's not that simple. I want to reduce wrongful violence, including wrongful violence with guns. I can conceive of more than one way to do that. "Gun control" would be one way, but it involves a sacrifice, and might not be very effective. Better education would be another way. Modifying other laws (such as sentencing, fines, or definition of what's a prosecutable threat and what isn't) would be another way. We'll probably end up with some combination of these plus something else I haven't thought of. But so far, as we look around the world, it looks like gun control is the most obvious thing to consider -- it appears that Western European countries and Canada, for example, have much less wrongful violence using guns than the U.S. does, and I think they also have stricter gun control, and it doesn't seem to have hurt them. Better education would be the most preferable solution (ideally) (better than "gun control", ideally) but better education is a more complex thing and would probably be harder to make happen.

People with guns ought to practice gun safety. In my life I've made plenty of mistakes (but not with guns) and had a few accidents, so I know people are fallible from personal experience (plus seeing fallibility in others). I've spent some time with guns and was careful with them; I've seen other people who weren't. This is probably related to what kind of education a person gets; in my case my father was safety conscious and I picked up a few ideas about it from him. I also exercise some respect for other people, by manners even when I don't feel it, and this is probably also related to education, such as what I picked up from my father. I will probably not commit any wrongful violence with a gun.

The education I got in _schools_ varied in how it would affect how much wrongful violence I might commit. In my high school we were taught to despise an Other and not learn about the Other. In my college we were taught to learn about Others and respect them. In my high school there were very few Others in the sense of (for example) race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion -- we were almost homogeneous. In my college there were comparatively a lot more Others in the sense of (for example) race, ethnicity, nation of origin, and religion. A person educated in that high school but not that college would be more likely to inflict wrongful violence on people; for example I visited one of them years later; he enjoyed pretending to shoot the Other on TV with his assault rifle. He despised such Others as those we failed to learn about in our high school. He expressed a willingness to "die" for a cause which I find is a ridiculous cause. (Dying for a cause is fine but not for some frivolous thing -- it ought to be a worthy cause.) I think he would have _liked_ to have been one of the J*** 6 r****rs desecrating the U.S. capitol and threatening congresspeople and the vice president, if he'd had the opportunity (he might have done it, and he'd have been wrong to do so). And in childhood he behaved unsafely with a gun. He was overall a nice guy and good person but I think he had a too-narrow view of what's to be respected, and that's related to education. (As long as he'd stay in his little homogeneous world, he'd be fine, but I wouldn't want to trust him around some of my friends -- I wouldn't expect him to actually shoot them if he were alone, but he might support others in harassing them.)

American Vet

So how will the government track legally owned guns? And how will the government track illegally owned guns? And how will the government track home-made guns (which are really quite easily made)?
Perhaps this link will help you:
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/?sh=4c7c6cb5a1b9

And, of course, there is always the discussion about defensive gun use by the good citizen.

And finally: The Second Amendment was added for a reason: Do you have any idea what that reason was?

RobertX8Y

The government _does_ have some kind of records about legally owned guns. I don't think it "tracks" them after purchase. Maybe it won't.

I didn't even advocate tracking guns. Why all these questions on this point?

I presented "gun control" as one of the options to consider. Is that so hard for you to take?

To "track" or not to "track" is still an open question for all of us; I'm leaning toward "to track" but I'm not in a position to decide the point (haven't thoroughly studied it) and haven't really made up my mind about just what to do about wrongful violence. Congressional staff might help study such matters. Maybe you should send your link to the article (about Canada and long guns) to your congressperson's office together with a suggestion of what you want Congress to do.



I think it won't.



I agree that home-made guns are or will be easily made.

I anticipated this already in my previous post, when I said maybe "gun control" would not be effective. Did you notice I said that?

Don't overlook that word "maybe".

(Those of us who aren't omniscient gods have to use a word like "maybe" sometimes.)



No thanks; I'm not that interested; gun control would still be "on the table" and one of several options to "consider", just as I said. I'm willing to grant that gun control might not work, or that in some ways it would be difficult to do and might even be the wrong thing to do. I already said as much in my previous post. This doesn't mean I'm going to make some absolute statement that we definitely should or definitely should not have some variety of gun control. You seem to have already made your conclusions about it; I haven't, and no one citation or article or example would be enough to convince me one way or another about it.

That's _one_ of the reasons why, if "gun control" _is_ or _were_ implemented, some forms of "sacrifice" might be involved. There are pros and cons. This thought was embedded in my word "sacrifice" in my previous post. But there's a bigger potential sacrifice involved in it; read on:



I've read a little about it, but not much. Most of what I read doesn't agree with what I think, anyway. Here's what I think is one of the more important reasons why people might need guns:

The people might need to rebel against their own nation's government. This is exactly the situation that led up to the American Revolution circa 1776, not suddenly, and not impulsively, but over time as all the various options were exhausted. If the colonists hadn't had weapons, the American Revolution would have had less chance of succeeding, to put it mildly.

Nowadays, it's generally regarded as a good thing that the colonists did have their own weapons and that the revolt against the government of that time (the British government in the colonies) was successful. So, today we don't regard that revolt as wrong, we regard it as right. But any talk of such a revolt _now_ to rebel against the currently existing government might _now_ be called "s******n" and regarded by many as a prosecutable "wrong". Whether it _actually_ _is_ right or wrong, in the current day in the current nation, would be a relevant question, and not a legal one so much as an ethical, moral, and philosophical one.

It appears that _some_ people thought a revolt against our government was justified on J****** 6, 2021; but in my opinion those were foolish people on that day. They have put a bad name and a bad example on the idea of an armed citizenry, and that's too bad, because an armed citizenry might in some other circumstance have been a good thing, but now all that displayed untrustworthiness of the r****rs and revolters will have to be overcome.

(begin emphasis)
The point I wish to make is that some U.S. citizens have demonstrated their untrustworthiness such that it is necessary to consider whether we might not want such people to have guns.
(end emphasis)

Now please tell me your answer to your question "The Second Amendment was added for a reason: Do you have any idea what that reason was?"

American Vet

Quite simple - defense (an unalienable right).

Either on a personal level or at a 'group' level.

Weapons (not just guns) represent power. Thus, they are threat to "bad guys"; whether the 'bad guy' is a bad individual, a bad gang, or a bad government.

Gun control laws are a way to decrease the power of the individual and increase the power of a government. In theory, they are a good thing (in moderation). But in reality, they end up being abused. Certainly there are a few (very, very few) people who should not be armed, such as those adjudicated mentally ill.

Thus the old saying 'gun control isn't about guns'.


>>>>The point I wish to make is that some U.S. citizens have demonstrated their untrustworthiness such that it is necessary to consider whether we might not want such people to have guns.

First: As I said above - there are certainly some people (very, very few) that should not be armed. However, that is a very slippery slope. First this group, then the next, etc. Some people like to say that is paranoid (or wh**ever), but it is quite easy to point out historically that this frequently occurs.

Second: The actual ability to have those people disarmed (and keep them disarmed) is an impossible task. Be realistic - how would a government do it without infringing on the rights of others?

RobertX8Y

You wrote:

"First: As I said above - there are certainly some people (very, very few) that should not be armed. However, that is a very slippery slope. First this group, then the next, etc. Some people like to say that is paranoid (or wh**ever), but it is quite easy to point out historically that this frequently occurs.

"Second: The actual ability to have those people disarmed (and keep them disarmed) is an impossible task. Be realistic - how would a government do it without infringing on the rights of others?"

I disagree about "very, very few". I hope that will become clearer, by using myself as an example:

I don't even wear a gun when I go to the grocery store; I mean, even if that were allowed, I would not normally wear a gun on my grocery runs. This is because I know that I am, and other people are, fallible. This is even though I regard myself as a very responsible and careful person. I could possibly lose my temper or make some other mistake that would involve unnecessary violence involving the gun. Some rash kid might get the gun. Or the mere presence of the gun might provoke someone else. Or some other thing I haven't thought of might happen. When people carry, or even just _possess_, guns, they should be responsible and careful about them. Most people are not that responsible and not that careful. I can see that; I can see it by the number of people who want to carry weapons often; and that's just an example. I can also see it in the way people behave; most of the time they're ok, but there are incidents of rude, careless, and dangerous behaviors.

Possession is one level, and actively carrying weapons frequently is a riskier level.

For similar reasons I don't often carry a knife bigger than a pocket knife. But guns are the more important issue as compared with knives.

I agree that there are "slippery slopes" involved in such things. I might look at it at a different angle than you do, though. There is not only a "slippery slope" about how gun control could have bad effects; there is also a "slippery slope" about how gun-carrying could have bad effects! What do you think of that?

I agree that to do gun control right is, or would be, a difficult task (though, all things considered, it might be worth doing). From a great distance, it doesn't look all that difficult because lots of other countries have so much less and fewer problems with guns than the U.S. does, and I think _they_ have gun control, and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them, so it's not immediately evident that it would be difficult; but I understand your objections (a) slippery slope, (b) actual ability to enforce, and (c) infringing on rights of others. What I think is:

When people _do_ exhibit wrongful behavior, they should be prosecuted. I think there need to be some adjustments in how acts and behaviors are prosecuted. This is not easy, either. But here's an example:

I read that several months ago a group of armed people went into the balcony of the Michigan capitol, displaying their rifles there, while the legislature was in session there on the floor below. I see that as a deliberate attempt to intimidate legislators. I see that as wrongful intimidation. And even if they _weren't_ _trying_ to intimidate, even in that case they were doing irresponsible, risky, _and_ intimidating behavior. I believe those people ought to have been immediately and severely prosecuted for doing that; but I don't think they were. I think they were just let to roam around freely and are still carrying guns around and plotting to do similar acts even now. Such people in _my_ nation are certainly interfering with _my_ rights to have a stable and responsible government. They are just making things dumber and worse.

I believe that a focus on prosecution of actual wrongs is more amenable to fine-tuning than is gun control for all. Such a focus, and such an approach, might address your concern regarding "infringing on the rights of others".

American Vet

I believe we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I do not believe that government (using gun control, etc.) can protect everyone from every sharp object. There will always be people who cannot control themselves or who will commit crimes in spite of the law.

By disarming the average citizen, they are left at the mercy of those who will commit crimes. Keep in mind that an armed citizen is a major deterrent.

"In a research study sponsored by the United States Department of Justice, James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed over 1,800 incarcerated felons, asking how they felt about civilians and gun ownership. Thirty-three percent of these criminals admitted to being scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by a gun-owning victim. Sixty-nine percent of them knew at least one other criminal who had similar experiences. Nearly 80 percent of felons also claimed that they intentionally avoid victims and homes that they believe may be armed.
This shows that at least one in three criminals has been deterred because of an armed citizen, and that four out five avoid victimizing people that have guns."
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/gun-ownership-in-america/

The CDC did a study and determined that there were "60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year." Needless to say, the MSM did not report that.

There are always comparisons to other countries who have lower firearms murder rates. But the question about all the info comes up. We have a unique culture - what works in Norway probably doesn't work here.

And this conversation must include the reason we have the Second Amendment. I suspect one of the major disagreements you and I might have: I have a very healthy distrust of government. George Washington is often quoted as stating Government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master. The adage precedes him by several centuries - but the meaning is clear.