I'm not sure what you mean by this. The Second Amendment is a real amendment of the Constitution and is legally binding, so it's only right of me to accept it. Or do you mean something else by "legitimate"?

I wasn't trying to argue that we ought to ban them; just that banning them doesn't infringe the right to self defense. Therefore, the right to self defence cannot be used to oppose such an example of gun control. — Michael

The ever widening lines of argument in this thread are beginning to blur. By "legitimate," I meant that you agree that there is an individual right to bear arms as conferred by the Second Amendment. That surprises me, if true, as it was my understanding that you would be in favor of repealing the Second Amendment if possible. I'm pretty sure I've seen you say something like that. So which is it?

The right to self-defence is the right to use reasonable force, not necessarily the right to use the most effective means of force, so I don't see why I would need to do this. — Michael

But you made the claim that there are "less dangerous but sufficient alternatives" than semi-automatic rifles. There is a burden of proof on you here, but if you don't see why you should meet it, then it's pointless to continue this conversation.

But would you accept the above logic in the case of comparing handguns and rifles? If I can show that handguns can be just as effective as rifles then will you accept a ban on rifles? Because you've already made that case for me. — Michael

I made no such case. I said handguns can be just as effective at killing lots of people as rifles under certain circumstances, which is demonstrably true. There have been dozens of mass shootings by means of handguns. I asked you instead to show me that handguns can be just as effective as semi-automatic rifles, not even in all, but in the majority of cases where the latter are used defensively. You seem blissfully unaware or unconcerned that such a ban may remove weapons that might have otherwise been vital means to prevent crimes and save lives. If you can, then as I said, I could accept a ban on such rifles. As I also said, Heller, which I agree with, doesn't technically rule out such guns being banned.

As a first control, would you agree that such weapons should be numbered at manufacture (likely all guns are), and sales recorded and reported, to the point that the weapon should at all times have an owner (unless reported lost, stolen, or destroyed, evidence of which provided) who would be responsible for it at all times, whether or not in his or her possession. By responsible I mean subject to possibly severe criminal and civil penalties for any use of the gun. — tim wood

Yeah, sounds fine.

As a second control, would you agree that any owner of such a weapon would only be released from his responsibilities as an owner if he complies with all laws concerning transfer of ownership, and not otherwise. — tim wood

Yeah.

Third, that prospective owners be required to meet certain criteria to become owners. (This could include age, competency, waiting, training, etc.) — tim wood

I'd have to know more specifics, but I'm not opposed in principle to such measures. The "waiting" is of some concern, however. People often acquire firearms because they believe they may be in some imminent danger. I don't think it should take overly long to acquire one. How long is the ideal? I have no idea.

Fourth, that possession or use of such a weapon without being the owner, or being authorized (by the owner), be a crime; and that the owner, depending on the circumstances, also be subject to prosecution. — tim wood

This is known as straw buying (or a species thereof), and there are already laws on the books to help prevent it, as far as I know.

Everyone already believes in gun control, and it is a myth to claim otherwise; after all, who believes pre-school kids have the right to bring AR-15s to school to defend themselves? Only the crazy among us would think so.

The issue is actually extremely complicated, involving issues of Constitutional law, cost-benefits, game-theory, and many other topics, so I do actually find it amusing whenever someone claims to have all the answers and their specific answer is childishly simple.

No, I didn't change my position. Here you're using "protection from government tyranny" as the premise that leads to the conclusion "there is a right to bear arms." That isn't the premise I used in the argument I provided you. You're attacking what you interpreted as an argument, but which in fact wasn't. — Thorongil

Ok, so you don't understand the Heller case which you said you agreed with? Heller invokes the right to bear arms as necessary in order to exercise the right to self-defense. From there, because the right of self-defence is a natural right, the bearing of arms is a natural right. So you disagree with Heller now?

I don't know what fresh blather this is, Benkei. Do you not understand what I said that you quoted? And no, my position doesn't contradict Heller.

The issue is actually extremely complicated, involving issues of Constitutional law, cost-benefits, game-theory, and many other topics, so I do actually find it amusing whenever someone claims to have all the answers and their specific answer is childishly simple. — LD Saunders

At present in the US I would say that the gun issue (in itself) isn't so much complicated as confounded by not-so-reasonable people often arguing from ignorance, certainly from perceived self-interest. I include myself among the ignorant (but I positively seethe with reason and goodwill). I live in a state (US) where, as a practical matter, I have to go through, get through, hoops to legally buy a gun. Or do I? The US Supreme Court says I have a right.... Or do I?

Any road, ignorance isn't a face of complication; ignorance is all in the mind of the ignorant. Self-interest can also be an expression of ignorance.

You can help with that ignorance. What, actually, and exactly, makes all this "extremely complicated"? The implication is that simple answers don't exist. I, myself, think that it is all pretty simple, and not complicated but that ignorance makes it so. Imagine stupidity and ignorance burned away like a fog under a late-morning sun. In that clear light of reason, what do you say the right answers are?

I read a lot of weaseling and half an argument in most of your posts. Your position is different than Heller's as stated in later posts, so you did change your position. Whether it is contradictory or not is neither here nor there with respect to the original position that you agreed with Heller. As I've argued Heller gets this particular point wrong as did you, which you've only later admitted by pretending you never said it.

You have said and shown nothing, I'm afraid.

Well, just take a look at game-theory? Game-theory tells us that we are less safe the more guns we have as a community. Just imagine if you were the only person who was armed with a knife, and everyone else was unarmed? You would have an advantage if a fight breaks out and you needed to defend yourself. Now, imagine everyone else goes out and buys a knife? Are you now any safer? No. Now, if a fight breaks out, instead of just being punched, you may end up stabbed. The same thing is true if you have a gun, and no one else does, versus everyone has a gun. So, the math tells us that as we approach a situation where everyone is armed, we are less safe as a direct result of gun ownership. This literally means gun advocates, people who are armed to protect themselves, and who are responsible, should be arguing for restrictions against universal gun ownership. Now, if you think the optimum level of gun ownership is an easy problem to solve, then you would probably find some high-paying job as an applied mathematician, because I see the problem as very difficult to solve.

Two of us, at the least, have agreed on some provisional controls on gun ownership. andrewk notes they look like some of the laws controlling car ownership. It wasn't intentional.

I'm gratified because some agreement was reached on what I thought were reasoned and reasonable grounds - it can happen!

But there are differences between guns and cars, which throw further light onto what might still be reasonably asked. The guns subject to the agreements in this thread are AR-15-like weapons, because while similar to less powerful weapons, they are at the same time, in terms of firepower and lethality, categorically different. By "guns," then, here, I mean AR-15s and similar weapons.

Anyone can buy and own a car, and why not? But ownership and use are apart, are different. One doesn't come with the other. If you buy a gun, on the other hand, you can use it. Should there be, then, some kind of legal "disconnect" between owning and using a gun? Is the gun sufficiently dangerous in use to require some legal control as to who can legally "operate" it? And if yes, how best to impose this control?

This is close to asking if there should be any control as to who can buy a gun. The immediate answer is that controls already exist, although differing in different places. That is, there is no natural right to buy a gun (natural right being a claim against all others, all the time). In terms of natural rights, there is at best a right to apply to buy a gun.

Arguing that buying a gun should be a natural right is akin to claiming that anyone can buy anything, as a matter of natural right. This confuses right with ability, which also obscures the circumstances of the exercise of such claimed rights. To be brief, in the civil society in which most of us live, natural rights can conflict with civil rights and duties. What happens is that the natural right, whatever it is, becomes a general principal, itself subject to civil interpretation as to particulars.

It seems, then, that control as to gun ownership is already established. What about operation? It makes sense that to own a gun (AR-15 or similar), in as much as ownership and use are so close, some training be required to become an owner. (Some people are so familiar with guns they've forgot how dangerous guns are in the hands of people unfamiliar with them; the arguments of such people for no controls, then, is simply an argument from ignorance. Most gun owners, in fact, are more-or-less terrified of guns in the hands of people who don't know how to handle or use them, which the rest of us an take as evidence of good sense. For these, the need for gun training is a given.)

The argument, then, seems to show that any, if any, natural rights with respect to guns are subject to control by civil concerns. That being because these guns are a civil concern.

Agreed?

By "legitimate," I meant that you agree that there is an individual right to bear arms as conferred by the Second Amendment. That surprises me, if true, as it was my understanding that you would be in favor of repealing the Second Amendment if possible. I'm pretty sure I've seen you say something like that. So which is it? — Thorongil

I don't understand why you think that there's a conflict here. I agree, as per Heller, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. However, I believe that there shouldn't be an individual right to bear arms. Therefore, I believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed.

But you made the claim that there are "less dangerous but sufficient alternatives" than semi-automatic rifles. There is a burden of proof on you here, but if you don't see why you should meet it, then it's pointless to continue this conversation. — Thorongil

I provided links to three articles that explained how much more dangerous a semi-automatic rifle is to a semi-automatic handgun. They have more power (causing more damage), further effective range, less recoil, a larger magazine, and require less skill to fire accurately. So on that account I think I've provided evidence to support my claim. As for handguns being sufficiently effective, I think you've made that case already. They're concealable, light, and easy to use at close range.

I asked you instead to show me that handguns can be just as effective as semi-automatic rifles, not even in all, but in the majority of cases where the latter are used defensively. — Thorongil

For a study on the types of guns used in self-defence, see here, where of "justifiable homicides" ("the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen") between 2006 and 2010, 77.7% were with a handgun, compared to 4.5% with a rifle.

You seem blissfully unaware or unconcerned that such a ban may remove weapons that might have otherwise been vital means to prevent crimes and save lives. — Thorongil

I'm not. I'm just weighing it against the number of lives that are lost and crimes that are committed due to the availability of such guns. As an example, for every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime, and from the study above, "for the five-year period 2006 through 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides."

Granted. But game theory isn't how life works. At best it can inform as to how and why under certain constraints. Example: much as I dislike the 2d amendment, I find a kernel of truth in it: that guns protect society. This is reflected in Churchill's quote-in-reserve that he would have used in the case of a German cross-channel invasion: "You can always take one with you!"

One hopes that in a society like the US, the need for guns to protect society sits well in the background. We've found, however, that they're not far enough in the background, and that's a problem that game theory can neither address nor solve. Please keep trying, though, every attempt yields something.

Actually, game-theory is commonly used to make accurate social predictions, and even when it fails to do so, it does give us an insight into what rational behavior should be. Yet, I have never heard any politician, or political pundit, who has addressed the issue of gun control even discuss the use of game-theory and mathematics in addressing the issue. Why not? Mathematics is an excellent way of weeding out the BS.

Well, I can only lead a donkey to water I can't make him drink.

The issue is actually extremely complicated, involving issues of Constitutional law, cost-benefits, game-theory, and many other topics, so I do actually find it amusing whenever someone claims to have all the answers and their specific answer is childishly simple. — LD Saunders

The many blessings of game theory are acknowledged. But it's a tool, and not enough for the job at hand, perhaps not even the right tool. If your purpose is to laugh, have at it; laughter is good. If to contribute, then contribute.

As a caveat, I don't know that the problem itself makes it all the way through any single theoretical filter. Or the other way 'round, I don't think any single theory solves a civil problem.

And I have to ask: when you say "very difficult to solve," do you mean merely that work is involved, or something more?

I agree, as per Heller, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. However, I believe that there shouldn't be an individual right to bear arms. Therefore, I believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed. — Michael

There is actually a difference in meaning, perhaps subtle, between saying "there is an individual right to bear arms that is conferred by the Second Amendment" and "the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms." This might have caused the confusion. The first statement I read as codifying or acknowledging an already existing right, whereas the second reads as though the right is created with the amendment itself.

I provided links to three articles that explained how much more dangerous a semi-automatic rifle is to a semi-automatic handgun. — Michael

I've looked at them and haven't been convinced, sorry.

For a study on the types of guns used in self-defence, see here, where of "justifiable homicides" ("the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen") between 2006 and 2010, 77.7% were with a handgun, compared to 4.5% with a rifle. — Michael

I was already aware that rifles were used in the minority of cases. That doesn't affect my point, though.

I'm just weighing it against the number of lives that are lost and crimes that are committed due to the availability of such guns. — Michael

And here we swerve back around to another fundamental disagreement. I don't see the availability of these guns as the sole reason these crimes occur. There are other factors involved that can be addressed to help reduce the number of such shootings without banning the guns used, such as a reform and more consistent application of existing gun laws, better policing, better security of sensitive locations, better mental health screenings and infrastructure, and encouraging intact families and personal responsibility and accountability.

As an example, for every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime — Michael

I would dispute those statistics. The CDC and other sources place the number of defensive gun uses conservatively at double the number of gun deaths.

One cannot even do social science these days without knowing game-theory, not if one wants to be taken seriously. I also never claimed that game-theory would provide the ultimate answer, all by itself, which anyone can verify by reading my initial comment that listed game-theory as one aspect of the debate to consider. However, I can most definitely state that those who completely ignore game-theory from the gun-control debate are overlooking crucial aspects that should be considered as part of the debate. Especially from those who think that some simple slogan provides the answer.

However, I can most definitely state that those who completely ignore game-theory from the gun-control debate are overlooking crucial aspects that should be considered as part of the debate. — LD Saunders

And they are?

Tim Wood: Pretty much everyone. Trump. The NRA. Bill Maher. Name anyone who is a pundit on gun control, someone who is a well-known public figure, who has ever referenced game-theory as part of the debate? Maybe there is someone who has, and if so, then I'll stand corrected, but, racking my brain on this, I can't come up with a single name.

Actually, what are the crucial aspects?

File this under ‘it could only happen in America’:

NEWFOUNDLAND, Pa. (AP) — Crown-wearing worshippers clutching AR-15 rifles drank holy wine and exchanged or renewed wedding vows in a commitment ceremony at a Pennsylvania church on Wednesday, prompting a nearby school to cancel classes.

With state police and a smattering of protesters standing watch outside the church, brides clad in white and grooms in dark suits brought dozens of unloaded AR-15s into World Peace and Unification Sanctuary for a religious event that doubled as an advertisement for the Second Amendment.

It mentions that these [deluded] congregants identify the lethal AR-15 assault rifle with the ‘rod of iron’ described in the Bible thereby attributing to it a kind of divine sanction. (One wonders why the good Lord would look kindly on the deployment of a weapon that literally pulverises bones and liquifies vital organs, but there it is.)

Read more

Meanwhile, Trump has just come out in favour of the gun laws that Obama tried to establish after the Sandy Hook atrocity. He even contradicted his VP live on television (no surprises there, Trump speaking freely is kind of a live tweet stream). It will be interesting to see the wash-up from this one, already the skilled and beleaguered comms people are ‘walking back’ or ‘re-explaining’ what The President really meant (i.e. ‘we know he said ‘yes’, but taken in context, it clearly meant ‘no’.)

Another ray of light from this particular instalment of the Daily Fiasco is that if Trump seriously pisses off enough core supporters, they might actually begin to agree that he should be impeached (although don’t hold your breath on that one.)

Another ray of light from this particular instalment of the Daily Fiasco is that if Trump seriously pisses off enough core supporters, they might actually begin to agree that he should be impeached (although don’t hold your breath on that one.) — Wayfarer

He has pissed off a lot of them. Obviously he'll tweet later today that he didn't mean it or whatever. It'll be interesting to see if and how Fox News covers it.

One wonders why the good Lord would look kindly on the deployment of a weapon that literally pulverises bones and liquifies vital organs, but there it is.) — Wayfarer

But one wonders more why the hell he does nothing about it.

Humans have free will. They can create weapons of mass destruction and destroy the entire earth. I've never believed in the kind of 'God' that appears on stage, like a cop, and prevents humans from doing things. It's a very anthropomorphic belief.

Humans have free will. — Wayfarer

Yes they do.

They can create weapons of mass destruction and destroy the entire earth. — Wayfarer

Having free will do not necessarily give them the ability to do this. Birds probably have more free will than humans and they have not built a bomb yet.

I've never believed in the kind of 'God' that appears on stage, like a cop, and prevents humans from doing things. — Wayfarer

I have never believed in any type of god.

It's a very anthropomorphic belief. — Wayfarer

Yes you are right about that. We showed not suggest that a god has human like characteristics, even though his holy book says we have his.

It appears that the children, once again, will show us the way.
The Never Again movement is something that I stand in admiration of. They have allowed me to step back and put in that "stop gap" that PB taught me which is the ability to hold back the emotional connection that may or may not be helpful. If you can take the information in as neutral and STOP before allowing an emotional reaction to guide you through the neutral information, you will arrive at an informed perspective and then you can put the information up against your emotions towards it and see where you land.
I hope that makes sense because it is a difficult tactic to learn if you are lead by your emotions but one that has had lasting power.

Admiration isn't enough. Action is what's needed. And the right kind of action, which means, amongst other things, not voting for enablers, and not stopping after baby steps have been taken.

The immediate answer is that controls already exist, although differing in different places. — tim wood

For context: How to Buy a Gun in 15 Countries