The self-centered, myopic view is that gun control violates individual rights. Does it? The majority of people favor gun control. The prevalence of guns violates their right to life. Right now, judging by government inaction, the state and powerful special interest groups such as the NRA are aligned with the interests of individuals who oppose gun control. — Fooloso4

Exactly. What about THAT special interest group?

Well, it’s because he’s in that group, so it’s cool.

Over 300,000,000 guns out there, how would one start to deal with the sheer numbers? — jgill

That’s a good question. Again, it’s good to look to other countries. There are buyback programs. I think Australia used something like this.

I think the sheer number is important — because with numbers that high, there’s bound to be more leakage— assuming we had rational gun regulations.

But since we don’t even have that, I think it takes priority before even thinking about lowering the number.

But to that end: Making guns more expensive, taxing them, etc. Like cigarettes. Not outlawed, but greatly discouraged (and I don’t necessarily agree in that specific case). That’s another idea.

Obviously I see it differently. I own property because I purchased it or made it. But then again, I only own the title. The government doesn’t claim to own my land, but it can except use tremendous control over it. I’m not even allowed to collect rain water. The government takes taxes on that property, and should I not give it to them, they take my property. Where I live they take my property, the fruits of my labor, in the form of taxes, at nearly every point of purchase. Sales tax, income tax, property tax, capital gains tax, are all instances of the government taking my property. Rather than protecting my right they outright violate it. Whatever is left over for me is akin to a fief.

Besides, governments have eminent domain. They can take my land at their whim and fancy so long as it suits their interests.

That’s how feudalism works. I get to live on a plot of the lord’s land, pay them a certain percentage of what I myself make and create through my own industry, so that I might find solace in the chance that my government will protect me should war come knocking. No thanks.

Sometimes, in order to protect the rights of an individual constraints are put on the rights of other individuals. If you are a business owner, for example, you cannot hire children to work in a sweatshop.

Restricting my rights to own a gun does not protect the rights of anyone else, for I have not violated anyone’s rights. Because of this, restricting my rights, and violating the rights of all across the board, is unjust and contrary to individual rights.

That is an overly broad, vague, and simplistic generalization, intended to pit the government against the individual. The interests of the state are not necessarily antithetical to the interests of the individual. The example, chosen to stay on topic, is gun control.

Yet the government reserves for itself the right to own weapons that can destroy the whole planet. Where is the gun control then? If this isn’t antithetical to the interests of the individual I don’t know what is.

What this all boils down to is that some people, those who get to don the dress of officialdom and power, get all the rights, while the rest of us get…what, exactly?

Cool, like the right to life- via not getting shot.

Is that how you protect someone’s right to life, by begging the government to restrict our rights?

Or in other cases, abortion control, the right to life via not being chopped up in a womb and sucked out with a vacuum. All this talk of protecting life suddenly falls on deaf ears when this subject comes up. I don’t believe any of it.

What kind of weapon would you use to protect your children, should the need ever arise? Ballots and petitions? Beg a politician?

I own property because I purchased it or made it. — NOS4A2

Your ownership of the property is protected by the rule of law and from someone coming in and taking it from you by force.

I won't go into your anti-tax rant again. It rings hollow. You receive from the government far more than you [correction: give].

I get to live on a plot of the lord’s land, pay them a certain percentage of what I myself make and create through my own industry ... — NOS4A2

The lord's land? You live in a fantasy. Did you or the lord build the infrastructure on that land?

... so that I might find solace in the chance that my government will protect me should war come knocking. — NOS4A2

If it comes it will not knock. But the likelihood of it even coming is greatly reduced because our borders are guarded. But there is no need for you to be concerned. You have a gun.

Restricting my rights to own a gun does not protect the rights of anyone else, for I have not violated anyone’s rights. — NOS4A2

Once again, you need to look at the issue from a perspective that is not limited to you. You are not the only person with a gun. In addition, the example cited has nothing to do with guns.

Yet the government reserves for itself the right to own weapons that can destroy the whole planet. Where is the gun control then? If this isn’t antithetical to the interests of the individual I don’t know what is. — NOS4A2

I agree that the arms race is a problem, but national security is not antithetical to the interests of the individual.

What this all boils down to ... — NOS4A2

It is not what it boils down to but rather what the narrowness of your understanding allows you to see.

Is that how you protect someone’s right to life, by begging the government to restrict our rights? — NOS4A2

Not begging, demanding. Demanding the government protect the individual right to life by restricting the ability of every nut who wants a gun. Like every other country without the mass shootings we have. Morally on par with restricting the freedom to drive a car without training/license. That's a just use of lawmaking, yes.

Or we can pretend the government can do no right and so resign ourselves to the inevitable fact that we're gonna have mass killings regularly. Nah.

Or in other cases, abortion control, the right to life via not being chopped up in a womb and sucked out with a vacuum. — NOS4A2

So you're in favor of abortion on principle and in favor of schooling shootings on principle. At least it's consistent. I'd prefer not having dead kids if possible.

What kind of weapon would you use to protect your children, should the need ever arise? Ballots and petitions? Beg a politician? — NOS4A2

In the dystopian world you live in, where I guess this is a very real threat at any moment, I suppose I'd want whatever works best.

So I guess in your world a criminal entering my home negates the act of petitioning government. Once again, the logic is astounding.

Restricting my rights to own a gun does not protect the rights of anyone else, for I have not violated anyone’s rights. — NOS4A2

For god's sake, the world doesn't revolve around you.

That story could have turned out very differently! It makes me wonder about what happened leading up to the story that brought together a fourteen year old, a mafioso, and a frequently fired stolen gun — Fooloso4

I would spend part of the summer with my grandparents on the Gulf coast, very loosely supervised. I went crabbing and sold my take to Angelos Restaurant, where some mafia guys would eat. I noticed one of them would drive his Cadillac convertible into the parking lot behind the restaurant and leave it open. I hid in some bushes one evening with my bicycle and when he went in I opened his unlocked glove compartment and took the gun, getting on my bike and peddling furiously.

I also broke into a couple of antebellum mansions lying boarded up on the coast, their spacious lawns complete with ancient oaks, Spanish moss hanging from branches. Inside, the decor was post Civil War with deep somewhat tattered red velvet drapes and a sword or two hanging from the walls. I stole two old guns from those break-ins. One, a pistol, disappeared yeas ago and probably is still out there, functional from the 1890s.

Angelos and many of those impressive homes were destroyed by hurricane Camille in 1969.

These stories show how tapestries of gun ownership evolve.

I quit being a crime lord in the Fall of 1951.

According to nos there's no such thing as a community. Forget governments -- they're always gonna muck things up. Etc.

It really betrays a kind of ignorance of local governments. They do a fine job -- I like a lot of them. They run the water and keep the garbage collected and things like that.

Isn't it funny how a concrete issue like gun control measures has to get diverted to aspirations about mental health and "libertarian" rantings about "natural rights"?

In the real world, in the US, right now, we have a government that can enact gun laws that prevent children from being killed. We know this. Other countries have done it -- we've had some of the laws in place before as well. We see it on the state and local level as well. Whether "statist" or "anti-statist," this is the reality. So do we want to enact these laws so that less kids get shot, or not?

The answer for those (very sincerely and impartially) concerned about mental health, or about "individual rights," etc., at the end of the day: No.

We don't want these laws. We want to do nothing, or put MORE guns out there, with the ultimate goal that we're all armed 24/7 in the 1/10,000,000 chance that there's a school shooting.

If everyone agrees that people with severe mental illnesses should not have guns, then why not start requiring mental health exams to purchase firearms? Not only should this appease both sides of the debate, but should also improve overall well-being by ensuring that mental health becomes more of a priority on par with physical health.

I heard an interesting proposal about school shooting, and maybe other mass shootings. It was developed by a research group at Metropolitan State University in Minnesota. Their research showed that a large share of shooters were suicidal in the year before they committed their violent acts. Taking a gun to school (or shopping center...) and opening fire was a fairly certain way of dying--a form of suicide by police bullet.

The finding supports the idea that one cause–maybe THE cause–of mass murders is the failure of society to provide adequate mental health treatment -- treatment that should be readily available, effective, and covered by insurance or at public expense. Of course we provide no such thing. Mental health services are difficult to access, treatment beds are in short supply, there are not enough treatment staff to go around, and without insurance it is too expensive to afford, for most families.

Other studies have shown that the mental health of adolescents is not good (never mind the rest of the population).

So, maybe it isn't such a mystery why people go on shooting rampages.

BTW, @NOS isn't the only person to think that there is no such thing as society. He has Margaret Thatcher for company.

“Just asked a question.” Yes, the question every NRA member, bought politician, and gun not happen to raise every time gun control is brought up. If that’s “conspicuously absent,” you’re living in complete ignorance. — Mikie

You're unhinged.

Rights can only be conferred by men. But the idea that only man in his official or government form can confer rights is equally absurd. — NOS4A2

By what mechanism do men confer rights? And how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement:

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power.

I quit being a crime lord in the Fall of 1951. — jgill

Some students who struggle with math might think teaching math is the bigger crime.

Thanks for the vivid telling of this true crime story.

it’s mostly disingenuous when the topic is gun control. — Mikie

It might well be 'mostly' disingenuous. It's not about the dismissal (God knows I can't preach about being summarily dismissive of stupid positions!), it's about the position that is being dismissed. If the NRA want to talk about the Second Amendment, or individual rights, or the threat from Government, then there's a solid counter to those arguments. They can indeed be summarily dismissed, but look what's happened here, on this thread.... Dozens of posts shooting down @NOS4A2's absurd John Wayne impression (like shooting fish in a barrel), but all there is on the 'Deaths of despair' as you call them, is a phobic caricaturing in the hope that the issue will go away.

Reasonable concerns have to be addressed reasonably, no matter what their source (or even motivation) because anything less robs the whole issue of it's ground in human compassion and makes it look more like a spat among football fans as to whose team has the best goalkeeper.

Their research showed that a large share of shooters were suicidal in the year before they committed their violent acts. Taking a gun to school (or shopping center...) and opening fire was a fairly certain way of dying--a form of suicide by police bullet. — BC

How many of these shooters would not take a high capacity semiautomatic rifle to school if they did not have one?

Although suicide is a mental health issue not everyone who becomes suicidal suffers from mentally ill.

The majority of suicides by gun are not mass murders. The majority of deaths by gun are not mass murder.

The only common factor in all these cases is guns. We should do more to adequately address mental health but it is not on its own the answer.

:yawn:

it's about the position that is being dismissed — Isaac

In that case: yes, I think mental health is very important indeed and would be happy to discuss the causes and what can be done about it. On this thread, however, it’s avoiding the issue of gun control.

On this thread, however, it’s avoiding the issue of gun control. — Mikie

I don't see how. I see it like this...

1. There's a need for gun control so we campaign for it saying things like "the only difference between the US and other countries is gun law - hence that's what needs to change"

2. The NRA come up with "Ah! It's also to do with mental health, if we address that we don't need to give up our rights"

The question, on the issue of gun control, is what we do next.

You say "tell 'em they're just NRA shills trying to derail the debate". Well how's that working out? Gun ownership doubled last year.

So our response, is exactly on the issue of gun control, it's not avoiding it, it's the main issue because its our opponent's main argument and they're currently winning.

So our response, is exactly on the issue of gun control, it's not avoiding it, it's the main issue because its our opponent's main argument and they're currently winning. — Isaac

A majority want gun control. In some instances a vast majority, including republicans. So they’re really not winning— not with their arguments anyway. They win by buying off politicians and through gerrymandering and through stocking the courts, etc.

But yes we should talk about healthcare when it’s appropriate. In the meantime: gun measures to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining a gun has huge public support.

Although suicide is a mental health issue not everyone who becomes suicidal suffers from mentally ill. — Fooloso4

Yes, it is the case that a mentally healthy person may wish to commit suicide (to relieve unbearable physical pain, for instance), but it is a safe generalization to claim suicides are the result of mental illness.

300 million guns are of course central to this whole issue, but if you--or anyone else--can come up with a way of retrieving even a few million of the guns in private hands LET'S HEAR IT. Guns in the United States are like perfluorocarbons--ubiquitous. (Still, 1/3 of Americans don't own guns). With respect to guns there are two legislative steps that could help (future condition tense) IF they were passed at the federal level: 1) lift the liability shield for gun manufacturers 2) ban further manufacture of most kinds of guns. Lifting the liability shield might accomplish #2.

The majority of suicides by gun are not mass murders. — Fooloso4

Yes. The vast majority of suicides by gun are private affairs. School shootings in particular are public and highly reactive events for obvious reasons.

We still need many more mental health resources available, not just for kiddie killers but because there are a lot of people out there whose mental health is in poor shape (10%? that's what it was 50 years ago. 15%? 20%?) Suicide isn't the only mental health issue, obviously.

Is that how you protect someone’s right to life, by begging the government to restrict our rights?

Or in other cases, abortion control, the right to life via not being chopped up in a womb and sucked out with a vacuum. All this talk of protecting life suddenly falls on deaf ears when this subject comes up. I don’t believe any of it.

What kind of weapon would you use to protect your children, should the need ever arise? Ballots and petitions? Beg a politician? — NOS4A2

Right's only have any meaningful use in the context of a government and legal system with enforcement methods. What you argue for, ironically, is only made possible by the thing you're against. Property rights have no meaning without a government to recognize it. Sure you can claim it's yours but unless you plan to defend it 24/7 there is nothing stopping someone from saying it's theirs and booting you off.

I do think there has to be stronger controls for gun ownership though. Having held and fired a gun before (at a range) I find it incomprehensible that folks wouldn't treat these things with more gravity than we currently do.

The more accesible guns are to the general public, the more their ownership will be abused/misused. The more shootings of innocent parties will arise. This is a natural outcome of arms availability.

My question would then be, why is the government and military so untrustworthy that civilians feel that gun ownership is a requirement to feel safe/protected?

Either one feels that those with guns are their protectors in which case guns can be limited to those protective forces, or one feels the armed forces could turn on civilians at any moment in which case there is concensus to universally possess arms for self defence.

The desire to have lethal force at hand, is a direct reflection of the expectation that it may ever be needed.

My question would then be, why is the government and military so untrustworthy that civilians feel that gun ownership is a requirement to feel safe/protected? — Benj96

Sadly, frequently the police can only come in and pick up the pieces. And I doubt that large numbers of Americans fear their own military. Quite a few of us served.

We can't do gun control, and you can't have an abortion. :100:

Clearly the overriding consensus here is to restrict gun rights, to defang the populace, and to turn whatever remnants of social power that remain into state power. Americans ought to look at nations with the most placated and controlled citizenry, turn around, and assume the same position. The more padded the cell, the better the existence. Protect the children from being shot, but gnash teeth if you aren’t allowed to abort them with scissors and vacuums.

The idea that some men must work for governments in order for rights to be meaningful and useful is nonsense. I can confer a right to you and defend it just as any king or official can.

Protect the children from being shot, but gnash teeth if you aren’t allowed to abort them with scissors and vacuums. — NOS4A2

But protecting them from being shot is a good thing, right?

Of course.

So as long as we don't gnash our teeth over not being allowed to cut up children with scissors, you're with us then?

I don’t think restricting someone’s rights protects anyone. Protecting a child from being shot involves putting life and limb on the line, or neutralizing a threat. Advocating for policy is advocating for policy.

I don’t think restricting someone’s rights protects anyone — NOS4A2

Restricting the right to drive to people who can actually drive doesn't protect anyone?