Jon Stewart and the Gun Debate

[ericadawn16]

I think this seems to show both sides of the issue. Most importantly, that screaming guy scares me. He scares my mom. When you want a reason why people want to ban guns other than the children dying every day, THAT GUY IS WHY! He's like the weirdos that made everyone hate the Tea Party before there were any other logical reasons.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter---gun-control

No, I don't want to take away your guns. As long as you are a responsible gun owner who took the training, learned how to care for them and keep them locked in a gun safe whenever they're not in use, I see no reason why you can't keep your handgun or rifle.

However, there is a term called "friendly fire". It's when the best trained people in the world with some of the best equipment in the world...still fuck up and shoot the wrong person. Now, if that's what we get from the best trained people in the world...I don't believe that civilians should have the same access to the same equipment. I don't even see the necessity of civilian Humvees aka Hummers.

I think if you need a semi-automatic assault rifle with a high capacity magazine, THEN YOU SUCK AS A HUNTER! If you honestly think it makes things more fun, take up archery. You can still maim and kill animals with a bow and arrow but you don't hear too many stories about people killing people with them.

December 14, 2012
United States Elementary School Attacked 26 Dead
China Elementary School Attacked 23 injured, None Dead

What was the difference? He couldn't get a gun. People will always make stupid decisions, do we really need to make the fatal outcomes easier in those circumstances?

Yes, we need better background checks for EVERY gun sale; no more loopholes. Yes, by better background checks, I mean they all need to go through the FBI as opposed to Florida admitting that it only did in-state background checks. I also think that people who buys guns for felons and those using them in a crime should be prosecuted at least as bad as if you bought a minor alcohol.

Yes, we should make mental healthcare easier and cheaper to receive. We shouldn't stigmatize or make fun of people for needing help...

BUT I don't agree with a "national database of crazy people". How are we going to define who is too mentally imbalanced? Are they on the list for life or taken off after a period of years of successful therapy and medication? More importantly, WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE LIST?

I know, those selling the guns have access to the list BUT wouldn't corporations buy their way into having access, too? Then, the list would simply be another tool to use for NOT hiring people!

When people are unemployed, they have no consistent healthcare coverage, no mental healthcare and are more likely to do destructive life decisions like suicide or these large scale massacres.

A lot of people don't understand this but then...they'd never failed Walmart's Psych test.

The main thing is that we can't just do nothing or else the next time something happens...people will be out for blood and your guns.

Comments

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I don't think you understand the purpose of the Second Amendment. The purpose of it is to protect citizens from the government -- up to and including creating a militia to protect the citizens from said government.

Am I saying I want a revolution? Do I want people to take up arms against the government? No, of course not. Violent response to the government is a last resort -- but the Founders understood that a government that disarms the people is too dangerous.

Let's just play pretend for a moment, and say that at the end of a President's term, he decides to crown himself king, or extend his term to an 'indefinite' length. Let's say that over the years he has hand-picked military advisers, and has the military support he needs to make this happen.

Let's go one step farther: Let's say that there is a coup -- Al Queda stages some breath-taking attacks to weaken military, police, our government, and they manage to take things over. Would you be willing to stay under such a regime?

Both ideas are far-fetched...but not impossible. What would you use to defend yourself with? How would you fight back? Especially if the enemy is the one with all the guns, and you are not.

Or, let's go back to something more simple, something more realistic:

You're a 12-year-old girl, home alone, terrified because someone is breaking into your home. You call your mom, who tells you where the gun is, and tells you to hide. So you do. And the man breaks into your home. He doesn't rob the place. He comes looking for you, and finally finds the place where you're hidden. So you shoot him, and he runs.

If you think that's far-fetched, it really happened.

Yes, mistakes happen. But there are only maybe, maybe 9k deaths attributed to guns. Most of them are indeed murders, but there are a few accidents. There are over 40k people killed by motor vehicles every year, most of them through human stupidity. There are thousands more injured, and motor vehicles cost us nearly 36 billion dollars a year.

Why do gun deaths upset you more than vehicle deaths? Because they're preventable? So are most causes of death. Because it's evil? Some of the most evil things I have ever heard of have never involved guns, so that can't be your argument. So what is it about guns that bugs you so much?

The Second Ammendment is clear: The people have the right to bear arms. There are no limitations given in it.

One other interesting fact: There are nearly 350 million guns in America. Even if you add up the number of victims of gun violence, both those that are fatal and non-fatal, the percentage of the population affected by gun violence is less than one percent.

Guns are dangerous, but the odds are better that you'll get hit by a car or bitten by a dog than to get shot by a gun.

[tptigger.livejournal.com]

Walmart has a psych test? Just another reason to hate them.

[ragnarok-08.livejournal.com]

A psych test?

Seriously, Wal-Mart DX

[geminia905.livejournal.com]

The 2nd amendment clearly states it is to ensure a "well regulated militia" such as the National Guard. It doesn't say anything about every man and his dog being allowed their own personal arsenal.

Maybe everyone should also be allowed to own their own tanks/air craft carriers/bombers, etc.?

Our family owns rifles. They are for hunting. I have no problem with people owning something like that.

I do have a MAJOR issue with every crackpot on the street or out in the paranoid backhills being able to buy an automated assault rifle without even having to have a proper background check or psych eval.

Heck, the chances of a plane being hijacked is relatively remote. How about we do away with all the security at airports, too?

[viomisehunt.livejournal.com]

The people have the right to bear arms. There are no limitations given in it.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Actually the terms "Well regulated" would suggest that the Founding fathers did intend some limitations, and as at the time there were limitations as to what group of so called natural born Americans were considered citizens, I would say, there were plenty of limitations and exceptions.
Also remember that one of the complaints against the British was Conscription into military service. Adams understood when helping to draft the second amendment that a voluntary service was needed—and was at the time trying to muster a “volunteer army” ready to defend the homes of American citizens.
The government’s duty to define regulations for the safety and well-being of the people regarding our right to bear arms has always been a part of the Second Amendment.
John Adams and other of our founding fathers were quite clear about needing a well Regulated militia to protect "American" citizens not only from the British government, but from "marauding Indians and escaped slaves"--threats which does not exist today.
We have the USA Army, Marines, National Guard, Air Force, as well as the police forces of each state to protect us. Have they turned against us? Well I was in Michigan when Governor George Romney declared Martial law Detroit during the riots and recall the NRA sponsored laws attempting to restrict gun ownership in urban areas, targeted at People of Color-- and of course the confusion about the incident at Ruby Ridge. But in the last decade, even with mass murders in several cities, the government has not called in the Nation Guard to disarm citizens. And this is not a threat nor a recommendation of those asking for gun control laws defined to fit the 21st century society.
The comparison of guns to vehicles seems almost cynical. Although not unheard of, how many persons involved in vehicular homicide acted with willful intent? That is in comparison to the number of people who have willfully taken a gun with the sole intent of murdering their spouse, co-workers, child, parent, fellow students, neighbors, strangers, how many people involved in vehicle death, willfully took the wheel with the intent to kill?

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I also find it moderately bizarre that there is this way of thinking that if the United States suddenly becomes a tyrannical dictatorship and the President puts the army on the streets to maintain control, that an armed militia will somehow overthrow them.

I don't know much about the men and women of the US armed forces, but I'm pretty certain they wouldn't happily march out onto the streets and enforce a military dictatorship and murder their own citizens, I think those guys and gals are pretty committed to the concepts of freedom and liberty.

(Arguably far more so than their political masters, but that's ever the way.)

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Ye gods, a national mental health register, I can't even begin on the number of ways that would get abused. And can you imagine once your name is on it...

[dacian-goddess.livejournal.com]

Wow, no. Far-fetched would be positing that the Syrian ruler wins a Nobel Peace Prize; far-fetched would be saying Angela Merkel moonlights as Batman. Those hypotheticals above are ...but impossible.

Sorry, look, I know they're the world's boogieman, but Al-Qaeda is actually likelier to be made up of, of... Pope-worshipping alcoholics than to be capable of taking over a country with any semblance of functioning government. Unless you lot somehow invade yourselves and thoroughly decimate, dismantle and otherwise raze the full sum of your own country's infrastructure and bureaucracy, country-wide as well as state-by-state, the Al-Qaeda thing is Never Gonna Happen land.

But ok; theatre-of-war hysteria-inducing fabulation has somehow occurred. So, if 'the enemy' is actually capable of completely neutralising your military/police/all agencies/government... so completely even that the country is taken over... it's civilians that'll somehow 'fight back' simply because they own guns?

Elsewhere, I would not put, in the hands of a terrified 12-year old functioning on a cocktail of panic and adrenalin, a loaded firearm with which she's every bit as likely to injure herself. Self-defence is not bullets or bust. Personally, in an invasion scenario I would rather use a taser gun or a pepper gun to protect myself from a distance than risk taking a life.

[cp.livejournal.com]

Oy, an old friend of mine who I'm FB-friends with these days takes that Alex Jones guy seriously. He's like the worst of the Tea Party crowd, with tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory stuff added in for good measure. I just can't take him as anything but what he is, an entertainer. He's just catering to the most paranoid right-wing audience he can manage to attract.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

But the second amendment also doesn't say that we can't have our own personal arsenal. It doesn't limit the number or type of guns we are allowed to have.

As for the militia, idea is to allow states to form their own, in the event of government abuse or breakdown at a national level. It also empowers the people to create a militia in case there is a complete failure on the government to protect the people.

And just because there are militias out there, it doesn't mean they are illegal. Creepy, yes. Illegal, no.

Also, militias aren't just used for war time; they can be used to restore order, to guard things, and even to be called upon to help with natural disasters (like we use the National Guard for).

The idea that people should be able to protect themselves from the government wasn't a whimsy or a paranoia for the Founders. They had felt first-hand the bite of government, and they wanted to protect their people from the United States government...because no system is perfect.

Maybe everyone should also be allowed to own their own tanks/air craft carriers/bombers, etc.?

Well, maybe...but it'd be expensive. :p I'm not sure an air craft carrier counts as 'arms'.

I don't have an issue with people having weapons. I'm sorry. It's a promise given to us by the government. I certainly support back ground checks, but that's it.

Maybe we should. -shrug- People certainly complain enough about it.

Edited to add: I don't mind background checks, but I'd want to be careful with how restrictive we are with guns. People have a right to arm themselves.

Although your family owns weapons, I get the sense you don't care for it (otherwise you wouldn't have engaged me in this discussion). So why don't you like guns?

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I said it was far-fetched. Doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. Maybe not today. Maybe not in four years. But he truth is, it could happen. It has happened in history. Not here, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, with the right mix of people in charge.

Who would have thought an entire population of people could be convinced to exterminate their fellow humans? If you had asked the Germans that before Hitler rose to power, they probably would have stared at you in shock.

But it DID happen.

Also, I never said that it would be easy or that the militia would win if something weird happened to the government. But at least we'd have a starting chance to fight, as opposed to no chance at all.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Oh for sure, there have been times when it's looked as if America might just tip over into a right wing religion based dictatorship. Of course in that case the gun-armed militias are all likely to be on the side of the dictator, because the dictator will be promising them exactly what they want.

Which is sadly the lesson from history, dictators tend to come into power with the support of the people by playing on the sorts of fears that right-wing politicians are very good at playing on, fear of outsiders, the evils of immigrants, scape-goating a section of the population, gays, trans, muslims, etc. Hearking back to undefined 'good old days' when old fashioned morals made the world a better place.

At a complete tangent, crikey, this is the first time I've visited LJ without adblock active in years, the adverts haven't half taken over eh.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I know my history quite well, thanks. I am aware of what the Founders wanted -- and some of the more unpleasant reasons behind what they wanted.

(Although since you know so much about the Constitution, you understand why PoC were only counted as 3/5 human, right?)

There was a lot of concern that a peace-time government run military could abuse the citizens. It's one of the many reasons to have the back-up of another militia, one that was unconnected to at least the Federal government.

The militias are to protect us against outside threats. I would say now that there are still plenty of threats that exist, where we may need militias at some point.

Really? You think maybe eight thousand dead people due to malicious action is somehow worse than five times that number due to carelessness? Really? You need to check yourself, and think about how stupid that sounds.

Some of the worst crimes are committed without a gun. Some of the most evil things I've ever heard of have never involved a gun.

You can't legislate evil. You never know who's going to go crazy one day and decide to kill. You can't. You can, however, make certain that people have a fighting chance to survive when the monsters among us show their faces.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

Which is why we need to make sure everyone has weapons.

I am generally conservative, but there is no fucking way I want some of these nutty Republicans to be in charge. I can easily see a take-over like that.

On the other hand, I see a lot of dangers with too liberal of leaders too. Disarm the people, tell them what to eat, what to wear, what light bulbs to buy, take their money...

Do you know where all the gold in Fort Knox came from, right?

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Actually I'm not sure, was it not sometime in the 1800s when the US government wanted to move their economy to the Gold Standard, so they decided to make private ownership of gold illegal in the States, and anybody who had any gold had to take it to the bank and swap it for paper money/IOUs? Because the federal bank didn't like the idea of people using any sort of money other than the dollars that they were issuing? And, well, the whole Gold Standard thing too?

Though oddly apparently Germany stores a bunch of their gold in Fort Knox too, except there's some strange story that the American government might have 'lost' the German gold because the Germans were going to ask for it back, but have been strongly discouraged from asking for it back.

Honestly, the more I learn about international finance, the more it just seems like old fashioned confidence trickery writ large.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

It wasn't in the 1800s. It was in 1933. FDR was president, and he made it illegal by executive order for Americans to hold gold over a certain amount. The rest of what you said is indeed true.

I don't like the idea of Presidents using executive orders to do that kind of thing. Or the government in general. I don't like the government being so involved in so much stuff.

What? There is no trickery in international finance. After all, it's run by the governments, and everyone knows that they are all completely trustworthy. And I have some lovely ocean-side property here in Indiana to show you....

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Americans still own quite a lot of gold privately though, yeah? Just not enough for anybody to conduct transactions with it, and thus avoid paying taxes?

[viomisehunt.livejournal.com]

Although since you know so much about the Constitution, you understand why PoC were only counted as 3/5 human, right?)
As a descedant of POC who were freemen/women before the Revolution and were invited and expected to take up arms to defend the newly formed Union, other than greed, a grrab for political power by Southern slave owners and general prejudice, not really. Are you suggesting this was virtuous behavior?

You think maybe eight thousand dead people due to malicious action is somehow worse than five times that number due to carelessness? Really? You need to check yourself, and think about how stupid that sounds.

You are suggesting that because there are more deaths due to car accidents, that the government should do Nothing to attempt to prevent death due to gun crime, including making certain evil or disturbed people have less as easy access to weapons as they have, and you are questioning My reasoning? Let us agree to disagree.

The truth is the number of car deaths due to drunken driving have dreduce in the last two decades because of regulations and penalties.

Is it perfect? No. But any reduction should be welcome.

This attitude that car accidents are a 'worst' danger than gun crime, therefore there is no reason for Law enforcement or the Government to address reasonably regulated gun ownership sounds very like the reasoning of the men who defend rape by saying the violtion couldn't be rape because the woman got knocked up.

I worked for over twenty years with mentally ill people and I know there ARE ways to anticipate, allieviate, and in some cases prevent crisis. Of course we work in a controlled setting, but some of the same preventions should work in the homes. For example drug and alchohol addition, especially when there has been violitile or dangerous behavior should be added to MI in secruity checks.

You can, however, make certain that people have a fighting chance to survive when the monsters among us show their faces. Again . from my POV, you're tilting at windmills, fighting a politically generated enemy that has no more substance in reality tha a computor generated monster. Regulations is not an attempt to disarm people. The only people who seem to profit by this element in the debate are gun manufactors. After all there are few to no gun commercials on radio or television, but gun manufactors have plenty of product they want to move, and nothing moves people to purchaase weapons more than fear. They even have celebrity endorsement.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

Hey I said in the unlikely scenario. It was late at night. I realize we're more likely to be over-run by Canada than by al-queda (heee!) but still. The point is, we have the option of a militia.

Until people like you destroy that concept. :p

As for the little girl...Do you think I want a little girl to have to defend herself? No. Do I think that if she has to, she should be able to? Yes.

And it's a good thing too. As I said: THAT IS A REAL STORY. It happened. 12-year-old girl shoots home intruder

I'd rather that a terrified child shot an intruder than for that child to have been kidnapped, only to have their abused body found a few weeks later.

Pepper spray doesn't always work, and you could end up spraying yourself or harming yourself with it. And it doesn't always stop an attack. You have to be within body reach to use most tasers.

I don't like violence, but having been the victim of several crimes, I'm not afraid any longer with the idea of using force to take some asshole down who wants to do me, or someone I love harm.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I think the ban was modified or lifted, but that's not really the point. The point is that the government can and does abuse the privileges of power.

Which goes back to the point of why it's important the government doesn't disarm the people of the nation, or prevent the ability to form a militia.

Again, I am not screaming for a revolution, nor do I actually expect we'll need one. But I'd rather be able to have a militia if I need one, and be able to arm myself, rather than be caught with my pants down with no way to defend myself.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I do question your judgement. There are five times less deaths attributed to guns. That alone should snap you out of your insane desire to disarm a population that is generally non-violent.

Consider how large our population is, consider how many weapons -- not just guns, but any weapons and means of killing people we have at our disposal, and look at how few deaths actually occur.

Of course, all death is sad. My cousin was murdered. I've watched three of my sister's friends grow from gangly teens to decent young men, and then be murdered. They were all tragic, horrible losses that no one who knew them will ever be over.

But I surely will never say that because they died, we need to restrict guns.

Again . from my POV, you're tilting at windmills, fighting a politically generated enemy that has no more substance in reality tha a computor generated monster. Regulations is not an attempt to disarm people. The only people who seem to profit by this element in the debate are gun manufactors. After all there are few to no gun commercials on radio or television, but gun manufactors have plenty of product they want to move, and nothing moves people to purchaase weapons more than fear. They even have celebrity endorsement.

How about home invasions? How about fighting off an attacker? Although the news media generally doesn't cover it, there are stories where people have indeed been brought down in the middle of a crime by people wielding guns. It happened in a movie theater not long ago, it happened just a few weeks ago in a home, and in October of last year, a girl shot a home invader. She was twelve.

People die. It's sad, and we can try to prevent it -- but we can't stop it. But only to the extent that it does not interfere with the rights of people. And whether you like it or not, we have the right to own weapons. We are allowed to arm ourselves against the government, and against people who want to us harm.

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

I could never get behind that. And wouldn't that be some major invasion of privacy or something? I just can't even begin to list the ways that is a horrible, horrible idea.

Edited to add: Didn't we have something similar though, with the "Three generations law"?

Although that might have just been New York...-goes off to research-

[viomisehunt.livejournal.com]

a national mental health register Scares me. I am not comforted at all that the discussion of mental health has become entangled in crime prevention, as, especially in this country people are ignorant of the many types of mental illness and seem to react in extremes, and easily form prejudices. There is no emphasis on care and treatment that is proactive, and here I agree, reform in mental health care inspired by the country's fear of mass violence will possibly end with true human rights violations and abuse of the metally ill. Look how many people have forgotten that original Roe vs Wade decision statement addresses how the States’s criminal abortion law violates right to privacy and freedom to consult competent unprejudiced health care—without fear of persecution for treatment solicited and rendered that a Doctor has deemed medically necessary.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

As a descedant of POC who were freemen/women before the Revolution and were invited and expected to take up arms to defend the newly formed Union, other than greed, a grrab for political power by Southern slave owners and general prejudice, not really. Are you suggesting this was virtuous behavior?

I have a few relations who were slaves as well, so calm down. It wasn't virtuous behavior. But it was used to keep the South from gaining enough power to make slavery a forever standard.

It wasn't great reasoning, and it was still atrocious. But it was a sight better than allowing the south to become too powerful.

This attitude that car accidents are a 'worst' danger than gun crime, therefore there is no reason for Law enforcement or the Government to address reasonably regulated gun ownership sounds very like the reasoning of the men who defend rape by saying the violtion couldn't be rape because the woman got knocked up.


And that's just silly. It's not at all like that, so stop.

My point to you is that vehicles pose more of a financial burden and are more dangerous in the hands of stupid people than guns.

We have laws restricting guns. We need to make sure that there are background checks on those who buy all guns. Fine. But anything more than that is ridiculous.

If you want, you could make a case that people should have classes on how to properly handle a weapon, much like driver's ed courses. Fine. I could even maybe go for that.

But restricting the sale of weapons by type is just not ok. It isn't.

I still don't understand why gun deaths bother you so much. Are you as upset about knife deaths? What about strangulation?

Where do you want the government to be involved there?

[surreal-44.livejournal.com]

There was an attempt made many years ago, I believe, by progressives to force sterilization of people who were deemed mentally unfit to procreate.

I'd like to avoid going down that road again, and I'm afraid that a mental health registry would be the gateway for that kind of nonsense.