gun control, Iran and North Korea

[Guest MormonGator]

34 minutes ago, Mike said:

The objectives are similar, i.e. to make the world safer.

And the irony is that banning guns will not many anyone safer. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he's going to get a gun. He won't go to Bass Pro Shop. Gun control only effects those who already obey the law.

[NeuroTypical]

Heh.  Y'all are talking geopolitics, like it has something to do with the US constitution.  It doesn't. Geopolitics isn't about right and wrong, it's about leverage and force.  Me and my nation, along with whatever nations are of similar interests, against you and yours.  

The US is the biggest player on the geopolitical field.  We figure we're best off with NK not having nukes.  We're out trying to keep it from happening.  Whether we're right or not, makes no difference* to someone interested in predicting or understanding actions. 

 

* (Of course, in this case, we are right.  Nuclear non-proliferation is absolutely the best thing for the human race.  And everyone always gets that, unless a republican or Trump is in power, then you hear people questioning it.)

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

And the irony is that banning guns will not many anyone safer. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he's going to get a gun. He won't go to Bass Pro Shop. Gun control only effects those who already obey the law.

This is 100% correct, and seems so obvious that it creates a dilemma in my mind when it comes to understanding the motives of those who want to confiscate and ban guns.

• They are sincere and well intentioned, and somehow have managed to never realize this. 
• The real objective isn't to reduce crime but to whittle away at the Second Amendment until it can be dispensed with entirely.

I'm inclined to think it's the second because in all cases, in my experience, when you raise this point in a debate, it never seems to make any difference.

The "strongest" rebuttal I've ever heard is that removing guns legally will gradually choke off access to illegal guns too.  That's almost a reasonable argument, until you realize that there's a  huge and thriving illegal gun trade going on over the border with Mexico, as well as illegal firearms being smuggled in from all over.  I once watched a very interesting show about how knockoff M1911-A1s are manufactured by these remote, isolated gunsmiths in the Philippines before  being shipped over to the U.S.  They make M1911-A1s because they're simple, 100% steel, reliable, and with a .45 caliber round, highly effective.  It's shocking how many of these things make it onto the urban streets of the U.S.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

This is 100% correct, and seems so obvious that it creates a dilemma in my mind when it comes to understanding the motives of those who want to confiscate and ban guns.

• They are sincere and well intentioned, and somehow have managed to never realize this. 
• The real objective isn't to reduce crime but to whittle away at the Second Amendment until it can be dispensed with entirely.

It's a mixture of both, in my view.

It's largely about emotion with the left, not thought. So some might never have thought about it. Second, those who have thought about it can't accept it because it goes against their feeling that guns are evil, so even if it's true (and it is, restricting guns only effects those who obey the law in the first place), it shouldn't be true, so I'm not going to believe it.

 

[zil]

Personally, I think anyone who wants to ban private ownership of any particular kind of firearm should first have to:

1) Receive sufficient training to name its major parts, take it apart, clean it, reassemble it, and use it.

2) Receive sufficient training to be able to hit their target every time.

3) Receive sufficient training to know the current laws which govern its ownership and use.

At least after that, they won't be coming from a place of complete and utter ignorance like so many are.  (I know, not all are, and that's good, but too many don't know what they're talking about.)  Even if it doesn't change their mind, they'll be able to speak intelligently about the subject.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

It's shocking how many of these things make it onto the urban streets of the U.S.

My local small town cops took me shooting with them one day.  I got to shoot their full-auto MP5 SMGs.  They got them through a drug bust - seized some drugs, and also a small armory full of friggin' full-auto submachine guns. 

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

My local small town cops took me shooting with them one day.  I got to shoot their full-auto MP5 SMGs.  They got them through a drug bust - seized some drugs, and also a small armory full of friggin' full-auto submachine guns. 

Can't happen.  Gun control laws work and  those weapons are illegal.

Edited May 25, 2018 by unixknight

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  Y'all are talking geopolitics, like it has something to do with the US constitution.  It doesn't. Geopolitics isn't about right and wrong, it's about leverage and force.  Me and my nation, along with whatever nations are of similar interests, against you and yours.  

The US is the biggest player on the geopolitical field.  We figure we're best off with NK not having nukes.  We're out trying to keep it from happening.  Whether we're right or not, makes no difference* to someone interested in predicting or understanding actions. 

 

* (Of course, in this case, we are right.  Nuclear non-proliferation is absolutely the best thing for the human race.  And everyone always gets that, unless a republican or Trump is in power, then you hear people questioning it.)

I don't think the "republican or Trump in power you hear people questioning it" is accurate.  Doesn't matter who's in power - imposing nuclear non-proliferation requires a powerful entity that can guarantee it - and that powerful entity would have a nuke.

[NeuroTypical]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I don't think the "republican or Trump in power you hear people questioning it" is accurate.  Doesn't matter who's in power - imposing nuclear non-proliferation requires a powerful entity that can guarantee it - and that powerful entity would have a nuke.

Your second sentence is correct.  Fact remains - when there's a Clinton or an Obama in power, you never hear anything from anyone about "so why is it bad to just let North Korea have nukes?"  

If you have a Bush or a Bush or a Trump in power, suddenly you have people comparing our efforts to keep NK non-nuclear, to us being hypocrites about the 2nd amendment, etc.  

 

Case 1: Got a leftie in charge.  [Leftie president makes statement about sanctions for Iran or somesuch]
Mainstream media: Hooray our strong leader!
Lefies: Those Iranians need their sanctions!  Can't let 'em get nukes like Bush wanted!
Rightwingers: Leftie doesn't go far enough.

Case 2: Got a rightwinger in charge.  [Rightwing president makes statement about sanctions for Iran or somesuch]
Mainstream media: Bully President wants Iranian children to starve!
Lefties: What's wrong with countries getting nuclear power?  Doesn't that help the environment?  President just is a slave to the coal people!
Rightwingers: [Facepalms]

[mirkwood]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

My local small town cops took me shooting with them one day.  I got to shoot their full-auto MP5 SMGs.  They got them through a drug bust - seized some drugs, and also a small armory full of friggin' full-auto submachine guns. 

Fake news.