Oscar Pistorius (Blade Runner) Arrested (Read 547 times)

    Now that we've completely gone off the subject of a terrible tragedy in another country and are now turning it into a gun control debate in our country, I'll chime in here.

     

    The most perplexing thing to me is that gun crimes in the United States are at historic lows.  Violent crime over all is down to around half of what it was 30 to 40 years ago.  Violent crime (murder, rape, assault, etc.)  in the U.S. is significantly lower than violent crime in other countries (U.K., Australia, etc.) that have very strict gun control measures.  But about the only place you are going to hear about that is on an internet forum because it for sure isn't being reported in mainstream media.

     

    Why is it that we are now hearing so many cries for gun control?  Just the fact that we now have a 24/7/365 sensationalist media?  Are the victims now more important than the victims were 30 or 40 years ago?

    Age: 45 Weight: 208 Height: 6'2" (Goal weight 195)

    Current PR's:  Mara 3:48:09; HM 1:43:26; 10K 44:51; 5K 21:27

    C-R


       

      Because I think gun ownership, as permitted in the US today, is larger than the right to bear arms that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. I know in some respects the current Supreme Court disagrees with me, which is a shame.  But I think there are lots of additional "burdens" that could be placed on gun ownership without implicating the extent of the right in the Constitution.  And neither of us can claim to know how the Supreme Court would rule on other restrictions.  They have held that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."  So, it is the law that gun ownership restrictions are permitted under the Second Amendment.

       

      Ok. That's cool. I see your point. I read the Constitution differently and that why we have SCOTUS. Perhaps it will be changed in a way you think is better. Will we all be better of for it? Will it address the root cause and not a symptom? How far can you restrict a freedom until it doesn't exit to everyone under its blanket of protection?


      "He conquers who endures" - Persius
      "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

        Lamestream Media!

         

        Actually.. I hear that all crime is down from the media. I'm not sure what you are consuming.

         

        Just the fact that we now have a 24/7/365 sensationalist media?  

        Dont call it a comeback

        C-R


          . I'm curious as this question is rarely answered and perhaps someone here might indulge me.

           

          I'm not weighing in on any side of this, but I thought I'd point out something that may help you get answers. Notice how you've used the rather dismissive word "uncomfortable" in your question -- by putting it into a strawman phrasing like that, you may be implying that you prejudge any answer to be unwothy of your consideration, and that may discourage people from bothering to answer -- they may misunderstand, thinking that the appearance of a strawman setup means you're simply being rhetorical, and not really interested in any answer.

           

          Someone else on the other side of this debate did something similar in earlier pages -- I considered pointing it out, but didn't get to it until too many pages had gone by. They dismissed the pro-gun people as being motivated by inconvenience, which is not the type of phrasing to encourage rational discussion. I may be misremembering - but it was something dismissive like that, entirely on the other side.

          Seriously . I would counter that this is a very polite way of approaching the subject. I am uncomfortable with many issues. That implies only that they don't fit my view like a glove and it causes me some concern. There is no strawman and I think you might give me too much credit for being either a painter of words or logician trying to trap others.

           

          FWIW - I did not have an issue with inconvenience. It's someone's opinion and without conversational context I take it at its face value.


          "He conquers who endures" - Persius
          "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel


          Ostrich runner

            Without reading the last several pages, is this a 2nd Amendment conversation now? While Scalia completely shit the bed in Heller, I don't have many problems with the Heller test. They would've done much better to put self defense, farm management, and hunting in the penumbras than in the 2nd, and made the 2nd about militias (which would've be a much more strict constructionist interpretation). Unfortunately, I never got around to writing my amicus brief, because jurisprudence would have bowed before my brilliance.

            http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

            C-R


               Unfortunately, I never got around to writing my amicus brief, because jurisprudence would have bowed before my brilliance.

               

              You can't score if you don't shoot.


              "He conquers who endures" - Persius
              "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel


              Fat butt on couch

                 in the penumbras than in the 2nd, and made the 2nd about militias 

                 

                Not often that I have to pull up a definition because I know zilch about it, not just because I need some clarity.  That was a good read, I've met my learning quota for today.  Thanks.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  Interesting take on "rights" and I agree that there isn't a consistent definiton. I read your definition of rights to be more of a macro view where I am looking at the "rights" as something guranteed in our legal contract with government (free speech, equal protection, bearing arms, etc.) in the First 10 Ammendments. So if the word "right" is a sticking point than perhaps it would help to expand and say "guarnateed freedom under our Constitution". On a macro view I tend to be more of a life, liberty and pursuit of happiness guy but that is another conversation.

                   

                  Now those laws provide us a freedom that can be limited by process and agreed to by the SCOTUS or it can be changed by the process of ammendment. There have been some limitations to free speech, equal protection, arms, etc.) already and usually it's the contention that there are limitations in place but you can't outright abdridge the freedom without making an ammendment. Which goes directly to your point fo past agreed upon principles. The pathway is there but it should not be an easy one. It should be done with robust discussion and value of input from all sides and implemented through the agreed upon processes. This is one of my issues with the inconsistency as it attempts to place one freedom superior to another freedom which is situationally motivated. By that I mean that today, my first ammendment freedom of speech might be more important to me than my fifth ammendment right of self incrimination. However, as circumstances in my life changes so do the needs for these freedoms for me. A few weeks ago a horrible tragedy made people want to add limits to a freedom but in 20 years those same limits may cause problems not anticipated.

                   

                  Okay. My point is only that people disagree on what the basics freedoms ought to be. This shouldn't surprise anyone, and there's no necessary inconsistency in believing that what the founders thought is still fundamental today in some areas and less fundamental in others.

                   

                  Re: guns, I like this piece by James McMurtry because he does a good job articulating both sides of the argument. Also, he's a pretty good folk singer who occasionally reports from the America where we all live.


                  Prince of Fatness

                    Re: guns, I like this piece by James McMurtry because he does a good job articulating both sides of the argument.

                     

                    Agreed, thanks for that.

                     

                    I have a friend that is in law enforcement.  We had a conversation about gun control and he mentioned a couple of things that he would like to see...

                     

                    1) The whole uzi thing.  He does not see where the average Joe needs a gun that can spit out oodles of rounds per second or whatever.  I think that the guy in Jeff's article acknowledges that this is an issue.  I am on the side of not needing the uzi, and I don't buy the car analogy either.  However I recognize the other side of the argument and respect it.  There needs to be a line somewhere and it will take some discussion to define where it is.  I think that it is also important to remember that the 2nd amendment was written over 200 years ago, when there were no uzis, hand held rockets, etc.  Should not it be a living document?  My friend touched on that as well.

                     

                    2) When you get a gun permit you go through the background check and all of that stuff, but then that is it,  No follow up.  No renewal process.  So say the when lady in CT got her permit the kid was a toddler.  If there was some follow up process maybe some flags would have been raised.  Perhaps.  Anyway food for thought.

                    Semi-retired.

                       No renewal process.  

                       

                      I have to send back the city census form every year or so if I want to vote. It's not a big deal.


                      Fat butt on couch

                         

                         

                         

                        1) The whole uzi thing.  He does not see where the average Joe needs a gun that can spit out oodles of rounds per second or whatever.  

                         

                        2) When you get a gun permit you go through the background check and all of that stuff, but then that is it,  No follow up.  No renewal process.  

                        1)  Anything resembling the functionality of an uzi has been illegal to the public since 1934, with the exception of a small number of Class III licenses.  The restrictions placed on people with Class III licenses are extremely strict.  IIRC there has been like a single crime committed with a weapon owned under a Class III license, and it was committed by a police officer.  The "assault weapon" characteristics often talked about mostly have more to do with cosmetics than actual functional characteristics of the firearm that make it somehow more lethal.

                         

                        2)  Technically incorrect in many states, if by gun permit you mean a permit to carry.  Many have mandatory renewals, a few do not.  If you mean background checks when purchasing?  No those are not followed up on because in a lot of states you don't need a permit in general to buy a gun, just pass the background check.  However, if you subsequently do something that would make you fail a future background check, like commit certain crimes or get put on probation, you cannot keep your firearms.  It would be nice if pertinent psych issues were defined and flagged people but there is no capacity to do that currently.

                         

                        Then there is the problem with what to do even if you know someone does something that makes it so they should not have a gun.  California recently revealed that they have thousands of people who they know have guns who should not based on what they have done, but they don't have the manpower to take enforcement action so nothing has been done...and magazines can now be easily made on 3-D printers.

                        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                         


                        Ostrich runner

                           

                          Not often that I have to pull up a definition because I know zilch about it, not just because I need some clarity.  That was a good read, I've met my learning quota for today.  Thanks.

                           

                          No problem. Anyway, the essence of what I was saying is that the [reasonable] reasons I think most people who own guns own them are ones that could be protected by the right to privacy. The SCOTUS in Heller essentially held that people have a right to self defense as part of the 2nd. Handguns being the most common self defense gun therefore should be permitted. The test then seems to be that weapons commonly used for self defense are protected. I don't really see that in either the text or most of the history of the 2nd, which I interpret to be more about protection of the masses and militias (although this interpretation is now pretty suspect post-Heller). I don't have any problems with people having tanks, RPGs, StA missiles, and so forth as part of a well regulated militia. Our well regulated militia is the 50 some odd National Guard organizations. If people want weapons that aren't those that could be well grouped into those needed to provide for their families, maintain their property, or defend themselves (i.e. those that could reasonably be protected under the right to privacy), then they should join the National Guard. I don't even have a problem with people having personal ownership of that kind of stuff...they should just keep them at the armory.

                          http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum


                          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer


                            Why is it that we are now hearing so many cries for gun control?  Just the fact that we now have a 24/7/365 sensationalist media?  Are the victims now more important than the victims were 30 or 40 years ago?

                             

                            I tend to doubt that is a good idea to make public policy in reaction to specific incidents, even if spectacular.

                             

                            The silly analogy is the farcical "Man killed by spitball in midtown Manhattan. Should spitballs be criminalized!?"

                             

                             

                            But is seems to me a fine idea to try to put them into context with other incidents, and with the larger issues involved.

                             

                            Then come these boring debates about percentages of gun ownership, and types of violent crime, and attempts at correlation analysis, and so forth -- but I think that stuff is actually relevant - it's just not as interesting as sensational stories. My attention span is exceeded, and I wander off to troll some other thread.

                             

                            But to attempt some sort of half-baked response to your actual point:

                             

                            I think "public reaction" and "trending stories" and "public interest" are all *much* more measurable than they used to be, and much faster, and much more reactive to news stories.

                             

                            So I suspect it may not be that the media is any more sensationalist (well, IDK, maybe it is), but more that the public reaction is much more identifiable, and responsive, and quantifiable.

                            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                            HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                              I would counter that this is a very polite way of approaching the subject. I am uncomfortable with many issues. That implies only that they don't fit my view like a glove and it causes me some concern. There is no strawman and I think you might give me too much credit for being either a painter of words or logician trying to trap others.

                              No, I thought you were serious, and using a serious tone, and not trying to trap people at all. I was merely playing at a semantic point.

                               

                              Whether there is some correlation between my enjoyment of semantics and nitpicking, and the taper period of my training cycle -- I will refuse to comment on.

                               

                              FWIW - I did not have an issue with inconvenience. It's someone's opinion and without conversational context I take it at its face value.

                              It was more inflammatory than that -- but I can't recall the details. I might look it up -- back to that enjoyment at nitpicking....

                              It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                                Why is it that we are now hearing so many cries for gun control?  Just the fact that we now have a 24/7/365 sensationalist media?  Are the victims now more important than the victims were 30 or 40 years ago?

                                 

                                Columbine -- Gabrielle Giffords --  Aurora -- Sandy Hook.  Common sense.