San Bernadino Terrorism and Radicalization

[kandrathe]

I am still sorely puzzled by the notion that any additional restrictions that help curtail an individual's ability to kill others with ease is a bad thing, especially since it isn't just that small fraction of deranged people who do the killing with them.

I guess it is just the unique nature of our founding which placed high emphasis on the right of self defense. It was a consequence of our resistance to the Empire. Also, prior restrictions on commoners having been lifted, such as 1688 after the ouster of James II, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” It became an important point for a newly pluralistic republic to establish power with the commoner. In keeping with the purpose of militia, perhaps the attitudes would change if as in the beginning, all able bodied citizens (age 18-65, men and women now) would periodically need to muster to the local regiment with cleaned and proper weapons to drill. In colonial times, failure to muster, or be present in good order would meet with punishments and fines. You never know when we'll need to repel an incursion of hooligans from Thunder Bay. Seriously though, the rights are remembered, but not so much the responsibilities. We end up with that which earlier founders feared most; rather than local militia we traded it for many standing professional armies (aka. police corps if you are conversant in BLM). Instead of an ethos of equal personal power of united citizens, and shared responsibility, we've evolved also toward a paradigm of armed power (thugs, and police/military) and their victims.

The sad trail of children who are killed by the guns in their own homes might be eliminated with your idea of a biometric lock, but I can't quite imagine how that could be forced on the populace.

Agreed. The pro-gun lobby does senselessly fight against this innovation. Most people I know, including myself, keep their weapons secure in a safe. If I lived in an area where I feared home invasion, where I would need a weapon ready for defense, then I would really want better safety on the weapon.

Additionally, I think you are also being disingenuous by bringing Mexico's stats into the conversation. Mexico's mass shootings and corresponding high murder rates are almost all directly related to the failed War on Drugs and your government's attempts to push the effects past your borders.

Not really. A large portion of violence in our country is related to the same failed policy. I added them since mostly since they complete the geography of North America.

Bureau of Justice Statistics reports, "BJS examined homicides in the 75 most populous counties in the United States in 1988. Many of the homicides involved drugs or drug trafficking, including the following: drug manufacture, dispute over drugs, theft of drugs or drug money, a drug scam, a bad drug deal, punishment for drug theft, or illegal use of drugs. One of these circumstances was involved for 18% of defendants and 16% of victims."

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I appreciate the perspective.

You are welcome.

[Jester]

I guess it is just the unique nature of our founding which placed high emphasis on the right of self defense. It was a consequence of our resistance to the Empire. Also, prior restrictions on commoners having been lifted, such as 1688 after the ouster of James II, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” It became an important point for a newly pluralistic republic to establish power with the commoner. In keeping with the purpose of militia, perhaps the attitudes would change if as in the beginning, all able bodied citizens (age 18-65, men and women now) would periodically need to muster to the local regiment with cleaned and proper weapons to drill. In colonial times, failure to muster, or be present in good order would meet with punishments and fines.

Not to deny the importance of "resistance to [other peoples'] empire," but the early US was a society where a wealthy white elite ruled over a large, enslaved population of black workers, who were themselves notably denied the right to carry a weapon for self defense.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Not to deny the importance of "resistance to [other peoples'] empire," but the early US was a society where a wealthy white elite ruled over a large, enslaved population of black workers, who were themselves notably denied the right to carry a weapon for self defense.

-Jester

Yes, In fact, one of the "reasons" for compulsory militia was to prevent and subdue slave revolts and conflicts with the natives. I think though, preeminent concern must have been forces from France, Spain, and then eventually Britain as well. The years prior to the American revolution and Constitution were filled with international conflict fought between colonies e.g. expelling the Acadians.

[eppie]

Not to deny the importance of "resistance to [other peoples'] empire," but the early US was a society where a wealthy white elite ruled over a large, enslaved population of black workers, who were themselves notably denied the right to carry a weapon for self defense.

-Jester

Yes, In fact, one of the "reasons" for compulsory militia was to prevent and subdue slave revolts and conflicts with the natives. I think though, preeminent concern must have been forces from France, Spain, and then eventually Britain as well. The years prior to the American revolution and Constitution were filled with international conflict fought between colonies e.g. expelling the Acadians.

What I don't get is that everybody in the US (well the pro gun people) are always referring to a document that was made in a time that was so much different than our current time.
How can you use the argument of a 'right' that was written down in a document from a time the country was continuously at war on its own turf, a country that had large parts of the population who were not allowed to vote (lets say it was a kind of IS caliphate avant la lettre), when there were no cars, no functioning government (compared to now) etc.
I mean without giving an opinion about pro or con guns. How is it possible that such amendments have never been changed in the constitution?

I mean if you think you need to defend yourself against your own government, isnt it better to move to Canada or so?

(or are those arguments just used by the gun lobby because they know people in the US are very sensitive with regards to their rights and basically stop thinking once the amendments are mentioned? )
You would expect the weapon industry would be satisfied by the money they make selling arms to the Saudies....that they wouldnt need to make that extra dollar by selling in there own backyard......not even a crack dealer would do that.

[Jester]

What I don't get is that everybody in the US (well the pro gun people) are always referring to a document that was made in a time that was so much different than our current time.
How can you use the argument of a 'right' that was written down in a document from a time the country was continuously at war on its own turf, a country that had large parts of the population who were not allowed to vote (lets say it was a kind of IS caliphate avant la lettre), when there were no cars, no functioning government (compared to now) etc.
I mean without giving an opinion about pro or con guns. How is it possible that such amendments have never been changed in the constitution?

Laws continue until they are changed, and they change when there's the political will and power to do so. Alcohol prohibition was really unpopular (the 18th amendment) and so they repealed it (the 21st amendment). Gun rights are not so unpopular, and so they stay on the books. You can't change the laws until you can convince enough senators and congresspeople to vote for it, and they're not likely to change their minds until their voters do.

To make a slightly different, Mancur Olson style argument: Some states have gun legislation not too dissimilar to Canada, which may explain why they don't lobby harder for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. They've got most of what they want, and have little incentive to push much harder. Other states basically allow you to own a private arsenal, and they're quite defensive about that, so push very hard to keep the laws on the books. Even if a majority might repeal the 2nd amendment (and I don't think that actually is the case), the minority fights harder for the rights that are important to them, than the majority fights to revoke them, because they don't care as much. This is how lobby groups function in general.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What I don't get is that everybody in the US (well the pro gun people) are always referring to a document that was made in a time that was so much different than our current time.
How can you use the argument of a 'right' that was written down in a document from a time the country was continuously at war on its own turf, a country that had large parts of the population who were not allowed to vote (lets say it was a kind of IS caliphate avant la lettre), when there were no cars, no functioning government (compared to now) etc.
I mean without giving an opinion about pro or con guns. How is it possible that such amendments have never been changed in the constitution?

Laws continue until they are changed, and they change when there's the political will and power to do so. Alcohol prohibition was really unpopular (the 18th amendment) and so they repealed it (the 21st amendment). Gun rights are not so unpopular, and so they stay on the books. You can't change the laws until you can convince enough senators and congresspeople to vote for it, and they're not likely to change their minds until their voters do.

To make a slightly different, Mancur Olson style argument: Some states have gun legislation not too dissimilar to Canada, which may explain why they don't lobby harder for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. They've got most of what they want, and have little incentive to push much harder. Other states basically allow you to own a private arsenal, and they're quite defensive about that, so push very hard to keep the laws on the books. Even if a majority might repeal the 2nd amendment (and I don't think that actually is the case), the minority fights harder for the rights that are important to them, than the majority fights to revoke them, because they don't care as much. This is how lobby groups function in general.

-Jester

Adding to this... The process of adding or changing the original Bill of Rights is difficult requiring a common text ratified by 3/4ths of State legislatures. While the bulk of population may be about 50/50 on the issue even, only the blue coast states trend to gun controls, while creamy red center is mostly neutral to pro-gun rights. The problems of gun violence tend to be more in high density metropolitan areas, which tend to be more East/West coast.

[cheezz]

I find the idea of any kind of trigger lock on a gun to be pointless. As to the physical key locks they sell now, well, you could boot your own car to try to prevent its theft, but how convenient would that be for you? Not to mention the fact that situations which call for the use of a weapon rarely come with a one minute warning for lock removal.

All forms of electronic locks come with a common and unavoidable failing. A battery. Batteries die, including rechargeable ones. Then you have a weapon which will fire for all or for nobody.

What would be more practical in a home would be a biometric lock on a gun safe which could be set for multiple individuals and run off household current with a battery backup for power outages.

All gun accidents share two things in common. The gun/ammo was not secured, and the gun was not respected. Gun accidents involving children also involve an adult being an idiot and ignoring one of the known irrefutable facts of the universe. That fact is - "What children and animals CAN do, they WILL do."

While I do not want to see innocent children die, neither do I want to come home at night and find my family hurt or dead because my wife couldn't get my gun to fire.

[kandrathe]

I find the idea of any kind of trigger lock on a gun to be pointless.... While I do not want to see innocent children die, neither do I want to come home at night and find my family hurt or dead because my wife couldn't get my gun to fire.

For me it's more of a balance of risks. For some context; when I was 16, a homicidal maniac broke into our "safe" rural family home when my dad was at work. He was looking to do harm to my little sister with a 16" dagger he had stolen that same evening. My mother and I confronted the would be killer. We had the option of pulling out guns to deal with him. I vividly recall asking my mother, in hurried, and hushed whispers, if we should grab the pump shotgun we had stashed in the nearby closet. Instead she opted for using our heads, calming him down, and convincing him to leave. Of course, she didn't know he had that huge dagger until I met him in the hallway. I wonder if she would have counseled differently in hindsight.

If I lived in a neighborhood where home invasion were to be more likely, I would probably move. But, if forced to live in a dangerous place, I would have the means of self defense at the ready. I think it's better to be prepared for what is likely to happen. Fortunately, the only times I find myself feeling the need for self defense are when I'm intentionally in "bad places" where I've prepared for the worst, and am mentally alert and on the lookout for trouble.

In regards to batteries; I believe we are in the infancy of battery technology, which until recently hasn't changed much since Alessandro Volta's reinvention. I charge many of my devices now through proximity EM waves. My phone is programmed to my fingerprint to unlock, which is split second, even at 6am when I'm snoozing my alarm.

If you need a gun at the ready, as I rely on my phone and other gizmo's, then ensuring it's charged would be a daily concern. I could envision marrying these technologies; proximity charging, fingerprint biometrics, and a trigger lock to create a much safer reliable tool for self defense. A tool that wouldn't be as valuable to anyone other than the owner (imprinted one). Less usable by thieves, innocents, or anyone wrestling it from your grasp.