Freedom vs. public safety

ataraxia · Mar 2, 2020

The gun debate is a debate on where to draw the line in trying to balance the freedom of people who want to carry firearms and the desire of the public for a sense of safety. The argument from the pro-gun side is that the second amendment has guaranteed them that "the right to arms shall not be infringed". However, with the dramatic advances in weapons technology since the 18th century, it has become clear that at least SOME limits and regulations have to be in place. There has to be some infringement. We have already banned public access to nuclear arms. Ronald Reagan stopped the sale of newly manufactured full auto weapons in the 1980s. It seems that as weapons technology continues to evolve and advance, this is an issue that will require constant revisiting and reevaluation. It is clear we cannot continue to cling blindly and unquestioningly to 18th century laws in the face of 21st century technology- let alone that of the 22nd or 23rd century. The laws have to keep up with the times.

But many gun advocates tell us that any revisiting of this issue should be off-limits, and any attempts to keep playing with it is a "slippery slope" to tyranny and full gun confiscation. So using this fear of communist totalitarianism, they have been able to block even basic discussions of the issues, or attempts to learn about what all this new technology is doing. They have banned all further funding for research in this field, because they felt that the light it was shedding on the issue was not really the facts, but propaganda attempts to take away their guns. They even "physician gag laws" keeping doctors from being able to tell their patients about safe practices on how to store their guns safely so the kids can't get to them easily. They can do it for the household bleach, car seats, and electric plugs, but not the guns. There are regulations on every potentially dangerous tool or equipment, from cars, trucks, and bulldozers to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, but not guns. It doesn't make any sense.

Most Americans WANT a balancing of freedom and safety considerations. They WANT some common sense measures so that they and their families can be more safe. They do not think that we should always sacrifice safety for the freedom of the gun owners. As of 2019:

"An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[30]"
Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

So who is the real tyrant here?

bluesmoke · Mar 2, 2020

ataraxia said:
The gun debate is a debate on where to draw the line in trying to balance the freedom of people who want to carry firearms and the desire of the public for a sense of safety. The argument from the pro-gun side is that the second amendment has guaranteed them that "the right to arms shall not be infringed". However, with the dramatic advances in weapons technology since the 18th century, it has become clear that at least SOME limits and regulations have to be in place. There has to be some infringement. We have already banned public access to nuclear arms. Ronald Reagan stopped the sale of newly manufactured full auto weapons in the 1980s. It seems that as weapons technology continues to evolve and advance, this is an issue that will require constant revisiting and reevaluation. It is clear we cannot continue to cling blindly and unquestioningly to 18th century laws in the face of 21st century technology- let alone that of the 22nd or 23rd century. The laws have to keep up with the times.

But many gun advocates tell us that any revisiting of this issue should be off-limits, and any attempts to keep playing with it is a "slippery slope" to tyranny and full gun confiscation. So using this fear of communist totalitarianism, they have been able to block even basic discussions of the issues, or attempts to learn about what all this new technology is doing. They have banned all further funding for research in this field, because they felt that the light it was shedding on the issue was not really the facts, but propaganda attempts to take away their guns. They even "physician gag laws" keeping doctors from being able to tell their patients about safe practices on how to store their guns safely so the kids can't get to them easily. They can do it for the household bleach, car seats, and electric plugs, but not the guns. There are regulations on every potentially dangerous tool or equipment, from cars, trucks, and bulldozers to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, but not guns. It doesn't make any sense.

Most Americans WANT a balancing of freedom and safety considerations. They WANT some common sense measures so that they and their families can be more safe. They do not think that we should always sacrifice safety for the freedom of the gun owners. As of 2019:

"An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[30]"
Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

So who is the real tyrant here?

Taking action on any issue is always a matter of where the line is drawn between contending sides as to what action should, if any, be taken. My line is I'm OK with what laws are made due to what the people demand and any ensuing court decision that may require changes in those laws. I've read gun safety law passed variously by a state or locale with which I largely agree but disagree on a point or two, which points are then struck-down by the courts.

swing_voter · Mar 2, 2020

Take on the NRA and its corrupting effect on Washington.

Expand background checks.

End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.

Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.

Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets.

Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.

Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.

Support “red flag” laws and legislation to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers

Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks

Gun Safety

Benie is pushing some anti gun stuff. You can vote for him.

KevinKohler · Mar 2, 2020

I liked how you used SENSE of safety.

Because that's what this is about. Perception. The perception that some guns are more dangerous than others, the perception that restricting access to legal gun ownership by law abiding individuals will somehow make others safer.

But the problem is, most of our crime involving guns won't affected by most laws states or towns pass, as evidenced by states and towns that have passed them.

chuckiechan · Mar 2, 2020

ataraxia said:
The gun debate is a debate on where to draw the line in trying to balance the freedom of people who want to carry firearms and the desire of the public for a sense of safety. The argument from the pro-gun side is that the second amendment has guaranteed them that "the right to arms shall not be infringed". However, with the dramatic advances in weapons technology since the 18th century, it has become clear that at least SOME limits and regulations have to be in place. There has to be some infringement. We have already banned public access to nuclear arms. Ronald Reagan stopped the sale of newly manufactured full auto weapons in the 1980s. It seems that as weapons technology continues to evolve and advance, this is an issue that will require constant revisiting and reevaluation. It is clear we cannot continue to cling blindly and unquestioningly to 18th century laws in the face of 21st century technology- let alone that of the 22nd or 23rd century. The laws have to keep up with the times.

But many gun advocates tell us that any revisiting of this issue should be off-limits, and any attempts to keep playing with it is a "slippery slope" to tyranny and full gun confiscation. So using this fear of communist totalitarianism, they have been able to block even basic discussions of the issues, or attempts to learn about what all this new technology is doing. They have banned all further funding for research in this field, because they felt that the light it was shedding on the issue was not really the facts, but propaganda attempts to take away their guns. They even "physician gag laws" keeping doctors from being able to tell their patients about safe practices on how to store their guns safely so the kids can't get to them easily. They can do it for the household bleach, car seats, and electric plugs, but not the guns. There are regulations on every potentially dangerous tool or equipment, from cars, trucks, and bulldozers to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, but not guns. It doesn't make any sense.

Most Americans WANT a balancing of freedom and safety considerations. They WANT some common sense measures so that they and their families can be more safe. They do not think that we should always sacrifice safety for the freedom of the gun owners. As of 2019:

"An August 2019 Fox News poll of registered voters found 90% of respondents favored universal background checks, 81% supported taking guns from at-risk individuals, and 67% favored banning assault weapons.[30]"
Public opinion on gun control in the United States - Wikipedia

So who is the real tyrant here?

Let me put it this way. If you are stuck on a lonely isolated road, you are safe weather or not I am armed.

We don’t have a gun problem, we have a people problem.

Ikari · Mar 2, 2020

Well I think a good compromise is that whatever the police are allowed to have, the People should be allowed to have.

aociswundumho · Mar 2, 2020

ataraxia said:
The gun debate is a debate on where to draw the line in trying to balance the freedom of people who want to carry firearms and the desire of the public for a sense of safety. The argument from the pro-gun side is that the second amendment has guaranteed them that "the right to arms shall not be infringed". However, with the dramatic advances in weapons technology since the 18th century, it has become clear that at least SOME limits and regulations have to be in place. There has to be some infringement.

There is already a mountain of infringement, as there are thousands of gun laws at all levels of government. The truth is, no matter how many new gun laws are passed this year, people like you will clamoring for more next year.

There are regulations on every potentially dangerous tool or equipment, from cars, trucks, and bulldozers to dangerous chemicals and pesticides, but not guns. It doesn't make any sense.

You're right. The regulatory state should be drastically rolled back.

So who is the real tyrant here?

The political left, as always.

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

Ikari said:
Well I think a good compromise is that whatever the police are allowed to have, the People should be allowed to have.

Why ?

Why would a citizen need a police sniper rifle ?

Ikari · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Why ?

Why would a citizen need a police sniper rifle ?

Why do the police need sniper rifles? Police is a civilian branch of government. So if some civilians are allowed "sniper rifles", then all people should be allowed them.

ataraxia · Mar 2, 2020

Ikari said:
Well I think a good compromise is that whatever the police are allowed to have, the People should be allowed to have.

The police are screened, trained, and accountable to their chief and to the public, can be fired, etc...

If all of that can apply to the public as well, then sure they can have the same weapons.

ataraxia · Mar 2, 2020

aociswundumho said:
There is already a mountain of infringement, as there are thousands of gun laws at all levels of government. The truth is, no matter how many new gun laws are passed this year, people like you will clamoring for more next year.

You're right. The regulatory state should be drastically rolled back.

The political left, as always.

There are tons of traffic lights, speed limits, and stop signs everywhere too. Does that mean we dare not ask for anymore?

Ikari · Mar 2, 2020

ataraxia said:
The police are screened, trained, and accountable to their chief and to the public, can be fired, etc...

If all of that can apply to the public as well, then sure they can have the same weapons.

lol, held accountable. The "thin blue line" usually removes accountability.

But regardless, people should be trained in firearms. It's smart. But overall, it's a right so People get to exercise it. So they can have everything the police can have, and there should be no such thing as a concealed weapons permit. Open and concealed carry should be considered standard. The right is to keep and bear arms.

Chillfolks · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Why ?

Why would a citizen need a police sniper rifle ?

Besides property of PD stamped on the rifle what would make any rifle a sniper verse hunting rifle?

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

Chillfolks said:
Besides property of PD stamped on the rifle what would make any rifle a sniper verse hunting rifle?

Usually a sniper rifle is more accurate. They typically have bi-pods and rangefinder devices. They also tend to be longer and have a stock designed for the prone position.

Police tend not to source their sniper rifles from manufacturers of hunting rifles.
Because of this, sniper rifles tend to be somewhat more expensive than a rifle you'd buy at the Bass Pro Shop.

RF667799 · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Usually a sniper rifle is more accurate. They typically have bi-pods and rangefinder devices. They also tend to be longer and have a stock designed for the prone position.

Police tend not to source their sniper rifles from manufacturers of hunting rifles.
Because of this, sniper rifles tend to be somewhat more expensive than a rifle you'd buy at the Bass Pro Shop.

:roll:

SWAT Snipers - Special Units - POLICE Magazine

It’s no surprise that the ASA study revealed that the precision rifle used most often by police snipers is the Remington 700. This relatively inexpensive rifle can be easily customized by police armorers and accessorized by snipers, and it has a well-earned reputation for accuracy and ease of use.

daeler · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Why ?

Why would a citizen need a police sniper rifle ?

Police sniper rifles are not that specialized, from research I did when purchasing my rifle that I want to use in long range competition. A favored rifle for police and military snipers is a Remington 700 sps tactical. not an expensive rifle just very accurate. New stock and a nice scope and you have the same rifle that some police snipers use.

daeler · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Usually a sniper rifle is more accurate. They typically have bi-pods and rangefinder devices. They also tend to be longer and have a stock designed for the prone position.

Police tend not to source their sniper rifles from manufacturers of hunting rifles.
Because of this, sniper rifles tend to be somewhat more expensive than a rifle you'd buy at the Bass Pro Shop.

That is mostly untrue, look a couple posts back most police snipers just use a Remington 700.

Bi-pods are just attachments, rangefinders are generally either part of the scope or a separate piece.

try not to disseminate mis-information

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

RF667799 said:
:roll:

SWAT Snipers - Special Units - POLICE Magazine

It’s no surprise that the ASA study revealed that the precision rifle used most often by police snipers is the Remington 700. This relatively inexpensive rifle can be easily customized by police armorers and accessorized by snipers, and it has a well-earned reputation for accuracy and ease of use.

And the need for a civilian to have a sniper rifle is ?

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

daeler said:
Police sniper rifles are not that specialized, from research I did when purchasing my rifle that I want to use in long range competition. A favored rifle for police and military snipers is a Remington 700 sps tactical. not an expensive rifle just very accurate. New stock and a nice scope and you have the same rifle that some police snipers use.

The Remington 700 is also very popular for hunting and as you said not too expensive.

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

daeler said:
That is mostly untrue, look a couple posts back most police snipers just use a Remington 700.

Bi-pods are just attachments, rangefinders are generally either part of the scope or a separate piece.

try not to disseminate mis-information

Then there's no reason why a civilian can't use a police sniper rifle if most police use a Remington 700.

Can you think of a reason why a civilian shouldn't be able to own one ?

Artymoon · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
And the need for a civilian to have a sniper rifle is ?

That's just it....you're basing your opinion on what you think we all need. I don't think people need 4 cars, 19 t.v.'s, and 29 children out of wedlock. But, that's your right and you do what you think is best.

RF667799 · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
And the need for a civilian to have a sniper rifle is ?

Irrelevant attempt at deflecting from your previous unsupported and quite ignorant contention.

daeler · Mar 2, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Then there's no reason why a civilian can't use a police sniper rifle if most police use a Remington 700.

Can you think of a reason why a civilian shouldn't be able to own one ?

I am a bit confused, I thought your question was why should a civilian need one. I personally think anyone should be able to purchase and own a Remington 700.

Fun gun to shoot.

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

Artymoon said:
That's just it....you're basing your opinion on what you think we all need. I don't think people need 4 cars, 19 t.v.'s, and 29 children out of wedlock. But, that's your right and you do what you think is best.

But whether someone has 4 cars or 40 cars doesn't really affect you does it.

Now a sniper rifle offers a little more scope (pun intended) for you to be affected.

Rich2018 · Mar 2, 2020

daeler said:
I am a bit confused, I thought your question was why should a civilian need one. I personally think anyone should be able to purchase and own a Remington 700.

Fun gun to shoot.

Well I was thinking more about a purpose built sniper rifle rather than a sorting rifle with a bi-pod added:

YouTube

Freedom vs. public safety

Capitalist Pig

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency