"You have a red dot on your forehead," said a child. Then a man shot his nephew.

[bedstuy]

It's all about balancing what we care about more.  On one hand, we have safety and the lives of innocent people. On the other hand, we have a hobby and dangerous toys. 

Most people think it's extremely important to protect dangerous toys so we're going to have to live with dead kids.

[bedstuy]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

[bedstuy]

The Second Amendment was designed as a safeguard against hypothetical tyranny and is irrelevant to this case of criminal homicide. This man is charged with having made a fatal mistake and should be tried for it in court.

For once, you are one hundred percent right. These type of incidents have happened before and are extremely rare. The only lesson here is to not point your gun at your nephew. He will be charged and punished for this crime, just like people have been since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let's think this scenario through:  If that idiot didn't have a gun, would this have happened? 

There are always going to be dumb people out there in society.  More weapons in society means more dumb people with access to weapons.  By having our ridiculous gun laws, we're guaranteeing this type of event.  It's so dishonest to pretend that's not true.

So the solution is universal disarmament that includes the millions of other people who are not idiots? What about drunk drivers? Should we ban alcohol because a few people can't handle their booze?

It's about risk management.  You balance the risk and the benefits of how you could regulate whatever activity whether it's guns or cars.

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

A government by and for the 1% which violates human rights at home and abroad isn't reason enough?

Explain how people are going to fix that with guns.

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you. 

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life. 

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious. 

On the cars point, I don't follow.  Cars provide a benefit to people in terms of transportation.  Guns provide no such benefit generally. 

[bedstuy]

With guns, I would be against banning them entirely.  But, I would require a license and registration as well as a legitimate reason to own a gun, whether it's working as a law enforcement officer or hunting.

That would actually be parallel to our regulation of cars which are highly regulated.  But, the obvious point on cars is that cars as a means of transportation that many people legitimately need.  Hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a gun.

So self defense, whether from animals, other individuals, or from the state does not qualify as legitimate because we can depend upon law enforcement to do that task for us?

By that logic, hardly anyone has a legitimate use for a car.  Between public transport, taxis, and delivery services, hardly anyone legitimately needs a car, especially those who live in urban areas.  Does your your typical commuter with a car that just sits in a parking lot or driveway most of the time really need that car?  Of course not!

I can never be sure if you're joking or not.  Is this a serious point?

Obviously, some people may need a gun because they enjoy hunting or need it to kill/chase off a polar bear.  However, most people live in areas where hunting is illegal, right?  In terms of self-defense, the fact is that a gun in your house makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, guns make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

I am trying to use humor to make a serious point.

Obviously, some people may need a car because they enjoy driving or need it to go someplace way off the beaten track.  Most people travel in areas where professional transport is available, right? In terms of transportation, the fact is that a car in your driveway makes you less safe.  And, just in terms of risks, cars make cities more dangerous.  That's just obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?  More people die from the misuse of cars than from the misuse of guns, considerably more if one doesn't count suicides by guns as a misuse.  That would seem to suggest that car control is a far more pressing need than gun control.  As an aside, I would add that it is a sad commentary on our society that we have made one of the more messy ways of suicide the easiest one for most people to obtain.

I still don't understand the car point.  A car is the primary means of transportation for most people.  The benefit of cars thus outweighs the risks of allowing them on the road, albeit with safety precautions and regulations. 

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.  I don't see how this is a winning argument for the gun crowd.

The point that more people are injured by cars is completely frivolous and I hope you know it.  Guns are seldom used and most people don't own a gun.  The fact that they're even comparable in number of deaths and injuries is a national shame.

What right do you have to decide whether they benefit?

I have a special "opinion-having" license.

[bedstuy]

And so, we ought to regulate cars heavily and we do.  We ought to heavily regulate guns and cars in an well-considered and appropriate way.

Except you are advocating an inappropriate way of regulating guns by requiring people to justify owning one.  You're getting it all wrong in my opinion.  People should never have to justify a priori why they possess anything, rather the state should have the burden of justifying why a particular person shouldn't have a particular possession, be it a gun or any other item.  Liberal democracy depends upon the assumption that most adults can be treated as responsible adults and that the state needs to show that a particular adult is not responsible before not doing so.  If that presumption is false, then so is the idea that democracy will provide the best system of governance.

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

[bedstuy]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

[bedstuy]

That's a red herring.  We ban machine guns, right?  We tightly regulate explosives, right?  Why don't we extend your assumption to machine guns and explosives? 

Why don't we?

The safety of the public.  Would allow people to buy nuclear weapons too?

How many people could actually afford them?  More seriously, do you really think that the laws we have about machine guns, explosives, and nuclear weapons accomplish the intended task of keeping nefarious people from acquiring them?

Pretty much.  Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

[bedstuy]

Do you think people should be able to go to Home Depot and buy the components for a car bomb?

If they're willing to engage in some DIY, then save possibly for some of the chemicals needed to make an improvised explosive, they already can.  And obtaining those chemicals from elsewhere is not particularly difficult.  Now granted, those home made explosives won't be as compact or stable as those used by the military, but for people who want to make use of a car bomb, that's not a major issue.

That's pointless nitpicking that doesn't address my point. And again, I can't tell if you're being facetious.  You're not being serious with this whole line of argument, right?

I'm being quite serious.  The principal reason America is not suffering from large car bombs regularly going off in our city centers is not because of any lack of ability to make them despite the impediments that current law puts in their way in obtaining materials but that we have a lack of people who desire to set off large car bombs.

So, you're advocating no regulation of any weapon, explosive or WMD?

No, I'm advocating no banning, not no regulation.  Just because I have libertarian tendencies doesn't not mean I'm one of those nuts who sees no role for government.  However, I do tend to be fairly skeptical about whether what government can do will accomplish what it intends to do.

Let's take for example the most extreme example, a nuclear weapon.  First off, there's all the health, safety, and environmental laws that would need to be followed in the production of a nuclear weapon.  Plus once you have the weapon, requirements concerning safe storage of the warhead and trigger locks to prevent accidental detonation.  Given all the expense involved, especially if suppliers would potentially be liable for the damages should their product be used for such a purpose, you'd need to be a billionaire to own one, and I doubt that billionaires would be all that interested in them unless they become the latest status symbol of those who have more money than they could possibly use.  Even then, background checks to ensure that those who are unstable mentally or financially would not be able to obtain the nuclear cores would be quite necessary.

You're just obsessed with not making anything illegal per se.  I think we've had this discussion before and it's pointless, abstract nonsense.

But, suffice to say, I think we ought to regulate guns and dangerous toys more tightly than you do.  Your whole line of argument about cars, homemade IEDs and privately held nukes is just ridiculous pedantry about some minor philosophical point that nobody besides you cares about.

[bedstuy]

I suppose it's cute that you think that.

But, putting aside the desirability of an armed revolution, it's not realistic as a public policy.  I can't imagine explaining that to a mother who lost her son to random gun violence.

Regardless of your hackneyed emotional appeals and even discarding my revolutionary socialism for a moment, to blame the gun rather than the shooter represents the worst of the paternalistic white liberal attitude of "solving" a problem with a solution that barely scratches the surface and has negative consequences of its own.

You can't be a shooter if you don't have a gun.  I don't understand how that can escape you. 

So, I'm paternalistic for not taking into account the poor black people who like gun shot wounds and being murdered?  I think I'm safe in thinking that nobody likes being shot.  And, honestly, I'd rather be paternalistic than indifferent to the loss of human life. 

You know that the gun control movement started with white Southern racists in the 1960's who were afraid of blacks, right?

I don't know that because it's not true.

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

Why not do all of the above? 

[bedstuy]

The original point of gun control was for privileged southern white conservatives to feel "safe" from the scary black people; ergo, an armed proletariat is a threat to the powers that be and said powers recognize that. Why do you think the ultimate paternalistic plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the biggest advocate of gun control?

The world's insane while you drink champagne
And I'm living in black reign
You try to ban the A.K.
I got ten of them stashed
With a case of hand grenades

People oppose gun control because they want guns to protect themselves from scary black people.  That's the situation right now in America.

In reality, black people suffer from gun violence more than anyone and largely support gun control.  It's easy for suburban white people to ignore the suffering of black people because nobody seems to care if black kids get shot. 

Then why not fight the conditions that draw people into crime? An increased minimum wage, increased unionization, more and better public education funding, and a universal basic income will do far more than gun control to reduce social ills.

Why not do all of the above? 

Because the ruling class doesn't want that, and it's easier to implement and sell a solution like gun control that does little to solve the root issues that draw people to a life of crime and disarms the proletariat as our personal freedoms continually erode.

It's looking a lot like the ruling class doesn't want to implement gun control because it's not happening.  Again, the people who are victims of gun violence are in favor of gun control.  They understand that most gun violence is not committed by people who are hardened career criminals.  Most gun violence ends up being just random stupidity committed by young, hot headed men. 

And, here's the bottom-line.  You have your beliefs based on your fantasy of a proletariat revolution.  Most people would consider that laughable, so why don't we just leave it there.