OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[Jvaughn]

I’m generally in favor of stricter laws, required background checks, required training, longer waiting periods, etc.

One thing I haven’t seen discussed much anywhere that seems within our reach is much, much greater use of technology.

- Design some system such that only the registered owner can fire the weapon. Trying to hack around this security essentially compromises and breaks it. The tech is already in our stupid phones. Make it better and at least apply it to guns that present greater potential risk (eg - semis, or anything with a clip). If we figured this out, one of the biggest problems of law-breaking citizens acquiring weapons is significantly mitigated. Getting one of these also gets you needing to go through all the various background checks, waiting, etc.

It's funny you bring that up. There was a high school kid about 10 years ago that actually made this system. If the gun didn't read that person's fingerprints it wouldn't shoot. I remember saying at the time that his technology was amazing, but it would never be allowed to become mainstream.

[League Circles]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

In Germany, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense. I don't know how the law works exactly, but that is not one of the reasons for owning a gun. maybe they have better laws around domestic violence or something. Or maybe they realize that having a gun in the house for whatever reason just makes it more likely that it will be used on a loved one.

The importance and/or benefit of owning a gun for sport or even hunting is something that I don't understand why either side of the issue pays any attention to. It's fundamentally about the right to protect oneself IMO.

[League Circles]

I should correct what I just said- it's not at all about banning guns. What I mean when I say that is banning the way guns are owned and regulated in the US. Germany also has one of the higher rates of gun ownership in the world, but they suffer about 10% of the gun violence per capita that we do. But it requires about a year to get a gun in Germany, during which you have to pass all kinds of exams, and after several mass shootings in the 00"s, you now have to undergo a pyschiatric exam before owning a gun if you are under 25. Germans love their guns too, and they've found a way to still have them, while not having our level of violence. So it's not an either or choice.

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

In Germany, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense. I don't know how the law works exactly, but that is not one of the reasons for owning a gun. maybe they have better laws around domestic violence or something. Or maybe they realize that having a gun in the house for whatever reason just makes it more likely that it will be used on a loved one.

Maybe they aren't as cruel and hateful to each other as Americans can too often be.

[League Circles]

A lot of things were deemed to be impossible that did come to pass. It's important to understand first, that there is a way out of this madness of gun violence, and that's to eliminate virtually all guns. As many other countries have done, without the loss of any freedom. If you read posts from people from other countries in newspapers or online after another US mass shooting, they are all pretty much the same: "How come you allow this to keep happening? Are you all mad over there? We banned guns after our first mass shooting, and now 90% of the population is glad that we did". Things like that.

So to say that it's not worth considering because it's impossible is a circular argument. Yes, it can happen if people would wake up and realize that's what needs to be done.

It would take awhile, maybe decades, to the guns out of circulation. And yes, there would always be some smuggled in. Happens in other countries that have banned guns too. The Japan PM was killed with a home made gun. But guns would be increasingly hard to get as time went on, even for the bad guys. And many gun deaths are not due to "bad guys". They are from people shooting themselves, or a spouse or a friend, in a moment of anger.

Not having the freedom to defend yourself with a gun IS a loss of freedom. One worth discussing, perhaps, but definitely a loss of freedom. It's just what words mean.

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

I disagree. I've never seen anyone conceptualize that there is a freedom to FEEL a certain way, or freedom from feeling a certain way. Freedoms are about actions, not feelings. If I'm wrong, why shouldn't we all have a freedom from feeeling fear in every situation in life?

[moorhosj]

I disagree. I've never seen anyone conceptualize that there is a freedom to FEEL a certain way, or freedom from feeling a certain way. Freedoms are about actions, not feelings. If I'm wrong, why shouldn't we all have a freedom from feeeling fear in every situation in life?

Where did you get that idea? It’s laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think this falls nicely into domestic Tranquility and general Welfare. We conceptualize this thought into laws, but the idea isn’t far from how people live, move, AND act. Fear of going outside is a form of terrorism and hurts people right to freedom of movement. The government has declared in the Preamble that those rights should be and are protected. The Constitution is about what the government can and can’t do, it isn’t about how people act.

[League Circles]

I disagree. I've never seen anyone conceptualize that there is a freedom to FEEL a certain way, or freedom from feeling a certain way. Freedoms are about actions, not feelings. If I'm wrong, why shouldn't we all have a freedom from feeeling fear in every situation in life?

Where did you get that idea? It’s laid out in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I think this falls nicely into domestic Tranquility and general Welfare. We conceptualize this thought into laws, but the idea isn’t far from how people live, move, AND act. Fear of going outside is a form of terrorism and hurts people right to freedom of movement. The government has declared in the Preamble that those rights should be and are protected. The Constitution is about what the government can and can’t do, it isn’t about how people act.

The bold part is just that - your thoughts. I think it's preposterous to suggest that the state can or should free all people from all fears, especially those not caused by the state. I do agree that it's terrorism though. The state isn't stopping anyone from DOING anything just because they aren't able to eliminate all FEARS of doing that thing. Actions and feelings are distinct.

[IliketheBullsNBearstoo]

A lot of things were deemed to be impossible that did come to pass. It's important to understand first, that there is a way out of this madness of gun violence, and that's to eliminate virtually all guns. As many other countries have done, without the loss of any freedom. If you read posts from people from other countries in newspapers or online after another US mass shooting, they are all pretty much the same: "How come you allow this to keep happening? Are you all mad over there? We banned guns after our first mass shooting, and now 90% of the population is glad that we did". Things like that.

So to say that it's not worth considering because it's impossible is a circular argument. Yes, it can happen if people would wake up and realize that's what needs to be done.

It would take awhile, maybe decades, to the guns out of circulation. And yes, there would always be some smuggled in. Happens in other countries that have banned guns too. The Japan PM was killed with a home made gun. But guns would be increasingly hard to get as time went on, even for the bad guys. And many gun deaths are not due to "bad guys". They are from people shooting themselves, or a spouse or a friend, in a moment of anger.

Not having the freedom to defend yourself with a gun IS a loss of freedom. One worth discussing, perhaps, but definitely a loss of freedom. It's just what words mean.

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

I agree. My home becomes the only place I can protect and keep my family safe. I mean we will still go out and do things but our home is our only safe space. And how safe you feel in your own home is subjective I suppose. Whether its a single killer or a gang of thieves or a pack of wild boars I’m going to make sure I can be ready for it.

[dougthonus]

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

The fear of not going to a 4th of July parade is irrational. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash on the way to the parade than getting shot, and probably by an order of magnitude. Terrorist events create irrational fears. That's the point of it. That said, I'm always against legislating against irrational behaviors. I look at how much money we spent after 911 and most of it was just flushing it down the toilet for no benefit and a ton of it just made flying incredibly inconvenient and awful.

[Dresden]

Not having the freedom to defend yourself with a gun IS a loss of freedom. One worth discussing, perhaps, but definitely a loss of freedom. It's just what words mean.

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

I disagree. I've never seen anyone conceptualize that there is a freedom to FEEL a certain way, or freedom from feeling a certain way. Freedoms are about actions, not feelings. If I'm wrong, why shouldn't we all have a freedom from feeeling fear in every situation in life?

It's about expectations. We have the right to expect that we will safe when we go to an event. That our govt., through it's laws and police forces, can provide us with a reasonable expectation that we won't be shot at. Same thing for kids going to school each day. We expect this from our govt. It's a form of liberty, which the constitution protects.

[Dresden]

By the same token then, being afraid to go to a 4th of July parade because you are afraid of being shot is also a loss of freedom. So it's a trade off. One freedom for another.

The fear of not going to a 4th of July parade is irrational. You have a better chance of dying in a car crash on the way to the parade than getting shot, and probably by an order of magnitude. Terrorist events create irrational fears. That's the point of it. That said, I'm always against legislating against irrational behaviors. I look at how much money we spent after 911 and most of it was just flushing it down the toilet for no benefit and a ton of it just made flying incredibly inconvenient and awful.

Irrational or not, it's there. Same with kids being afraid of going to school or teachers being afraid of going to work. And this is a fear they don't have in other countries with strict gun laws. I've been at a gym playing basketball where a dispute broke out, and one person left saying they'd be back. We all had to leave and they closed up the gym, because they were afraid this person would come back with a gun. Was that an irrational fear?

[Dresden]

Waiting periods are one of the few areas of potential increased regulation that I really can't get on board with. When a woman's abusive ex husband tells her in a way that she cannot prove that he's gonna kill her, it's a despicable violation of her fundamental human rights to tell her that she can't go buy a revolver to protect herself cause she has to wait a year for psych evals but that that's fine cause she can just call the police if he busts down her door at 3 am one day in a drunken violent rage.

I think on the gun issue, a lot of people just can't seem to ever imagine themselves ever wanting or needing to try to protect themselves, so it's easy to overlook how tyrannical some regulation can be on the most vulnerable in society.

In Germany, you are not allowed to use a gun for self defense. I don't know how the law works exactly, but that is not one of the reasons for owning a gun. maybe they have better laws around domestic violence or something. Or maybe they realize that having a gun in the house for whatever reason just makes it more likely that it will be used on a loved one.

Maybe they aren't as cruel and hateful to each other as Americans can too often be.

I highly doubt that. They have a track record of cruelty, as I'm sure you're aware. They just have decided that the balance they want to strike between the freedom of gun ownership and what guns can and can't be used for, falls much further towards more restrictions, than less restrictions. They look at what is happening here with horror.

This is a self reinforcing loop, too. We have so much gun violence, therefore we need more guns to protect ourselves. More guns, create more violence, so we need even more guns. This makes the gun manufacturers very happy. It takes a long time and a lot of work to reverse that cycle, but these other countries have done it, and are universally glad they did.

[dougthonus]

Irrational or not, it's there. Same with kids being afraid of going to school or teachers being afraid of going to work.

Yeah, to be honest, I don't really care about guns one way or the other. I won't be sad if we ban them. That said, I care even less about people who get scared over irrational events because the actions of people who want to spend all their time and energy to control something that has miniscule impact because it was reported in a certain way or hit them emotionally make society a worse place to live and piss away our resources and prevent us from solving real problems.

I'm sure there are places where teachers should be scared to go to school and same with kids. In fact, I would bet there are tons and tons of kids scared to go to school due to bullying that would be true whether we have guns or not, and that those fears due to a real practical problem that exists daily in their lives would be an example of one I'd love to focus on rather than trying to stop school shootings (and we do in fact spend some time here, but it's at least 10x as important as school shootings from a practical perspective to me and probably 100x more important).

And this is a fear they don't have in other countries with strict gun laws.

I guarantee you in any country people have some irrational behaviors as a group due to media reporting and emotional reaction to a topic. It doesn't really matter to me the topic. I don't want to spend however much time / money / effort campaigning to remove guns in a way that likely won't be successful anyway to make people feel better about something when I could instead use those same resources to enact a more beneficial change. Again though, that's just me, not a hot button topic for me. I have hot button topics, and you might not care about those at all. If I could remove guns with a wave of my magic wand, I would do it. I don't think they add value to society today. I just don't think they add a trillion dollars worth of harm, and I bet we'd spend over a trillion dollars trying to remove them.

I've been at a gym playing basketball where a dispute broke out, and one person left saying they'd be back. We all had to leave and they closed up the gym, because they were afraid this person would come back with a gun. Was that an irrational fear?

You tell me, I wasn't there. Anyone get shot at your gym ever? Did the guy come back? I mean presumably if he was walking to his car to get a gun, he'd have it prior to you being able to evacuate unless you all ran immediately. Know anyone who ever got shot after a basketball dispute? You scared to go to the gym today? Advocating for ending basketball due to the disputes it causes? Sounds like a scary event you lived through once took an appropriate conservative action and probably don't think too deeply about now, nor do other people playing basketball.

[moorhosj]

The bold part is just that - your thoughts. I think it's preposterous to suggest that the state can or should free all people from all fears, especially those not caused by the state. I do agree that it's terrorism though. The state isn't stopping anyone from DOING anything just because they aren't able to eliminate all FEARS of doing that thing. Actions and feelings are distinct.

Nobody suggested this. You have turned the idea that government can and should protect the general welfare of the populous by enacting laws. And turned it into me saying "the government should free people of all fears."

Back on topic, you asked for something in the Constitution and I provided it. What do you have to say about that? Can we use the Preamble to interpret the intent of our founders? Is it different than using the Federalist Papers, as you suggested earlier?

[League Circles]

The bold part is just that - your thoughts. I think it's preposterous to suggest that the state can or should free all people from all fears, especially those not caused by the state. I do agree that it's terrorism though. The state isn't stopping anyone from DOING anything just because they aren't able to eliminate all FEARS of doing that thing. Actions and feelings are distinct.

Nobody suggested this. You have turned the idea that government can and should protect the general welfare of the populous by enacting laws. And turned it into me saying "the government should free people of all fears."

Back on topic, you asked for something in the Constitution and I provided it. What do you have to say about that? Can we use the Preamble to interpret the intent of our founders? Is it different than using the Federalist Papers, as you suggested earlier?

Dresden said that being afraid of going to a parade is a loss of freedom. I responded to him and you then replied to me. Maybe we misunderstood each other. My point was that the state/constitution doesn't protect any right to any specific feelings.

I asked if anyone had read the federalist papers on the topic. You could use the preamble if you wish, though I think it's quite vague and a quick reading suggests it's never been used by the courts for any decisive decisions, nor is it considered law. I'm not a legal expert though.

[panthermark]

The focus has to be on the root of the issues. Focus on WHY people are killing each other, not HOW people are killing each other, because the "HOW" does not solve the root problem.

It does though. If you take away the easiest and most effective means of killing, you will reduce the killings, regardless of what the motivations for the killing were. This is why there are also talks on reducing the possession and development of nuclear weapons. It's much easier to do that than to eliminate the reasons why nations go to war. And if a war does break out, it won't be the end of the human race. Just like if a fight breaks out between two parties, if neither has a gun, there is a much lower risk someone ends up dead.

How do you proposes to "take away" firearms, especially from the law abiding? You are proposing exactly what I talked about earlier. "Panthermark, even though you have done nothing wrong and have followed all laws, we are going to "take away" your legally owned and Constitutionally protected weapon". That is the sort of government overreach that led to the crafting of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. How do you "take away" guns from those that have them illegally? Why don't we just do that right now? Plus, disarming populations is a touchy subject.



Second, nuclear weapons are an odd comparison. Bombs and explosives are already not covered under the 2nd due to their indiscriminate nature. A gun does not kill millions in a flash, and makes land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.

And in terms of talks of reducing nuclear weapons, I think you are looking at this through the German perspective. Germany cannot, and does not possess any of their own nuclear weapons as it is prohibited via the 1954 treaty of Brussels. Germany houses 20 American nuclear warheads as a condition of NATO. America possesses roughly 5500 nuclear warheads....enough to destroy the world several times over. People can talk all they want, but America isn't disarming. We might have agreed to reduce intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles , but we are not touching our bombers and subs. Neither is Russia....or the world's worst kept nuclear secret...Israel. We have them, we just don't USE them (well, except for that one time). Similar to how I own firearms, but I don't whip them out anytime I have a disagreement. As a matter of fact, I tend to go out of my way to de-escalate, but I know nothing good can come out of a firearm being pulled, and you never know who is (illegally) armed and who is a hot-head.

But to circle back, I don't think you have really thought through the "take away" plan. I'm curios to hear how such a plan would be implemented and who would carry it out.

[Dresden]

The focus has to be on the root of the issues. Focus on WHY people are killing each other, not HOW people are killing each other, because the "HOW" does not solve the root problem.

It does though. If you take away the easiest and most effective means of killing, you will reduce the killings, regardless of what the motivations for the killing were. This is why there are also talks on reducing the possession and development of nuclear weapons. It's much easier to do that than to eliminate the reasons why nations go to war. And if a war does break out, it won't be the end of the human race. Just like if a fight breaks out between two parties, if neither has a gun, there is a much lower risk someone ends up dead.

How do you proposes to "take away" firearms, especially from the law abiding? You are proposing exactly what I talked about earlier. "Panthermark, even though you have done nothing wrong and have followed all laws, we are going to "take away" your legally owned and Constitutionally protected weapon". That is the sort of government overreach that led to the crafting of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. How do you "take away" guns from those that have them illegally? Why don't we just do that right now? Plus, disarming populations is a touchy subject.



Second, nuclear weapons are an odd comparison. Bombs and explosives are already not covered under the 2nd due to their indiscriminate nature. A gun does not kill millions in a flash, and makes land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.

And in terms of talks of reducing nuclear weapons, I think you are looking at this through the German perspective. Germany cannot, and does not possess any of their own nuclear weapons as it is prohibited via the 1954 treaty of Brussels. Germany houses 20 American nuclear warheads as a condition of NATO. America possesses roughly 5500 nuclear warheads....enough to destroy the world several times over. People can talk all they want, but America isn't disarming. We might have agreed to reduce intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles , but we are not touching our bombers and subs. Neither is Russia....or the world's worst kept nuclear secret...Israel. We have them, we just don't USE them (well, except for that one time). Similar to how I own firearms, but I don't whip them out anytime I have a disagreement. As a matter of fact, I tend to go out of my way to de-escalate, but I know nothing good can come out of a firearm being pulled, and you never know who is (illegally) armed and who is a hot-head.

But to circle back, I don't think you have really thought through the "take away" plan. I'm curios to hear how such a plan would be implemented and who would carry it out.

In both the UK and in Australia, there was a govt. buy back program after they implemented strict gun laws after mass shootings in their countries. Further than that, I don't know the details.

Nuclear weapons are a fair comparison- at some point, the world powers realized that having these things around was a bad idea, they made nobody safer, so they entered into discussions to reduce and limit the number of such weapons. The talks stalled, and I don't believe there has been any reduction for quite some time. But if the talks were ever started again, the idea would be to keep reducing the numbers of weapons simultaneously and equalling, so neither side would fear the other, until a point was reached where there would either be no nuclear weapons, or a very small number.

I think the same applies to guns. If there weren't so many guns around, people would not feel the need to have their own gun to protect themselves from other people with guns.

In a bit of irony, people who own guns in their homes are sometimes targeted for burglaries, because guns are an easy object to re-sell and are worth a fair amount of money.

[_txchilibowl_]

So have we decided to do anything yet?

[panthermark]

It does though. If you take away the easiest and most effective means of killing, you will reduce the killings, regardless of what the motivations for the killing were. This is why there are also talks on reducing the possession and development of nuclear weapons. It's much easier to do that than to eliminate the reasons why nations go to war. And if a war does break out, it won't be the end of the human race. Just like if a fight breaks out between two parties, if neither has a gun, there is a much lower risk someone ends up dead.

How do you proposes to "take away" firearms, especially from the law abiding? You are proposing exactly what I talked about earlier. "Panthermark, even though you have done nothing wrong and have followed all laws, we are going to "take away" your legally owned and Constitutionally protected weapon". That is the sort of government overreach that led to the crafting of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. How do you "take away" guns from those that have them illegally? Why don't we just do that right now? Plus, disarming populations is a touchy subject.



Second, nuclear weapons are an odd comparison. Bombs and explosives are already not covered under the 2nd due to their indiscriminate nature. A gun does not kill millions in a flash, and makes land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.

And in terms of talks of reducing nuclear weapons, I think you are looking at this through the German perspective. Germany cannot, and does not possess any of their own nuclear weapons as it is prohibited via the 1954 treaty of Brussels. Germany houses 20 American nuclear warheads as a condition of NATO. America possesses roughly 5500 nuclear warheads....enough to destroy the world several times over. People can talk all they want, but America isn't disarming. We might have agreed to reduce intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles , but we are not touching our bombers and subs. Neither is Russia....or the world's worst kept nuclear secret...Israel. We have them, we just don't USE them (well, except for that one time). Similar to how I own firearms, but I don't whip them out anytime I have a disagreement. As a matter of fact, I tend to go out of my way to de-escalate, but I know nothing good can come out of a firearm being pulled, and you never know who is (illegally) armed and who is a hot-head.

But to circle back, I don't think you have really thought through the "take away" plan. I'm curios to hear how such a plan would be implemented and who would carry it out.

In both the UK and in Australia, there was a govt. buy back program after they implemented strict gun laws after mass shootings in their countries. Further than that, I don't know the details.

Nuclear weapons are a fair comparison- at some point, the world powers realized that having these things around was a bad idea, they made nobody safer, so they entered into discussions to reduce and limit the number of such weapons. The talks stalled, and I don't believe there has been any reduction for quite some time. But if the talks were ever started again, the idea would be to keep reducing the numbers of weapons simultaneously and equalling, so neither side would fear the other, until a point was reached where there would either be no nuclear weapons, or a very small number.

I think the same applies to guns. If there weren't so many guns around, people would not feel the need to have their own gun to protect themselves from other people with guns.

In a bit of irony, people who own guns in their homes are sometimes targeted for burglaries, because guns are an easy object to re-sell and are worth a fair amount of money.

The US isn't the UK or Australia. That plan does not work here because we have a 2nd Amendment. Australia had a buy-buck coupled with a change in the law, which made it a mandatory buy back. (That is always a funny word, if I didn't buy it government you, how can they buy it "back" from me?)
We offer buy-backs now. I'm not against buy-backs at all, but they are not mandatory. It is mostly broken, junk, or stolen guns, or guns used in crimes....or maybe guns that someone didn't know what to do with (found their dead uncles old revolver in a shoe box) that show up.

As for nuclear weapons, I think you need to look at the numbers a bit closer at why the NFT failed, and what really happened during the reduction (like retiring expired warheads).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/#:~:text=Nuclear%20weapons%20analysts%20estimate%20that,to%20the%20Arms%20Control%20Association.

Given that the launch of a nuclear weapon would, in all likelihood, be met with immediate retaliation and could lead to all-out global nuclear war, is there a chance that all nuclear weapons could be decommissioned for the greater good? Could there ever be a future without nuclear weapons?
“I don’t think this is going to happen,” said Holger Nehring, chair in contemporary European history at the University of Stirling in Scotland. “Nuclear weapons are mainly a form of deterrence against nuclear attack, so states have no real interest in getting rid of them. Entirely getting rid of nuclear weapons would mean a very high level of trust between all states in the international system, and this is unlikely to be achieved.”
Andrew Futter, a professor of international politics at the University of Leicester in England, agreed. “We have probably reached a point now where further big reductions are unlikely,” he told Live Science.

We won't get to zero, and reducing the "number" is irrelevant if we increase the payload per warhead.

As for theft, I am aware, which is why I said earlier that quite a few people DON'T advertise...and you would be surprised to find out people you never suspected where firearm owners. Theft also depends on where you live.

Your heart is in the right place, but reality (here) is a lot different.

[dougthonus]

How do you proposes to "take away" firearms, especially from the law abiding? You are proposing exactly what I talked about earlier. "Panthermark, even though you have done nothing wrong and have followed all laws, we are going to "take away" your legally owned and Constitutionally protected weapon". That is the sort of government overreach that led to the crafting of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. How do you "take away" guns from those that have them illegally? Why don't we just do that right now? Plus, disarming populations is a touchy subject.

You are conflating a few problems:
1: Should we do this philosophically (if there were no obstacles)
2: Could we do this politically
3: Can we implement this practically if we do so politically

My answers would probably be:
1: Yes
2: Probably not (at least not right now) and certainly not in one step
3: Yes, but likely at an extreme high cost that I personally wouldn't be willing to pay

Second, nuclear weapons are an odd comparison. Bombs and explosives are already not covered under the 2nd due to their indiscriminate nature. A gun does not kill millions in a flash, and makes land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.

What about the 2nd amendment distinguishes these things? It doesn't distinguish at all, so either you know there are implicit practical limitations on the 2nd amendment and we know that there has to be some regulation around weapons in which case, those are up for debate and fully on the table with no clear line in the constitution given or all weapons are protected by the constitution in which case personal nuclear bombs should be a thing.

It's a completely illogical take to say say semi-automatic weapons are protected by the constitution but fully automatic ones aren't or draw any other line you want to around weapons that didn't exist when it was written with no meaningful reference. The phrase "well regulated militia" implies that regulations around the 2nd amendment should exist, and to imply they have to be set between fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons is nonsense. In fact, if you agree that there has to be some regulation, it doesn't even explicitly protect guns. Arms could mean it doesn't outlaw knives or well regulated could mean any number of things.

Of course this is just a logical interpretation and not what our courts would do. Our courts will vote on party lines, because that's how our political system rolls.

But to circle back, I don't think you have really thought through the "take away" plan. I'm curios to hear how such a plan would be implemented and who would carry it out.

If you wanted to take away, you would probably start with an escalating program: X years of buy back program, X years of fine + seizure, X years of misdemeanor (X hours of community service) + fine + seizure, then felony + seizure implemented over 10+ years.

[Dresden]

How do you proposes to "take away" firearms, especially from the law abiding? You are proposing exactly what I talked about earlier. "Panthermark, even though you have done nothing wrong and have followed all laws, we are going to "take away" your legally owned and Constitutionally protected weapon". That is the sort of government overreach that led to the crafting of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. How do you "take away" guns from those that have them illegally? Why don't we just do that right now? Plus, disarming populations is a touchy subject.



Second, nuclear weapons are an odd comparison. Bombs and explosives are already not covered under the 2nd due to their indiscriminate nature. A gun does not kill millions in a flash, and makes land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.

And in terms of talks of reducing nuclear weapons, I think you are looking at this through the German perspective. Germany cannot, and does not possess any of their own nuclear weapons as it is prohibited via the 1954 treaty of Brussels. Germany houses 20 American nuclear warheads as a condition of NATO. America possesses roughly 5500 nuclear warheads....enough to destroy the world several times over. People can talk all they want, but America isn't disarming. We might have agreed to reduce intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles , but we are not touching our bombers and subs. Neither is Russia....or the world's worst kept nuclear secret...Israel. We have them, we just don't USE them (well, except for that one time). Similar to how I own firearms, but I don't whip them out anytime I have a disagreement. As a matter of fact, I tend to go out of my way to de-escalate, but I know nothing good can come out of a firearm being pulled, and you never know who is (illegally) armed and who is a hot-head.

But to circle back, I don't think you have really thought through the "take away" plan. I'm curios to hear how such a plan would be implemented and who would carry it out.

In both the UK and in Australia, there was a govt. buy back program after they implemented strict gun laws after mass shootings in their countries. Further than that, I don't know the details.

Nuclear weapons are a fair comparison- at some point, the world powers realized that having these things around was a bad idea, they made nobody safer, so they entered into discussions to reduce and limit the number of such weapons. The talks stalled, and I don't believe there has been any reduction for quite some time. But if the talks were ever started again, the idea would be to keep reducing the numbers of weapons simultaneously and equalling, so neither side would fear the other, until a point was reached where there would either be no nuclear weapons, or a very small number.

I think the same applies to guns. If there weren't so many guns around, people would not feel the need to have their own gun to protect themselves from other people with guns.

In a bit of irony, people who own guns in their homes are sometimes targeted for burglaries, because guns are an easy object to re-sell and are worth a fair amount of money.

The US isn't the UK or Australia. That plan does not work here because we have a 2nd Amendment. Australia had a buy-buck coupled with a change in the law, which made it a mandatory buy back. (That is always a funny word, if I didn't buy it government you, how can they buy it "back" from me?)
We offer buy-backs now. I'm not against buy-backs at all, but they are not mandatory. It is mostly broken, junk, or stolen guns, or guns used in crimes....or maybe guns that someone didn't know what to do with (found their dead uncles old revolver in a shoe box) that show up.

As for nuclear weapons, I think you need to look at the numbers a bit closer at why the NFT failed, and what really happened during the reduction (like retiring expired warheads).

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-nuclear-weapons-exist-and-who-has-them/#:~:text=Nuclear%20weapons%20analysts%20estimate%20that,to%20the%20Arms%20Control%20Association.

Given that the launch of a nuclear weapon would, in all likelihood, be met with immediate retaliation and could lead to all-out global nuclear war, is there a chance that all nuclear weapons could be decommissioned for the greater good? Could there ever be a future without nuclear weapons?
“I don’t think this is going to happen,” said Holger Nehring, chair in contemporary European history at the University of Stirling in Scotland. “Nuclear weapons are mainly a form of deterrence against nuclear attack, so states have no real interest in getting rid of them. Entirely getting rid of nuclear weapons would mean a very high level of trust between all states in the international system, and this is unlikely to be achieved.”
Andrew Futter, a professor of international politics at the University of Leicester in England, agreed. “We have probably reached a point now where further big reductions are unlikely,” he told Live Science.

We won't get to zero, and reducing the "number" is irrelevant if we increase the payload per warhead.

As for theft, I am aware, which is why I said earlier that quite a few people DON'T advertise...and you would be surprised to find out people you never suspected where firearm owners. Theft also depends on where you live.

Your heart is in the right place, but reality (here) is a lot different.

Whether the nuclear arms reductions actually worked or not is not my point. My point was that people realized nuclear weapons were dangerous, they should be limited, and govts worked toward that end. Maybe it was all a sham and accomplished nothing. The concept is that the world as a whole, with some exceptions, believed we would all be better off with fewer nuclear weapons, and fewer nuclear armed states. And by limiting one country from getting nuclear capability, you might also prevent their neighbors from doing so. I think that logic applies very clearly to guns as well.

Also, you asked how gun buy backs would work- two nations did go through that process- England and Australia. Yes, they first passed legislation. We could, and should do the same here.