Airplanes are heavily, heavily regulated, you know. In fact, if guns were as regulated as airplanes are, we'd probably be in a much better situation.

"Airplanes crash every day because the pilot did something stupid, but in the case of airplanes, the first (and correct) instinct is to improve pilot training or add safety features to the airplane, not regulating/banning airplanes altogether." That's because airplanes are necessary for modern commercial activity.

You both entirely missed the point of my analogy.

Pilot error is the default cause of airplane crashes. How come shooter error isn't viewed in the same way?

A large proportion of US deaths by firearm aren't errors.

It would be a bit crazy to view every airplane crash as a failed 9/11 by default..

Airplanes do not crash every day. Guns do kill people multiple times a day.
The original story of this thread was not shooter error.
School shootings are not shooter error.

My overarching point is that inanimate objects, by definition, cannot kill. Stop trying to ban them or regulate them. Regulate the shooters.

They are designed to enable one to kill.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns society shouldn't have allowed them to posess.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, enabled by the USA.

I'm surprised conspiracy theorists don't say that the USA is handing out guns to fight a proxy war against poor people or something like that.

That's crack.

Crack is good stuff, so thanks.

Crack is wack.

"society shouldn't have allowed them to posess."

What gives 'society' (whatever the fuck that means) the right to disarm law-abiding citizens of their lawful right to defend themselves?

Who decides what is lawful, if not society?

Define society.

Gunfighter06: So how exactly does a gun defend you from either a home intruder or a Tomahawk Cruise Missile?

@gunfighter Your description of the National Guard is exactly what defines paramilitary. The term "law enforcement" is exactly what I wrote. It is the general term for all armed (including sticks as in Britain and Japan), whose purpose is the internal assertion of the law aka state monopoly of force. It is this point where I disagree with your ready-made arguments. Your answer though is sufficient for me.

The difference between a riot and revolt might be the degree of organisation, so both lie on the same continuum of political violence. Neither of both have per se a prerogative on protection, but can or not be agreed to in a societal discourse. That said the choice of wanting to be able to use a high degree on firepower in those riots is a valid for a society. Doubting the necessity is just as valid. Idolising this choice as something natural or fundamental right to make democracy work instead is misguided. So I think here we disagree fundamentally. If you like guns you're but a gun fetishist (not in a negative sense, I am great friend of guns, too). Just don't mistake personal pleasure with rationality.

Rereading your prior statement carefully you advocated the for *at least* parity of firepower between civilians and law enforcement, preferably a higher firepower for civilians. This was the point I was addressing.

Frequency is not a quantitative term. A frequency can be zero. I consider accidental killing of parents (or any other person) by a two year old already as too high if it occurs once. Unfortunately these cases occur much more frequently. This is not the result of media hype around one case but can be found in police statistics. Also as noted before, plane crashes occur far less frequent than accidental killing through guns. This set aside, a more compelling argument is indeed the much higher frequency of intentional murder through guns (as high school shootings). There are far more people killed in the US by civilians (accidental or not) than through plane clashes world wide in five years. One of the reasons is exactly as you stated the high level of pilot training and the high restrictions on what kind of person is allowed to become a pilot (quality measure). As far as I am informed about the debate, through it is FRAMED as a ban on guns, the goal is indeed to apply the same form of regulation to gun ownership as for people becoming pilots, members of security forces, etc. Also, in countries like Japan, Germany, France, etc. this is exactly how gun ownership is handled. There are special conditions of personality, training (you have a "gun owning licence" like for driving) and depending on the gun restriction on where to store them. Some types of guns are indeed not allowed, but most are. Some restrictions have nothing to do with the comparative lethality of a weapon per se but for the associated culture (eg. butterflies are forbidden in most OECD countries. Since then killing and assaults using knives have decreased dramatically). A kitchen knife is just not as cool as a butterfly. A automatic assault gun is just cooler than a hunting rifle or an 17th century carbine. This is reflected by the use of weapons in killings as well as the spread of their ownership. Also, if you spend a certain amount of money on a gun you will feel a certain permission to use if YOU decide this is necessary. Apparently a lot of Americans deem the lethal use of a gun necessary more often than it would be objectively. This is the reason what I consider irresponsible.

I hope you'll rethink on the arguments and you'll forgive me for not searching the links to the relevant statistics. If you are really interested in this topic you are free to visit the OECD sites, the relevant government sites of any country of interest to you, the statistical of resources of the UN or simply Interpol. They all are reliable and apply different measures so you can pick the one you agree with most. The overall result does not change a lot. There is a good epistemological argument concerning correlation as causation and when one can be confident of its validity. Discussing this unfortunately goes too far here.

X3non,

The national guard *is* a military force, not a paramilitary one. The United States government can and does call the reserves up for full military deployment. The U.S. military was stretched thin during the Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so our national guard troops were deployed overseas.

Paramilitary organizations have limited ability to use force, but they are not authorized to do so on behalf of the country. Our paramilitary organizations include county sheriffs, municipal police, and various federal organizations such as the FBI, CIA, TSA, BLM, NSA and others which are authorized to use force, but not (openly) against a foreign nation.

@ Jamiet99uk

"Who decides what is lawful, if not society?"

In the United States, our supreme law is the Constitution, which was determined by representatives of society. The Constitution was designed to be a permanent document, which is why the amendment process is so difficult. The Constitution clearly protects the right of private individuals to possess firearms for historically lawful purposes (such as personal defense, especially within one's own home), as interpreted by no fewer than two Supreme Court cases (DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago).

Put simply, modern society cannot renounce what was declared (and is continuously affirmed) as a fundamental American right without a Constitutional amendment, as myself and others like Invictus point out continuously on this forum.

@ X3n0n

"Your description of the National Guard is exactly what defines paramilitary."

The National Guard is not considered a 'paramilitary' force by any source. National Guard and Reserve personnel are designated as 'reserve' forces for statistical purposes. SWAT team members, other militarized law enforcement officers, and militarized private defense contractors would be defined as 'paramilitary'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel#The_list

Obviously, there are a lot more than 11,000 National Guardsmen in the US.

"The difference between a riot and revolt might be the degree of organisation, so both lie on the same continuum of political violence."

"It is the general term for all armed (including sticks as in Britain and Japan), whose purpose is the internal assertion of the law aka state monopoly of force."

It is quite rare for the National Guard to act in a law enforcement capacity. Their power to do so (at their governor's order) has historically only been used during cases of civil disobedience/chaos of a scope exceeding the capacity of civilian law enforcement (i.e. a riot)

Legally, the difference is not in the level of organization (a subjective measure). The size of the disorder is the determining factor. If the state government is no longer able to discharge its powers, the federal government declares a state of insurrection and intervenes accordingly.

"That said the choice of wanting to be able to use a high degree on firepower in those riots is a valid for a society. Doubting the necessity is just as valid. Idolising this choice as something natural or fundamental right to make democracy work instead is misguided."

I wasn't trying to highlight the decision or support/oppose the legitimacy of rioters. I was simply arguing that the National Guard should be employed as a first-line counter to rioting instead of an over-militarized civilian police force. I have no problem with National Guardsmen driving around in armored vehicles, launching tear gas, and making bayonet charges into crowds of rioters. But I have a *big* problem with civilian police officers having access to armored vehicles and military-grade weapons, especially when regular civilians have no such access. A Guardsman acting on his/her governor's orders is better trained, better equipped, and more likely to stop a riot than a civilian police officer, as shown by dozens of cases throughout American history.

"As far as I am informed about the debate, through it is FRAMED as a ban on guns, the goal is indeed to apply the same form of regulation to gun ownership as for people becoming pilots, members of security forces, etc. Also, in countries like Japan, Germany, France, etc. this is exactly how gun ownership is handled. There are special conditions of personality, training (you have a "gun owning licence" like for driving)"

In principle, I am not opposed to raising the standard to be qualified to own certain types of firearms, but I am concerned that such measures could be used to enact a de facto ban. I have long proposed (and advocated for) a progressive licensing system, in which the deadlier a firearm is (as defined by class and things like practical rate of fire and theoretical combat effectiveness), the more training is required to own one. For example, one could own a single-action revolver or double-barrel shotgun (excellent choices for home defense, but poor choices for a shootout) with no background check and no training, but one would require an extensive background check and extensive practical testing to own a machine gun. Also, I would introduce some sort of "accountability" law, in which a firearm owner could be held legally responsible for his/her firearm if that firearm is stolen and subsequently used in a crime; thus compelling firearm owners to keep their firearms secured when not in use.

"Some restrictions have nothing to do with the comparative lethality of a weapon per se but for the associated culture"

That, I am staunchly opposed to. There is a similar legal concept in the United States called the "Assault Weapons Ban". AWBs attempt to restrict certain cosmetic features that have absolutely NO effect on the lethality of a firearm, such as: Folding or telescoping stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, and grenade launcher mounts. Under an Assault Weapons Ban, the popular AR-15 would be illegal, but the Ruger Mini-14 would be completely legal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#mediaviewer/File:AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg

The first picture looks much deadlier, yes? Well, they fire the exact same round at a very similar velocity with similar accuracy. In other words, one is no deadlier than the other, but only one would be banned under an "Assault Weapons Ban"

"Apparently a lot of Americans deem the lethal use of a gun necessary more often than it would be objectively. This is the reason what I consider irresponsible."

This is a result of our self-defense laws. Most US states have what is called a "Castle [Legal] Doctrine", in which one can legally shoot/kill a trespasser with no warning. Property crimes such as burglary, robbery, home invasion, cattle theft, and trespassing are taken MUCH more seriously in the United States than in other countries. This traces, in part, to our agrarian/rural roots. In the 19th century, one could have very easily starved to death if one's cattle were stolen. Naturally, shooting cattle thieves (and other outlaws) was thus justified and even viewed as a noble public service.

This tradition of being willing to respond to violent outlaws with lethal force is evident in our laws (most of which have generous self-defense provisions) and in the fact that dozens of American lives are saved each month by the lawful and judicious use of firearms in self-defense.

@ Gunfighter: "In the United States, our supreme law is the Constitution....The Constitution was designed to be a permanent document."

How ironic it is, then, that the right to own firearms was not mentioned in the Constitution when this "permanent supreme law for all time" was adopted. As you know, the "permanent document" was amended shortly afterwards, to allow the right to bear arms.

Don't you agree it's amusingly ironic that what you wank over as a "permanent", set-in-stone law, was subject to multiple amendments very shortly after being ratified?

USA, 1788: "THIS WILL BE OUR SUPREME LAW, PERMANENTLY!"

USA, 1789: "UH, WE NEED TO MAKE 10 MAJOR AMENDMENTS"

The United States Constitution has held up remarkably well considering it was the first document of its kind ever drafted. Besides, there was a war to wage against perfidious Albion. Citizens' and states' rights followed on in short order in the Bill of Rights.

Our constitution was not the first of its kind. Hell, it wasn't even the first in this country. Where are you getting that idea?

@ Jamiet99uk

The Bill of Rights *is* part of the Constitution and has been since 1791. Its passage was to ease (reasonable) anti-federalist fears of an all-powerful federal government.

"The Constitution was designed to be
a permanent document, which is why the amendment process is so difficult." Ans this, while true, as a major problem for modern US society.

With the supreme court deciding things on an ad-hoc basis (like Roe vs Wade) which effectively changes the social norms/legality of things - when he courts were never supposed to have the power of the exe or legislative body.

'The Constitution clearly protects the right of private individuals to possess
firearms for historically lawful purposes'

I think you'll find the wording refers to the formation of a well regulated militia - which seems to suggest 1) regulation, and 2) regular training.

I'm not sure the mother in this case had either, and i'm not sure hiw 'clear' yout interpretation is.

"Put simply, modern society cannot renounce what was declared (and is
continuously affirmed) as a fundamental American right without a
Constitutional amendment" - Yes it can! You've heard of the American war of independance, right? Where the 'modern' rich colonial land owners renonced the (many times) confirmed rights of the King. (see ref: monarchy)