Elementary school shooting

And in the UK the headlines for last year's mob rioting and looting wouldn't have just been about rioting and looting and fire bombing if guns were owned by all ... it would have been about body counts!

 

My point is that you don't need guns to do great harm. I could make the argument that dispersing a crowd, even possibly killing one person in the process, could save dozens of lives. The overall point is that if people are bent on destruction removing one means doesn't automatically avoid disaster.

People's tendency to react to the seen while totally ignoring the unseen is something that effects a whole range of topics but it is especially exploitable in discussions of politics where mascots and scapegoats can be fabricated quickly.

 

I think that was the point, he was being sarcastic (that's how I read it in any case)

 

Given the HUGE number of guns available in the US, you would need to substantiate that. By that reasoning, we should have piles of bodies as a result of riots/rallies/demonstrations but we don't. As a matter of historical fact, During the riotous '60's when major cities were being torn apart by riots. Mayor Daly of Chicago issued a much maligned "shoot to kill" authorization to police. Riots were much less of a problem than in other major cities. So you can also lessen the number of riots and the loss of innocent by-stander life as well.

 

If you look at the statistics in right-to-carry states, that simply isn't the case. It's the opposite. You don't have to imagine the results, we are living them, we have actual data. There is a vastly larger number of people carrying guns for personal defense, much moreso than in the recent past and the gun-related crime has declined.

Areas with very strict gun ownership like D.C., NY and Chicago have the highest gun-related crime rates and deaths.

 

Eddie et al, Genuine question because I can't get my head round this. What are you (as a country) so afraid of that gun control is seen as so un-American?

The second amendment was in part to protect against the return of the British, given the state of the Royal Navy that seems unlikely.

So there is crime and over throwing dictators. Every country has crime, Western Europe doesn't seem to have anything like the US crime rate, the cause of that is obviously much deeper than just gun ownership, so maybe that is a factor.

And as to overthrowing a dictator you'd have to acquire one first and most civilised countries have managed to avoid this peril with out allowing mass gun ownership. I realise there are some who consider every Democrat/Republican president a dictator but if we could ignore them for the time being.

 

I appreciate the question and am discouraged that this level of curiosity is only showing up this deep into the conversation.

I've read a decent amount of history and about the constitution and I don't know of anyone who argues that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with external enemies (The British returning) that is why one of the few and first charges given to the federal government is to provide for the national defense.

The very basics of the constitution, the bill of rights, were given as a direct result of dealing with the British government, no doubt. The most pivotal element of the rights established in the constitution is private property. Because without claim to one's own life and property, all the others are irrelevant. What good is the right to: speak, worship, vote freely if the standing government can take away his wheat indiscriminately and he can't feed his family?

Our country's history is rife with armed uprisings against it's own government, mainly over taxes, that would have never have happened without the individual's ability to act. It served as an ultimate check on power. So as crude and antiquated as it seems to this audience, this is our DNA.

Contrast that with several court cases involving the role of law enforcement, like it or not, it falls on everyone to ultimately defend their lives and property. Law enforcement can really only help after the fact, to right wrongs that have already happened. And for a lot of people that live in rural areas of the country (and there's a lot of that) waiting 45 minutes for help to come is little solace to where you stand on guns.

Here's my ultimate constitutional argument though and it is a simple one: The rights are ours, they can be removed (amended) but they are ours first, so the argument should not be why do we get to keep them, but what is the overwhelming argument why we should be deprived of them? The only arguments I see are to counter people who are already, by their very nature, run afoul of the constitution - not the people who are playing by the rules and doing the right thing. To me, depriving someone of their basic rights for doing nothing to harm anyone else is an argument I simply can't accept.

I'm no war monger. I own several guns and the last thing in the world I ever would want to do is to point one at another human being. That said, there have been several times when I'm glad I had access to them. I would love to see a world where guns are not needed. But not only all the contemporary reasons for removing arms have to be washed away as well as any future chance as well - and that's much harder to do.

There are some harsh historical examples of when seeding tyrranical governments want to advance, the first thing they do is disarm the public to horrific results: Germany, China, Cambodia, the list is pretty long.

Once rights are gone, they almost never come back - which is why pro-gun advocates act in hyperbole sometimes.

Ultimately this falls on the American tendency to value life and property highest. This is a double edged sword, because for good people to be armed, nothing happens (I'll concede the stats that Cthippo cite about accidents but, again it's rare - bathtubs pose more danger). When people with no respect for human life and property are armed it is chaos. The rights in the constitution are intended for the former not the latter.

And that is what I believe is the root of the problem that we are all discussing, an erosion of the value of life in particular in our society. But the fact that these incidents upset us so much gives me hope. Arguing semantics, non-facts and creating mascots and scapegoats not so much. I have never been able to wrap my head around the mentality to take out a bunch of innocent life before taking your own. Why not just take your own? Obviously, something is broken there.

This is rare for me on this forum but I don't intend the above statement as a means of persuasion but merely a personal statement meant to answer your question.

 

Thanks Eddie, thats interesting. I'll need to ruminate further on what you've said though like you say its a personal statement but still...

My mistake about the external threats thing though it was meant mostly in jest.

 

No, feel free to comment. I'm sincerely curious. I just wanted to put it in context. And your joke actually does have a touch of historical accuracy anyhoo.

 

Most likely you won't have your gun when you'll need it, because you'll be at school or shopping or simply walking in the street. If you want to be safe at home, purchase a serious security system and a rugged door. Robbers don't want to kill you, the mafia dont give a damn about you, same goes fore hired gunner, and crazy peoples are random and will strike when you're powerless. Except if you are a total parano with a gun on you at every minute of the day, you wont be able to do nothing when things will happens, and thats only if you wont have shot youself by accident with your own gun before it happen loll

 

But surely all the things you are talking about, such as the government taking away your hard-won wheat (for which we can substitute excessive taxation), or impinging upon your religious/speech/movement, is a thing of the past for the US? Your last armed en-masse uprising was a long time ago now, and the check on power is performed through a strong democratic process. Yes, history is rife with examples, but history doesn't make a strong case for the here and now, it makes a case for the there and then.

Even at the height of modern tensions, such as the Vietnam War and the race riots, the solution was a political one not an armed uprising. Surely this is indicative of the fact that the need for an armed populace is over?

Ultimately, the argument for the removal of the right to bear arms is a simple one: you don't need them any more. The nation doesn't need to rise up in armed rebellion against the government due to the simple fact that there are other, more reliable and less dangerous, approaches to take. The argument for retention is simply one about self defense in the home - where investment in a security system would achieve the same net result, that of psychological security and physical security if done properly.

 

No it is not a thing of the past, it has been an ongoing argument on all fronts since the early '30's - not that this has everything to do with the overall topic but I did bring it up. I could cite endless cases but if you just look up activities of groups like the ACLU and the Pacific Legal Foundation (just to name a few).

 

You simply proved my point - those groups are working via lobbying, protests and so forth, within the established legal and democratic system. They aren't engaged in an all-out armed conflict with the government. Disputes aren't solved down the barrel of a gun anymore.

 

I agree that madmen with a gun tend to decide to strike in places where they can be assured people won't be able to defend themselves. That doesn't convince me that I should be rendered defenseless in the least.

 

I was merely saying that they are not a thing of the past. Unless you were talking about the uprisings themselves. If that's the case, I misunderstood your point. Bear in mind, defending against a tyranny is not the main reason people want to exercise their right to arm themself (but don't tell that to the people of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Tx)

 

eddie_dane what if people were required to take a fire arms licence course, the same way one does for a car?

 

My point was that the problems are less - we're not in an era of slavery, taxation that forces the majority to below the poverty line or a government exercising North Korean levels of suppression. Yes there are problems, but they are all dealt with via democratic and legal systems - even big problems such as the protests against the Vietnam War.

This means you don't need guns to defend yourselves against the government, because there are better systems in place than an armed uprising (a fact backed up by the lack of any uprisings). So you're simply left with the fact that you feel safer in your home because you have a gun.

Suprisingly, I feel safe in my home without a gun. This safety can be achieved without weapons, and in the long term, a ban on firearms will make the country safer as there will be less out there in the hands of criminals, such as in the UK and other areas.

 

Generally speaking, I feel that the licensing of all things are getting out of hand. I don't like it as a base-line qualification of ownership from the standpoint that it represents a form of presumption of guilt.

For certain levels of firepower that have an extraordinarily high lethality or requires a lot of technical knowledge in order to operate properly I don't oppose proof of training. I'm an experienced gun owner but there are simply some things I don't want for that reason.

You aren't required to have a license to own a car, only to operate it in public places (at least in the US). Most states apply the same logic when it comes to right-to-carry laws. You can own a gun but you need to prove you are trained to carry it around with you anywhere. If you are ever stopped by the police, you are obligated to show your license and declare that you are carrying.

 

That doesn't surprise me one bit and to each his own.

You must understand that a lot of gun owners formally had the same outlook as you do now. Only after they experience something they did not anticipate do they seek out additional self-protection. I am intimately aware of this as a known owner of guns, people come to me for advice (not that I proclaim to be an expert by any means). I'm genuinely glad you are happier without one. People who aren't comfortable with guns can be much more dangerous than people who are. I don't advise anyone who isn't comfortable around guns to buy one.

 

Depends on whether it is useful to consider people's behaviour from a scientific point of view as well as a legal or philosophical one, and how you define "society" (e.g. as a network of relationships between individuals).

I work in an area where it makes sense to consider people's psychology. Rationally, people don't want to be ill; they want to get better. They take the medication. They cooperate and listen to the doctors' advice. They are grateful for the sometimes very costly treatment that they get for their sometimes very serious diseases and make sure to make good use of it and maximise its success. Above all they do what it takes to stay healthy.

In reality things are a lot different. Patients can be willful, demanding, stubborn, uncooperative, contradictory, angry, ungrateful, self-sabotaging and will behave in ways that backfire on their health --repeatedly. Doctors and nurses tear their hair out in frustration. Patients complain and sue.

My job is often to mediate and smooth the process of patient care; to help patients engage and cooperate, help doctors and nurses to be helpful, and thus to maximise the chances of successful treatment and recovery. I also help patients to make the changes in their lives that they know they should be making but somehow just can't seem to. I do this by considering their psychology. Not how people should be, or how it makes rational sense for them to be, but how they are.

The law ought to do this --and to a certain extent tries. Psychology comes up with better deterrents and reinforcers, and better rehabilitation. When we get down to how a healthy society is supposed to work, we get into a lot of psychology. Can't get away from it --people is people.

It is also in human nature that the more obstacles or time is placed between the impulse and the action, the less likely it is for that action to occur. It is because of human nature that people should not have unfettered access to guns.


EDIT: having said that, if I lived in a State where people can own guns and carry concealed, I'd probably own a gun too. But I would learn how to use it very thoroughly, and I'd still rather not carry one. There is a myth (amongst Native Americans, but also found in other cultures) that objects have 'intentions' of their own. They compel you to use them, by the nature of what they are. Psychologically it kind of makes sense. Hold a hammer, and you want to hit things. See a button, and you want to press it (in brain injury this can become a compulsion called "utilisation behaviour". I've seen it in patients. It is fascinating to watch but very distressing and frustrating for them. We can all relate to the button pressing, of course). Similarly, owning or carrying a gun may compel you to approach situations of threat or conflict in a less wise and more final way than you might otherwise have.