"Right to bear arms" should mean ... (page 9)

Berengaria

Where exactly is this vilification located EP? I'd love to read it.

EntirelyPossible

"you are sick and more rage should be heard instead of more people telling others to 'calm down' because it doesn't help anyone"

"If you aren't enraged you are apathetic and it is apathy that will allow this to happen again next month."

On my suggestion to see if there was some way to help the families, it was called "insincere hyperbole".

When I suggested a calm, rational discussion after emotions had some time to settle... "when anyone mentions gun control .... 'It's an attack on the 2nd ammendment" banning GUNS ... HITLER!! aaaaaaaaaaaaa"

So, I am sick, apathetic, insincere and apparently somehow Hitler got a nod.

Botzwana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls&feature=player_embedded

And

again I post this in rebuttal.....Taking away guns from people is the WORST thing you can do. Just ask me. I live in Mexico.

glenster

Mickey mouse

When these tragedies occur, one of the arguments that is trotted out is 'if I were to find myself in a situation like that I would like to be able to defend myself'. So when was the last time that some nut went on a shooting spree and an armed citizen took them out before they could kill more people? It's like thinking that mutually assured destruction is an effective strategy with a crazy person.

Here in the UK I'm glad to forego owning a gun because it means in my lifetime I can only recall three gun massacres, not three per year.

cedars

james_woods

Who can start that thread without BIAS?

How do you define "bias" in this context? Is Simon biased because he isn't American? I really hope you understand that it is possible to not be American but still LOVE America (as I do) and NOT like the idea of Americans going around shooting themselves in a vacuum of effective gun control legislation.

Simon raises an excellent point. The right to bear arms was etched in the constitution at a time when "arms" were nothing more than a weapon you could either stab someone with, or fire once before going through a LENGTHY re-loading process. The automatic weapons that are widely available today are nothing like the weaponry envisioned by lawmakers back then. The law must move with the times. If you insist on clinging to it, then observe it in the spirit in which it was written by ditching your AK47 in favor of a musket.

I'm sure members of the gun lobby would love this argument to go away, but that would only happen if there was an end to random shootings. This clearly isn't going to happen. 20 children and 7 adults are now dead, and they weren't killed by a musket. Something needs to change.

Cedars

Max Divergent

My observation of American public debate is that ideology frequently challenges rationalism and wins a good proportion of the time. Ideology stemming from the bible or the constitution is often the most stubborn to rationalist challenge. Even self-interest looses out to constitutional or biblical ideology surprisingly often.

To the rationalist, it might be interesting if it were possible to collate some statistics: for law abiding, properly trained Americans exercising their second amendment right to bear arms that they would use in self-defence, how many of the firearms they acquire are u ltimately used: a) for show or self-assurance and never hurt anyone, b) to hurt/kill a genuine attacker who would have killed the gun owner or someone else but for their use of the gun, c) and hurt/kill an innocent person accidently, d) to threaten/hurt/kill an innocent person deliberately (eg: robberies, murder), e) for suicide, f) for other bad things.

To the ideologist, the answer does not matter: the fact is Americans have the right to bear arms and should do so responsibly. If bad things happen with the guns it is the responsibility of the user, and the accessibility of guns is not the relevant factor. The important issue is that Americans may bear arms since the constitution says so.

I guess anyone can argue over which is better: ideology or rationalism. But I think that is where the argument is best waged, not over the merits of this control measure or that, or one kind of firearm over another. Which is more important: maintaining a valued set of ideas (eg: the constitution as amended, the Holy Bible, or conservative values) or administering public policy in such a way as to bring the greatest benefit to the most people.

In the case of US gun laws, the latter approach may result in a change to the constitution or its interpretation if, in fact, adverse outcomes from c) through f) significantly outweigh the benefits of options a) and b) or if some other rationalist argument proves stronger.

moshe

I live in the USA and I guess we need to get our laws more up to date- like our Canadian neighbors-

Alberta- It is illegal to set fire to the wooden leg of a wooden legged man

British Columbia- It is illegal to kill a sasquatch.

Toronto- You can't drag a dead horse down Yonge St. on a Sunday.

dreamgolfer

Simon, well put. I think those that have "Sense" will understand your opening statement-

I am good with that, and agree totally

Wish someone "Wise and Powerful" (pres Obama are you reading this?) would take this and run with it.

darthfader

Gun control? I really think we need to think about that differently. Firstly, here are my recollections of the facts:

1. The guns used in the Newton CT tragedy were registered
2. The guns user were a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols and not "assault rifles". There was a .22 caliber rifle found in the car.

To attempt to prevent this tragedy from happening again, America will have to cut deep into gun ownership and eliminate many basic handgun models.
To the best of my research, there are 200 million working firearms in private possession in the US. Of these, 60-70 million are handguns. Used firearms are quite often not registered when sold or gifted.

Here are some thoughts I have on this from varying perspectives:

1. All guns must be registered
2. Classes for hunting rifles vs. handguns with different requirements for ownership
3. Bullets are sold based on issued permits
4. Insurance must be carried for any gun with a "bullet permit"
5. Gun owners must prove proficiency - maybe a requirement of insurance companies
6. Random proficiency checks (like auto emissions checks)
7. Educational awareness required for all family members
8. Owners who prove their proficiency are allowed concealed carry permits
9. City / county / state laws are not to supersede federal law

I believe that just outlawing all the current firearm is about to be a successful are outlawing Marijuana.

Making education and responsibility for gun ownership a requirement will go farther than an outright ban.

"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

Share this