Anyone reading this can vote in this poll...and i would be curious to hear the different sides of this debate!

You didn't give an option for "Change it to bring it up to date".

I have no problem with gun ownership but that bill was not written for the insane weaponry we have now, and even then a "well regulated Militia" wouldn't stand a chance against your army.

A simple change would allow people to have hunting weapons and sports guns/pistols at home with access to more "fun" weapons kept at a range only. Also need to look at the gun modification laws.

Don't get me started on regulation of who can get one though, whole other argument there

FYI, yes I am a Brit so don't have the same love/need of guns, but a friend of mine is a farmer and he has what is basically a sniper rifle for killing deer. Was not too difficult, but did need a police background check and a reason. I could not get that rifle unless I was a sportsman (then it would stay in a range, not at my home) but a shotgun would be no problem. We can not have assault rifles because no one in the UK can give a reason.

no one wants to get rid of it. This is overly simplistic, unfair, and just inviting pointless argument while avoiding sensible discussion. If you think these are the only two options, then it is not worth addressing and just bait for your trolling entertainment. Your two black and white options won't even address the most basic concerns of the vast majority of Americans. It's actually laughable. Nice try.

m

I don't get a vote. But if I did, I would vote for people (and the Supreme Court) to read the rule in terms of what it actually says -- i.e., without glossing over the preamble to the rule, as if a whole nation of people were selectively hypnotized into ignoring the phrase 'well regulated Militia'.

Couldn't have put it better

did you not happen to notice the votes already appearing of people who voted for "get rid of it"?

but more to that point, i think there are people who DO want to get rid of it...and probably have zero reason to find their way to our little corner of the internet over here...


I presented the "black and white" options as a way to begin the discussion. I second-guessed myself regarding the pros and cons of having *THIS* discussion here. What do you think is the most basic concerns of the vast majority of American?

Bit sweeping but I imagine the issues with the 2nd amendment boil down to:

1. Allowing easy access for to lethal firearms.
2. Access to nearly anyone with no/few checks on that person.
3. The types of weapons available to these people.
4. The amount of weapons in public domain creating a situation of not knowing who carries or has access to what.

This leads to the huge number of firearm deaths your country suffers (and no I will not debate this by answering to "but knives" "but anyone can get them anyway" "but 1 good man..." arguments)
These can be 'fixed' to some degree and allow folks to still have guns by:

1. Background checks to limit those who can get guns.
2. Everybody asking for a gun should have a valid reason (and no "it's my right" is not a valid reason (believe it or not)).
3. Limiting the type of gun available to have at home. This means you can still buy assault weapons but if they stay on the range then they are harder to be used in mass shootings.

This is not perfect and they will still be shootings as folks will buy them illegally/get them out the ranges but it does allow folks to keep guns and the number of people who should not have guns will decrease.

In your black and white scenario, getting rid of the amendment (and thus banning folks from having guns) would MASSIVELY reduce gun deaths and crime. People will still buy them illegally but it would be harder and thus fewer shootings. It is the closest to what I propose and so people who want a change are more likely to pick "get rid" hence why you are seeing that being chosen.

Eh. I voted that option because I wanted to tank the poll with a nuisance vote. You're not Gallup.

Im British, so we don't have thus issue but it seems to be that what might have been appropriate 200 or so years ago in a new country which was expanding into unknown territory is now totally out of date.

I can maybe see the need for a small hunting rifle in remote areas where there could be things like bears etc, but the gun nuts in the USA seem to insist on having military grade weapons which could take down a helicopter.

Why?

Personally I think all guns are instruments of death and destruction and I would ban them

It was written during a period when guns were the latest technology. Gunpowder weapons were and still are unwieldy, with a slow reload, poor range and accuracy. If you keep the 2nd around the limit the weapons that can be purchased. high powered rifles and shotguns should be kept out of civilian hands. Military styled weapons based or civilian models of military grade weapons should also be banned.

If people want to use guns let them use and own weapons from the past like bolt action rifles and revolvers, whilst keeping more modern weapons like AR-15s, HKs and SPAS-12s out of civilian hands.

Also guns outnumber the population of the untied States so in the event of a crisis you wouldn't be hard pressed in finding one to defend your homeland or what have you.

I am critical of the US and guns mostly because the Americans I have talked to live in the Southern states where guns are just as deified as the founding Fathers.

Logic - which means logical consistency - is what is most important above all else.
If you preach using guns to fight against some injustice, that's fine.
But using guns, almost by definition, is violent.
So whomever you want to kill or hurt with a gun
had better be initiating equal or greater amounts of suffering -
whether it's a pope, a senator, a prime minister, a cop, a judge, a bureaucrat,
or even a nonhuman animal - than what you'll inflict with the gun.

So, yes, you may disagree with group X for using violence
because you think what they're fighting against isn't a sufficiently large suffering,
or, as is often the case, too vague, too unfalsifiable,
such as "fighting for a nation" or "fighting for communism" or "fighting against communism".

But, if you advocate guns because you might need them against laws you don't agree,
then you CANNOT condemn or ridicule any civilian group that revolts or riots
JUST BECAUSE they are violent or use violence/force pain upon those who deserve it:
by looking ONLY at the negatives/harm they do & ignoring the positives of what they are trying to achieve.
You CANNOT ridicule or condemn some group for the negative of breaking the law
while completely ignoring the positives of what they fight for: i.e. just BECAUSE
they "broke the law" (whether violently or nonviolently). If you need
to use guns to revolt against laws & government you don't like,
THEN THAT IS BY DEFINITION ILLEGAL and ALSO VIOLENT (2 separate concepts).

Remember: the negation (anarchy) of a vague unfalsifiable concept like "communism"
is itself a vague unfalsifiable concept. So it is just as idiotic to be fanatically anticommunist
as it is to be fanatically pro-communist.

Secondly, there exists no fundamental difference between guns or bombs or chemical weapons or landmines. It is illogical & hypocritical for a nation to condemn another nation "for using chemical weapons" but while the first nation uses landmines. The ONLY LOGICAL
response should be: the other nation SIMPLY should not be fighting war against MY nation, regardless of the methods used. And if you think your nation is "superior" because it doesn't use chemical weapons because "those chemical weapons cause suffering & pain",
then your nation should not be fighting the other country at all, period, because doing so causes suffering & pain to them. You're either on the right side of a conflict or you're not. If you're on the right side, then use ANY tools you can. If you're not, then you should concede to the other side, and then there wouldn't be any war at all in the first place.

So it is also insanely illogical & hypocritical to ridicule & condemn rioters for violence using whatever means they can to force pain & suffering upon those government agencies that force pain & suffering upon them, but do nothing to help them, just because the rioters are using means OTHER than guns.

There exists nothing fundamentally different between one form of pain & suffering versus another: guns, prison, taxation, poverty, starvation, the law.

"i would be curious to hear the different sides of this debate!"

My experience: absolutely without a single exception
anyone who says that about any debate absolutely NEVER means it.

Always comes some BULLSHIT excuse later that "you're not allowed to say that:
that's illegal" or "that's an extremist point of view". BUZZZ!!!
Can't show interest in alternate ideas and then use the line "their opinion is extremist"
as an excuse to dismiss it.

But, we'll see, ncgreg. Maybe you'll be sincere. Don't want to negatively pre-judge you.

Few "devils advocate" statistics to provide "the other side" for Dr Zoidberg.

For "keep":
- Many people talk of banning "assault style weapons", yet statistically these are one of the least used weapons in crime. If you were going to make a difference you need to ban pistols long before you get to AR15s.
- Statistics show again that legally held guns are not the problem (this is reflected globally). The vast majority of fatalities are committed with firearms which are obtained illegally. 99.99% of legal gun owners will never hurt another human. More crimes are prevented each year by guns than there are fatalities, so if you ban civilian gun ownership, only criminals and the government will have guns. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
- Not all guns are made for the purpose of killing.
- History has a very telling track record where outright bans on gun ownership are usually followed by a dictatorship where the government seizes control. The second amendment is intended specifically to prevent this.
- The only effective method to enforce a gun ban is to use guns.
- Gun bans have a proven track record of fuelling the black market and increasing crime rates. Total bans on guns are devastatingly ineffective.

And now for "get rid":
- Evidently, the ability to walk into a store, purchase a firearm and leave without that firearm being traceable in any way opens up a huge number of possibilities for misuse. Clearly some kind of reform is required.
- Unless you're expecting to be attacked full on (at a level unlikely in the Western world), there really is no need for open carry.
- American gun owners could do with understanding that licensing can be simple and doesn't necessarily mean taking away their guns or even their rights. It simply gives the police a means to assess someone's suitability to possess a gun safely, and gives the police an insight into that person if responding to a related crime. I think even most gun owners would agree to a mentally ill person or someone with a history of violence NOT being given a gun.
- Just because you're allowed a gun doesn't mean you're going to be awesome with it. A firearm in the hands of someone who is inexperienced is potentially a major problem rather than a benefit in any self defense scenario. Add in fear, high pulse rate, disorientation, and that problem gets worse.
- There are several countries with more guns than people besides the US, but none of them have the problems America has with gun crime. Only a tiny number openly advertise those guns for self defense. Primarily they are simply seen as tools elsewhere, not instruments of power. A lot of the problem is in the mentality.

Banning all guns or certain types of gun is not and has never been the answer - unfortunate though it may be for those opposing gun ownership, there is a lot of truth in the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The real answer needs to be in the justification of gun ownership. This works very well in other countries. If you can explain why you need it and satisfy a bunch of safety criteria and background checks, then you can have the gun.

So, am I on the fence? Yes.
Do American gun laws need reform? Most probably.
Is "ban all guns" a sensible approach? Go and read your history books, and if you come back and still say yes, I'll know you didn't really read them.

Every country has its own culture and practice, as a citizen of the UK I don't really have an opinion on this issue, we have very strict firearms regulation here, but whether that would work in the very different cultures of all the various US states, I'm not qualified to judge.

This is an interesting site for reading the US constitution and its amendments though (link takes you straight to the 2nd Amendment).

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-2/

i will say *this* week, i was unable to participate in the discussion (and mainly just saying "hi" and give this thread a bump back to the top???)

maybe that was a good thing, due to a few choice comments already made. I think i said this before, on one hand, i'd like to apologize for posting a thread that is not really wetlook on-topic, but as i reconsider yet AGAIN, i was curious what my fellow WAMMERS thought about this subject.

Eventually, perhaps i will successfully add all of my opinions to this complicated matter...

And....


We all know the 1st amendment, our right to the freedom of speech. And on forums like this, we can exercise it frequently. But what if someone came on this forum and verbally threatened you? The right to free speech does not grant anyone a right to threaten anyone. One of the most basic concerns of any American is the right to self defense. And this is as important to each of us as our right to talk.

A person breaks into your home and threatens you and your family. How do you defend yourself and your family? Do you grab a knife? Do you call the police? Do you give them what they want? What if they are bigger than you? What if they are hardened criminals? What if theres more than one? Are you willing to gamble the lives of your loved ones?

Lets try another scenario. Your wife, girlfriend, mother, or sister is approached by three men in the parking lot. They are all carrying baseball bats.

Sure, chances are, you may never experience a violent crime, but a lot of people will and we see the broken results every night on the evening news. The world is not a safe place and monsters do exist and they are everywhere. The right to own a firearm and the proper training to use it, is as fundamental to us as the right to freedom of speech. It doesn't mean we can use a firearm to threaten others. That would be as immoral as a person who verbally threatens you. The police can't be everywhere and quite honestly there are people out there who want to get rid of the police (a topic for another day)

We all have a right to self defense and a firearm happens to be the most effective tool for that purpose.

My opinion
EdR

It's an effective tool at creating instantaneous catastrophic damage from a distance. That's not the same thing as self-defense.

You are the most terrified first world nation on the planet because you invented and perpetuate a system that is designed to operate on mortal terror. That is because if everyone has a gun, then that means each and every one of you are held hostage to one and only one person: the craziest (least predictable) person in the room with a gun. Whenever there's an inevitable massacre every few months, and people on the right talk about the "mental health" epidemic, it's hard not to read it as an acknowledgment of this part of your freaky collective experience.

As an aside, owning a firearm is likely to get you or your loved ones accidentally killed.

The trouble with weapons (of any kind, not just firearms) for self defence is what most commonly happens is the bad people take them off you and use them against you. "Shot with their own gun" or "stabbed with their own knife" is not that uncommon.

The situation with the lone female and three attackers isn't that clearcut either, because most ordinary people, not having experienced, or been trained for, killing, will hesitate, and in most cases hesitate long enough that one of the attackers will get within range and knock the gun aside. Or the attackers will just produce their own guns. Even if the victim does shoot one of them, unless they are a crack shot it's unlikely to be fatal, and meanwhile the other attackers just close in for the kill.

Having said all that though I still don't hold a view on the US 2nd Amendment, as the US (and each state within it) is a very different place to the UK.

Volumes have been written about bad polls. While I dont know if things have changed, last i heard, online polls are worthless. There is a blogger who gained a reputation for sharing slanted polls just to make them get the response they didn't want so much, the practice has been called Pharyngulate.

Sure, a firearm is as dangerous as the person who pulls the trigger. In the hands of a person who values the lives of the ones they love and their own existence, a firearm is no danger except to those who threaten them


Tell us if this terrifies you? In May of 2012, A young man uploaded a video titled 1 Lunatic, 1 Ice Pick to a website depicting a naked male tied to a bed frame being repeatedly stabbed with an ice pick and a kitchen knife. The victim was then dismembered, followed by acts of necrophilia. The perpetrator then used a knife and fork to cut off some of the flesh and give it to a dog to chew on. A more extensive version of the video police recovered, revealed acts of cannibalism.

In July of 2008, A 22 yr old man boarded a Greyhound bus. During the trip he fell asleep, when another passenger suddenly pulls out a large kitchen knife and began stabbing the 22 yr old in the chest and neck. The Bus driver immediately pulled over to let out the passengers. Two passengers attempted to rescue the 22 yr old man but were unable to get past the assailant. The victim was left in the bus where the perpetrator proceeded to decapitate the victim's head and began to eat parts of his flesh.

You would think that this only happens in the U.S. the most terrified people on the earth, but it didn't. It happened in Canada! You see? Crime, violent crime, exists everywhere. It isn't reserved to America or Americans, it isn't a result of our system of government. It is a human problem


Wether you know this or not, we are all held hostage to the lunatic in the room. There is no safe place on earth. No place that is pristine or untouched by violence. The question you might want to ask yourself knowing that there is a lunatic out there looking to consume an innocent, is, do you really want to be in the same room with him without a gun??

As a person, you have a right to live, and you have a right to security.

EdR

Unfortunately that does happen, even to seasoned police officers! A few years ago there was one such incident, where a police officer drew his firearm out in self defense but did not shoot. His assailant managed to take the firearm from him and used it to kill the officer. It was all caught on his body cam, which has since been used as a training tool in the attempt to prevent another similar outcome. The failure wasn't in the weapon, the failure was in the person and they paid a very high price for the mistake. However it's not as common as you think. It has happened before, it could happen again, but it's not something that always happens. It takes a very dangerous person who can stare down a loaded gun and take it away from a trained officer.


Nothing is ever clear cut in a stressful situation, but one thing is for sure. A woman with a firearm and trained in it's use has a fighting chance to survive a brutal attack. Without it, she has absolutely no chance.

EdR

That claim is unsubstantiated, and evidence is that it is very badly mistaken. e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9715182/


Scary stuff, but then again, neither of these have anything to do with the issue of a would-be Canadian culture of violence, which is what you would have to demonstrate in order to be giving a relevant reply.


I don't know that, and neither do you, because it is not the case until you add guns and the like. Give a crazy person increased opportunity to do maximum instantaneous catastrophic violence from a distance, you amp up the ambient threat in the culture generally. Put up barriers to access instruments of catastrophic harm and all other things equal you're no longer a hostage -- you have options.

But, notice, "all other things equal": so, if you have people who are confined in close spaces and asleep (Greyhound bus), or who have been given a date-rape drug (in the apartment of the Toronto killer), etc., then those are not equal conditions.

The label of "criminal" is so hilariously illogical.
If government makes an anti-gun law, and you break it by trying to obtain guns because reasons (could be good, could be bad), then BY THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DEFINITION,
you are now a criminal.

So, IF before you preached "I support everybody except criminals owning guns."
then you've shot yourself in the foot.

Now, not saying all gun owners consider "criminal" to be a negative thing.

It's almost self-contradictory to say one is "for" or "against" gun-control.
If you say you are FOR gun control, then you are FOR the COPS having guns
to take them away from civilians. So you ARE for guns, since how else would cops
force anybody to give up guns?

If you say you are AGAINST gun control, then you are FOR gun controlling the cops
to prevent the cops from taking away your guns.

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/gun-safety/




What I can demonstrate is Canada is not immune to violent crime. I only posted just two examples out of thousands of such examples reported. There is no safe place, not even in Canada


Oh yes you do, you even said so yourself


In the two examples I gave, a gun wasn't involved. What both examples had in common was the depraved lunatic, bent on ending lives...just two of who knows how many are out there.


Ever heard the phrase that guns don't kill people, People kill people? A crazy person is a crazy person, they do not think like the rest of us, they are driven by things we don't understand. If they are determined to kill an innocent person, and wish to feed that desire, they will do it. It would be nice to deny them any weapon they might get their hands on to do the terrible deed, but not at the expense of denying the rest of society the right to defend themselves from the very same cray cray guy with the knife, using weapons of their own.


The two other passengers tried to rescue the 22 yr old and couldn't get past the evil crazy guy with the knife. If they were armed, the outcome might have been different. But what was certain in this situation, was, no one had a gun. No one could intervene on behalf of the victim. As a result an innocent man was killed.

Every life is precious.

EdR

I'm not interested in spending any time reading NRA propaganda, but if you're serious about this, feel free to single out some claims and accompanying peer reviewed sources.


Then you must be talking to someone else. It's a relevant thought to the thread, but not in a conversation with me, if that's what you're trying to have.

My argument is that you have a cultural fixation upon the right to access tools of major instantaneous catastrophic harm at a distance, that the nature of this threat means that, in any given situation, the irrational person with a gun has the advantage; and that, as a result of these facts, you have a culture that incentivizes lunacy. Those are the claims you would have to attend to and criticize if you're interested in an exchange.


I was responding to your implied judgment that we are all hostage to lunatics in the room absent guns. That implication is false.


As I recall, both involved sleeping victims: one who was drugged, another riding the Greyhound. Both are highly disturbing but atypical events. To say, "Who knows how many are out there?" speaks to the weakness of your argument. The answer can't be anywhere near as large as 100 per day, as with US gun deaths, or else someone would notice.


It's an NRA slogan that is immediately refuted by examples of accidental deaths in the home. See the link in my previous post.




That premise, if I were to accept it, would only lead me to think that everyone ought to carry knives. Doesn't speak to the point of the thread.

Anyway. If you really believe that every life counts, shouldn't you be willing to count them? Count up all the deaths and ask yourself how they can be prevented? I think so. I think that's part of what you should do when you respect people's rights to live and to choose how to live.

In March of 1996 at Dunblane Primary School near Stirling, Scotland, an attacker armed with handguns shot 16 children and one teacher dead and injured 15 others, before killing himself. It remains the deadliest mass shooting in British history.

In response to the shooting the government banned all civilian ownership of handguns in the UK. UK police, other than a few very highly trained specialist units, are unarmed. Nevertheless, the UK authorities succesfully removed all cartridge handguns, other than muzzle-loading and specific historic weapons, from the population. Policing here is by consent, not by force.

"Peace through superior firepower" is sometimes an appealing thought, but in reality life is a lot more complex than that. People handed in their guns not because they were forced to by armed officers with weapons, but because the law said that they must, in a country where the majority of people follow the law. New Zealand more recently achieved the same thing in removing previously legal assault weapons from its population, again not by force but by social consent.

I'm serious about all of it, so for the sake of brevity I'll once again post the link;

https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts/gun-safety/

You can check the accompanying citations provided.



You are free to come or go as you please. If you feel this conversation isn't relevant, well, it's been nice talking to you


Since you don't know me personally, this comment you directly applied to me is an untrue generalization based on assumptions. My "fixation", if you want to call it that, is having the right to defend myself and the ones I love using whatever tools necessary and whatever means necessary to insure their security and safety as it is legally to do so....Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the glamorization of firearms, and that so called culture, especially in action movies by Hollywood actors who espouse gun control. But I digress, I really don't care about "society", what they think, or whats politically expedient. I am far more concerned in the safety and security of myself and the ones who mean the most to me.


I didn't think I had to mention the gun, because it should be obvious. It's as simple as thinking it through to it's logical conclusion.
Example;
If the lunatic is the only one with the gun in the room with you, bottom line is; he wins, you lose. At worse, He lives, you die and your family gets to bury what remains of you.

Ideally If you had the gun and the Lunatic didn't, you get to live and the ones you love won't have to go to your funeral.

Of course in your ideal world, neither of you would have guns because they'd all be banned. Sounds really swell, except the lunatic may still try to kill you. And since we don't get to pick the lunatic, you don't know if you have to take on someone who is much bigger than you, much stronger than you, or suffering from schizophrenia or high on hallucinogenic drugs.

Which brings up the last possibility. Both of you have guns. Well, the odds may not seem that great, because the lunatic has a gun. But one thing is certain and that is, you also have a gun, and that means you have a means to defend yourself, to fight back.

In the world of law enforcement, police train very hard for scenarios involving the possibility of confronting an armed suspect. Their training provides police every advantage necessary for such situations. As an armed citizen, the right to keep and bear arms comes with great responsibility. It isn't enough to simply own a firearm. It takes a dedication and discipline to train, operate, secure, and maintain it. The edge needed to survive an assault is being able to act under pressure and hit the target (the bad guy) under extreme stress. It is critical for your survival and the survival of those who count on you.


How do you know the one victim was drugged? Thats an assumption on your part and you haven't a clue as to how the vicim ended up tied to the bed frame, or if he was sleeping. What we do know is, this vicim somehow during his life, ended up tied to a bed frame and then stabbed. And the specific point wasn't to imply that if this victim had a gun, he may have survived. What we can surmise is the victim probably didn't have a gun as there was no mention of a gun, nor if one was ever found at the scene of the crime. In any event the true point of the story is to point out that there is no safe place on earth, that monsters live everywhere, even in Canada. No place is immune to violence.


If my argument is weak, be specific, exactly how many lunatics are out there? Do you know?? And how many lunatics would be too many? How many lunatics roaming free in society is acceptable?? 100, 1000, it doesn't matter when one is too many.


See my link above. Then answer why gun sales have increased by at least by 200% in the last few years, while accidental deaths have dropped to an all time low of 0.27% (since 2018)


Well then you have the wrong premise. The facts in that particular situation was the two passengers tried to save a life and failed because they couldn't first defeat the perpetrator, which was necessary to save the victim. Thats the weakness in your argument, that in this imperfect violent world, in order to save a life, sometimes it's necessary for a bad guy to lose his life. A gun in the hands of anyone on that bus would have ended the terror, quickly. The "instantaneous catastrophic damage from a distance" to the assailant's upper torso would have ended his career as a murderer on that ride to hell. Instead the family of that 22yr old victim had to bury their son, brother, father, friend (whichever applies)


I think we can do one better. Every life counts. My life counts, your life counts. How many people do you love? I guarantee their lives count too. Would you be willing to let them die at the hands of an evil person? How may you prevent it? Would you be willing to save them by any means necessary?

EdR

Yes, sure, but it's important that you understand the reasons why you're getting the reply that you're getting. I'm not trying to be pointlessly curt -- I'm just saying, it doesn't really make sense for anyone to engage with people who quote them without engaging with the contents of what they say. You've done a much better job just now, so that gives me more to think about and respond to.


It was meant to be a generic "you", referring to the broader culture. Sorry that wasn't clear.


It was not obvious that you felt that way, because I was under the impression that we were in disagreement. Here it seems you're agreeing with me that a system based on the ownership of instruments of instantaneous catastrophic harm from a distance is one that incentivizes the lunatic unnecessarily. I would have thought that would be the end of the matter.


No, I think that in a realistic sort of ideal world, then certain classes of guns would be outlawed, you would only own a gun if you were responsible, etc. Basically, the laws of every nation except for America. As you apparently agree, or at least don't object to -- in non-gun-fetish countries, there is no systematic incentives to empower the lunatic.

Of course, they can still try to do it without access to instruments of remote instantaneous catastrophic harm. But they will change the playing field and the incentives. If everyone only has a knife, all other things equal, you have options: you can run. Not with a gun. If everyone has a taser, then you can run, and also, your risk of death from catastrophic harm is less. Not with a gun.


You don't, though, on the assumption that you're a good guy. The lunatic, unlike the good guy, shoots first. If he's on his own, the good guy is too dead to defend himself. That's not a great situation.

The fact is, these NRA types assume rational actors don't want to die. They don't understand that, if you incentivize crazy, then the rules of reason go out the window.


In the world of law enforcement in America, many police jurisdictions are trained to avoid liability, not to avoid killing. That training is typically around 2 years in length, as opposed to the Nordic countries which require more intensive regimen. Here's a disturbing look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETf7NJOMS6Y

This would all seem really weird if it weren't for the fact that it is a natural outgrowth of a culture that is geared towards the supremacy of lunatics.


Because it was mentioned in the Netflix documentary ("Don't Fuck with Cats"). Looking further, I misremembered the traces of Benadryl and a sleeping pill temazepam as date rape drugs. Yet the point is the same: not all other things equal.


I know it's weak because it seems false on face value, for the reason I provided: if it were true, we would know. You might want to qualify your claim in ways that would force me to re-evaluate it. But it's not my job to improve your claim just so it can stand up to scrutiny. That burden is on you, the guy who asserted it.

Just so we're clear, I think individual cases count, and that is why it is important to count them. When we do, we find that the annual rate of gun related death is ~36K in the US (10 in 100,000) vs 1300 in Canada (2 in 100,000).


My claim was that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a ridiculous thing to say so long as guns kill people accidentally. Like all slogans, it's an inept generalization. The reality is that, at least sometimes, guns kill people unintentionally. So long as that is true, it is perverse to say that "guns don't kill people", period.


I understood you fine. My response is that they could have incapacitated him with their own knifes. Or tazers. Or batons, baseball bats, or whatever. So, guns play no role in your example. It's only by assuming that guns are the only means of self-defense that you end up in the sort of unintentionally perverse culture that you're in. I encourage you to open up the possibility that this is an inappropriate assumption.

Even then, here in America, any perceived "cultural fixation to access tools of major instantaneous catastrophic harm" Is a right that is specifically enumerated in our founding document, the US Constitution.

Therefore, in any given situation, the right to own a firearm, doesn't incentivize lunacy. It keeps it in check! It's actually there in the amendment itself; "A Well regulated Militia," In the vernacular of 18th century English, Well regulated meant, well armed or well trained. Militia means armed citizens. "Being necessary to the security of a free State" Another way of saying that would be Being necessary to the security of a state of freedom.

That was the purpose spelled out in the Constitution. It doesn't incentivize lunacy. Firearms in the hands of well trained law abiding people prevented the lunatics from running amuck



As a side note and one that will dovetail with a point you make further down. The catastrophic harm from a distance part you bring up...Thats the advantage of the fire arm! Knives, bats, hand to hand. All of those means of fighting and defending is up close and personal. But in a life and death situation with a lunatic. The lunatic only needs to hit you once. If you are an 80 yr old grandmother, these forms of defense is not an option. If you are a small man having to defend himself against two very large men, this is not an option. If you are a handicapped person in a wheelchair, this is not an option. The only option is a gun. It's ability to do catastrophic harm at distance is it's advantage. This is the best option in such situations, to be able to defend against a lunatic while being at a safe enough distance to remain unharmed.



The problem I have with that is, who gets to decide which class of guns I need or don't need? I think people should be able to decide on their own terms which guns they think will suit their defensive needs... In fact they should be able to buy any gun they want for whatever reason they deem fit. It is a right

Tench Cox was a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, who wrote extensively about the 2nd Am.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"


As mentioned having nothing but a knife or a taser is not an option for some members of society. Try to tell a wheelchair bound man to run. I'm not against the option to run, and not pull the trigger,,,if you can safely get away, but in any conversation about self defense, there are too many variables in a dynamic, fluid dangerous situation to recommend only one possible choice. But lets be clear, the option to use a firearm in self defense is a last resort option. Most of us who own guns do not want to be forced to use them, but we also recognize that we live in an imperfect and dangerous world.


The point is without a gun, you're situation is dire. If you have a gun, you have a greater chance to survive and definitely a means to defend yourself. Yes, he can shoot you first and you may die. This is why we train with our firearms. To improve the odds. Bad guys with guns don't always train. They are often more about style then disapline. Ever notice how some gang bangers like to hold a gun sideways? It's a terrible way to aim and under extreme stress there is a high degree of missed first shots. This means that just because they shoot first doesn't mean they will kill you. Misses are actually common. This is why we train.



Are you are satisfied with this outcome?


Not ridiculous at all. Guns can't kill accidentally either. A child who finds a loaded gun and accidentally kills himself, is not the fault of the gun. It's the fault of the person who left it there and they should suffer the legal and moral consequences. Gun ownership requires responsibility, to fail in that responsibility is criminal. Part of this immense responsibility is to secure the weapon at all times, and in this instance, to educate the child as to what to do if he sees a gun lying around.


Not an option. In close quarters fighting, we are more prone to injury and have to risk injury in the fight. This is not an option. A lucky blow, a quick slice to an artery will remove any resolve, even for a moment. This is an advantage for the assailant. The only possible option on that bus was to fight in superior numbers overwhelming the assailant and that wasn't a guarantee either because we don't know how many on the bus were able to fight or had the resolve or will. One thing was also certain, directly or indirectly, everyone on the bus was threatened as well.



Once again, the point of bringing this up was to demonstrate that violent crime is everywhere, not just in America, Nor is the idea of a "culture of violence" a suitable excuse. Violent crime exists everywhere, there doesn't have to be a culture of violence, for it to exist. You sanely stated that this was scary stuff. It is. The point of firearm ownership is to take measures to provide personal security, and here in America, we are fortunate to have this right enshrined in our founding document. But keep in mind this isn't an American thing, it is a human thing. People everywhere in the world desire personal safety and security from all sorts of tyranny.

EdR

ER: I don't see any reason why I should feel rationally compelled to agree with any of the subsequent assertions. Very briefly, you conceded one of my major premises was sound ("logical"), but now you are backtracking. If you had a reasonable argument, then maybe that would be okay. But your assertion is actually just begging the question, i.e., just asserting the legitimacy and rational consequences of the second amendment. That's not an argument.

The stuff about the logistics and ergonomics of bus fights is relevant (in a way) but lacks the scope to engage me in the argument I have made. It shows a regrettable tendency to see the forest for the trees, and it has a pretty sad outcome, since by not counting the cases, it leaves the impression that many or most cases don't count. And it leads you to some morally strange places. e.g., you plain-stated denial of the existence of accidental shootings is utterly absurd, but it is a logical consequence of taking the equally absurd idea that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' seriously.

FWIW, I personally think the courts that interpreted that amendment were in error when they applied it outside of the context of arming militias. But it would take an essay to say more, and plenty of commentators and essayists have said it better than I could, so I won't.