>>>-----The Gun Issue Middle----->

[Annie]

For those interested in reasoned discussion:

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

The Riddle of the Gun

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence.

Unlike most Americans, I stand on both sides of this debate. I understand the apprehension that many people feel toward “gun culture,” and I share their outrage over the political influence of the National Rifle Association. How is it that we live in a society in which one of the most compelling interests is gun ownership? Where is the science lobby? The safe food lobby? Where is the get-the-Chinese-lead-paint-out-of-our-kids’-toys lobby? When viewed from any other civilized society on earth, the primacy of guns in American life seems to be a symptom of collective psychosis.

Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.

But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defense elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. There have been cases of prison guards (who generally do not carry guns) helplessly standing by as one of their own was stabbed to death by a lone prisoner armed with an improvised blade. The hesitation of bystanders in these situations makes perfect sense—and “diffusion of responsibility” has little to do with it. The fantasies of many martial artists aside, to go unarmed against a person with a knife is to put oneself in very real peril, regardless of one’s training. The same can be said of attacks involving multiple assailants. A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

Of course, owning a gun is not a responsibility that everyone should assume. Most guns kept in the home will never be used for self-defense. They are, in fact, more likely to be used by an unstable person to threaten family members or to commit suicide. However, it seems to me that there is nothing irrational about judging oneself to be psychologically stable and fully committed to the safe handling and ethical use of firearms—if, indeed, one is.[1]

...

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The loop of decision and consequence from this topic is what gets me. The Right wing legalized modified assault rifles when the Left didn't want them to because of the fear of mass killings. Mass killings start happening. Left wing wants to end ownership of these rifles. Right wing starts talking civil war if someone tries to take the gun.

If you think about it, it's almost like saying, "If you try to take my modified assault rifle from me, just because you think it's a danger to society, I will shoot you and anyone else that thinks it should be taken from me" Real logical thinking.

why is it illogical to defend our property?

 

[Anti-Party]

why is it illogical to defend our property?

Obviously lots of Americans didn't want Modified Assault Rifles to be legal because they feared mass killings were more of a possibility if they did become legal. So now that we have them in theaters, schools and we are discussing civil war because of them.......maybe the mass killing concept came from somewhere? Or take the shorter route.

Again, I'm not saying we should gun grab. I'm saying that they probably shouldn't have been allowed in the hands of citizens to begin with. It's probably even too late to end production and grandfather clause because it's getting harder and harder to distinguish a Modified AR because they are building morphs now, basically deer guns with visual characteristics of an AR but not built of the same materials.

 

[Anti-Party]

I liked "The Juice is Loose"'s comment about incrementalism. It's a great argument and I hear it a lot. "It's a slippery slope". I don't like to make the wrong political decisions so I put quite a bit of thought into this angle alone.

The incrementalism is on the side of gun technology advancement. Not regulating the militia. There is a line of what can and cannot be in the hands of civilians and at what degree of difficulty it is to get it. The faster weapon technology develops, the more it will try and push that line. We have to keep regulating the militia as new products come out because not all products are the same.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Obviously lots of Americans didn't want Modified Assault Rifles to be legal because they feared mass killings were more of a possibility if they did become legal. So now that we have them in theaters, schools and we are discussing civil war because of them.......maybe the mass killing concept came from somewhere? Or take the shorter route.

Again, I'm not saying we should gun grab. I'm saying that they probably shouldn't have been allowed in the hands of citizens to begin with. It's probably even too late to end production and grandfather clause because it's getting harder and harder to distinguish a Modified AR because they are building morphs now, basically deer guns with visual characteristics of an AR but not built of the same materials.

yet that is the exact opposite of what the founders believed, so how do you rationalize your belief?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I liked "The Juice is Loose"'s comment about incrementalism. It's a great argument and I hear it a lot. "It's a slippery slope". I don't like to make the wrong political decisions so I put quite a bit of thought into this angle alone.

The incrementalism is on the side of gun technology advancement. Not regulating the militia. There is a line of what can and cannot be in the hands of civilians and at what degree of difficulty it is to get it. The faster weapon technology develops, the more it will try and push that line. We have to keep regulating the militia as new products come out because not all products are the same.

did the founders define well regulated as 'under gov control' when they had just divorced themselves from a central gov bent on controlling them?

 

[Anti-Party]

yet that is the exact opposite of what the founders believed, so how do you rationalize your belief?

Common sense rationalizes my belief.

Let me quiz you. Lets say in the future we have a lazer gun that can slice through a building making it fall. It's just a handgun. Should we allow this in the hands of a citizen because of the 2nd amendment?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Common sense rationalizes my belief.

Let me quiz you. Lets say in the future we have a lazer gun that can slice through a building making it fall. It's just a handgun. Should we allow this in the hands of a citizen because of the 2nd amendment?

yes. we the people must retain power over the government. the founders considered this 'risk' as the cost of freedom, much preferable to the potential of government tyranny.

 

[Anti-Party]

yes. we the people must retain power over the government. the founders considered this 'risk' as the cost of freedom, much preferable to the potential of government tyranny.

Well that says it all. You are willing to put thousands of people at risk so you can carry something that is not necessary. Not too smart.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Well that says it all. You are willing to put thousands of people at risk so you can carry something that is not necessary. Not too smart.

guess those founders were pretty stupid as well.

 

[Anti-Party]

yes. we the people must retain power over the government. the founders considered this 'risk' as the cost of freedom, much preferable to the potential of government tyranny.

And it's not just you having the ability to carry one. You want them to be produced large scale and to be in every home of the people that want them. I know you don't understand this concept but this puts the % of a bad person getting their hands on one MUCH larger than if they were illegal. If they did become legal you would have the argument that, "I need my lazer gun to defend myself against people with a lazer gun"

It's just pathetic nonsense. Maybe "well regulated militia" meant we can own certain arms and not certain arms. You don't know. The only thing you can do is use your brain and common sense to determine what your crazy neighbor should be allowed to get their hands on.

---->But common sense is gone with todays political extremeists.<-----

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And it's not just you having the ability to carry one. You want them to be produced large scale and to be in every home of the people that want them. I know you don't understand this concept but this puts the % of a bad person getting their hands on one MUCH larger than if they were illegal. If they did become legal you would have the argument that, "I need my lazer gun to defend myself against people with a lazer gun"

It's just pathetic nonsense. Maybe "well regulated militia" meant we can own certain arms and not certain arms. You don't know. The only thing you can do is use your brain and common sense to determine what your crazy neighbor should be allowed to get their hands on.

---->But common sense is gone with todays political extremeists.<-----

the framers of the constitution trusted the people over the government. if that is extreme, then i'm in damn fine company. Since the founders believed that the people should be as well armed as a standing army, and you do not, what does that make you?

 

[Anti-Party]

the framers of the constitution trusted the people over the government. if that is extreme, then i'm in damn fine company. Since the founders believed that the people should be as well armed as a standing army, and you do not, what does that make you?

I don't want to be a Left Wing parrot but the 2nd amendment was written when it took 10 seconds to reload in between each bullet. They did not account for weapon technology advancements of this magnitude. When our founding fathers said we should be as armed as a standing army they did not have AR-15's with 100 round drums and bullet proof vests.

If you fail to see the gravity of citizens owning what the military today uses then you my friend have lost complete ability to use your brain and are just a party parrot.

Of course you would love to legalize ownership of a Boeing AH-64D Longbow Apache. Again, this defines the line of freedom. You think it's freedom when citizens can own these. I think if people were flying these around freely I would feel in danger all the time and the exact opposite of free.

It's just common sense REGULATIONS ON THE MILITIA. Your failure to acknowledge the words in the Constitution you are preaching as bible is confusing to me. Of course I've had this conversation with a Libertarian who tried to re-define "regulations"......

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't want to be a Left Wing parrot but the 2nd amendment was written when it took 10 seconds to reload in between each bullet. They did not account for weapon technology advancements of this magnitude. When our founding fathers said we should be as armed as a standing army they did not have AR-15's with 100 round drums and bullet proof vests.

the framers were well aware that technology could and would advance, they even specified that citizens could own warships. your argument is weightless.

If you fail to see the gravity of citizens owning what the military today uses then you my friend have lost complete ability to use your brain and are just a party parrot.

wrong.

Of course you would love to legalize ownership of a Boeing AH-64D Longbow Apache. Again, this defines the line of freedom. You think it's freedom when citizens can own these. I think if people were flying these around freely I would feel in danger all the time and the exact opposite of free.

your definition of freedom is wrong.

It's just common sense REGULATIONS ON THE MILITIA. Your failure to acknowledge the words in the Constitution you are preaching as bible is confusing to me. Of course I've had this conversation with a Libertarian who tried to re-define "regulations"......

your failure is not acknowledging how the framers defined the 2nd Amendment. this is not my failure. it makes zero sense to believe that the framers intended for the government to have power over the arms of the people, especially considering that it was the attempted confiscation of arms that started the war for independence.

 

[Anti-Party]

the framers were well aware that technology could and would advance, they even specified that citizens could own warships. your argument is weightless.

wrong.

your definition of freedom is wrong.

your failure is not acknowledging how the framers defined the 2nd Amendment. this is not my failure. it makes zero sense to believe that the framers intended for the government to have power over the arms of the people, especially considering that it was the attempted confiscation of arms that started the war for independence.

Visit a country where they are allowed to carry Assault Rifles in the street. You will notice that they aren't a very free country at all and everyone is scared.

I would love to see the script where a founding father said we should be able to own a warship.

The founders wrote in the ability to make amendments for a reason. The generations have to use their OWN BRAIN to figure out what they believe is correct for their time and if it needs an Amendment, we make one. Nothing triggers a change in peoples minds like horrible things happening to masses of people. Smart people recognize the need for change. The sheep minded parrots get bought out by the NRA and repeat what they are told to repeat.

 

[Timshel]

guess those founders were pretty stupid as well.

The founders did not support yourt insanity. The founders second amendment was a limit on the federal government and left the state's and municipalities with power to regulate arms.

It should not be read as an unlimited right to own weapons and your reading would assure its future repeal.

 

[Anti-Party]

The founders did not support yourt insanity. The founders second amendment was a limit on the federal government and left the state's and municipalities with power to regulate arms.

It should not be read as an unlimited right to own weapons and your reading would assure its future repeal.

The NRA has donated 2.8Million in donations to the Republican party since '03. They tell the Right Wing what to say and they do so.

It seems like no one actually takes a stand and thinks for themself anymore because they just want to repeat what these corrupt parties have to offer.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Common sense rationalizes my belief.

Let me quiz you. Lets say in the future we have a lazer gun that can slice through a building making it fall. It's just a handgun. Should we allow this in the hands of a citizen because of the 2nd amendment?

Yes; because force fields will also have been invented and therefore they will protect the buildings from being sliced through by those silly little hand held lazor's.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Visit a country where they are allowed to carry Assault Rifles in the street. You will notice that they aren't a very free country at all and everyone is scared.

I would love to see the script where a founding father said we should be able to own a warship.

The founders wrote in the ability to make amendments for a reason. The generations have to use their OWN BRAIN to figure out what they believe is correct for their time and if it needs an Amendment, we make one. Nothing triggers a change in peoples minds like horrible things happening to masses of people. Smart people recognize the need for change. The sheep minded parrots get bought out by the NRA and repeat what they are told to repeat.

I am not an NRA member. this is how you fail. and amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult for the very reason you mentioned. to avoid irrational and fear based cowardice.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The founders did not support yourt insanity. The founders second amendment was a limit on the federal government and left the state's and municipalities with power to regulate arms.

It should not be read as an unlimited right to own weapons and your reading would assure its future repeal.

this would entirely depend on the constitution of that state, and I encourage you to attempt to repeal it. you can start by supporting the unlimited right. please document or cite where gun control is promoted by any founder.