I editted to add, but I will repost instead: I assume I probably interpret it largely the same way you do, as I think the militia argument holds little to no water besides ideological and pragmatic convenience: within certain restrictions, similar to those placed upon other seemingly-absolute constitutional rights (Sure, I have the right to peaceably assemble, but not in your living room or while naked), one may own guns. However, until you nail down what the reasonable restrictions would be, this is merely shifting the goalposts. I agree that the Constitution currently grants some vague and ill-defined right to individually bear arms. I just don't really care. OK, but he probably could have killed or maimed a pretty large number with just a few pistols. If you practice every once a while, bring ammo, and have 15 minutes? Your odds are pretty good against first graders and their teachers. I'd love if we could just ban the "bad guns." But there are enough pistols out there, and pistols are effective enough, that the effect will be approximately the same.
The fundamental difference lies in the time. The 2nd amendment was written in a time when "guns" were muskets and small one-shot handguns that took a minute to reload between shots and were generally pretty inaccurate. They weren't the death machines that we have today. If one of the "founders" went to a gun show today, he'd shit his breeches and say "yeah, you probably shouldn't let the bipolar schizophrenic guy buy 400 of those." Second of all, the "government" they were rising up against was a monarchy. They were rising up against a tyrant that wasn't elected. In America, we elect our officials, and despite popular belief from the party that loses, elections are rarely rigged and voter fraud is pretty insignificant. The problem is that the nationally elected party in power in the Senate and the White House happens to be in favor of "more government," and the party that is in the minority can't fathom that they are, in fact, the MINORITY now. They scream that the majority actually wants less government, but the 2012 election results sure as shit beg to differ. Therefore, they need to stockpile their guns in the hopes that they can finally rise up against the government they didn't vote for and that they can't fathom others DID vote for (and that's not getting into the whole semi-racist "this isn't OUR nation anymore!" mantra screamed by old white guys across America). Finally, I don't get too into the whole 'hunting' debate (because honestly, I could give two shits about hunting, and if you do genuinely like to hunt, I am not against it), but (in my opinion) the difference between 1776 and now is that hunting back then was a NECESSARY thing to get meat and just generally survive. Guns were genuinely a tool necessary for survival. Hunting today is a sport, and is about as necessary as a second asshole. Sure, a second asshole might make life easier, but it isn't necessary. And all the guns created now aren't really meant for hunting. Why do you need a gun that can fire hundreds of rounds per minute to shoot a fucking deer or a rabbit? Answer? You don't, but that doesn't make it any less boner inducing for a gun nut to own one "for hunting." You're not hunting for fucking elephants in the United States, you don't need a gun that can fire a bullet through a fucking car door. Bottom line? We have a democratically elected Government with checks and balances in place, rather than an unelected monarch, and the weaponry now is about one million times more advanced than it was in 1776. Furthermore, guns back then were a necessity for survival, as hunting was necessary for survival, but in the modern age, hunting is a completely unnecessary sport. But you're right. There is ABSOLUTELY no difference between then and now. How many other cultures have 24 hour news cycles that glorify violence the way ours does? "If it bleeds, it leads." Fuck, there was a picture on the front of a major New York newspaper of a guy literally seconds before he was killed by a subway train, and people barely batted a fucking eye. That is how fucked up our culture is. There was a massive shooting in Aurora, Colorado just a few months ago. I'd wager that if you went on the street and asked people what city that "Batman" shooting took place in, 75% wouldn't know, because we've moved on and become desensitized to it. It takes literally 20 small children being gunned down in cold blood for us to finally get slapped in the face with it. Our national sport, the NFL, is an inherently incredibly violent sport. I know people who watch NASCAR in the hopes of seeing a big fiery crash. There are internet videos of people being murdered, or animals being tortured, and there are sick fucks that watch that shit regularly, and you want them to have full access to all the firearms they could possibly stockpile. There is an undeniable blood-lust in our culture, and I'm sorry if it offends you, but it is FUCKED UP. There are people out there who research serial killers like Berkowitz or Manson. They glorify these fucking lunatics and the media ends up putting them on a pedestal and making them famous. The name Adam Lanza is forever going to be etched into our nations increasingly fucked up history, because our blood-lust of a national discourse demands that we know everything there is to know about this psychopath and that his story is one that be retold again and again and again. If his endgame was to get famous, he fucking won. Good, you get sarcasm.
...as the writings of people who decided what was necessary at the time. Which was, you know, a little while ago. Before firearm technology had gotten to the point where you could accurately mow down a dozen people from a distance with a single, small weapon. Not to mention, written at a time where the technology of war itself was a more level playing field - a muzzle-loader was about as good as it got for anyone. A small number of personal firearms is a little less effective against the army these days.
I should have made this clearer - I wasn't talking about middle of nowhere unsafe countries - you clearly cannot compare that to the situation in the US. I was talking countries like my home Eastern European ones, members of EU, among the top world countries by GDP per capita and Human Development Index and what not. Still, the corruption and abuse of power by the government and police is amazing, and there people really do not trust the police, and for good reasons. I should have also specified. I am a foreigner, but I have lived in the US for more than 10 years, and feel at home here much more than at "home" based on my passport. And I have certainly interacted with the American police many many times - from speeding tickets, car crashes, robberies, neighbor's domestic disputes, etc. And so have my friends (yeah, we are poor and live in sketchy neigbhorhoods). Hell, I work in the healthcare field, and many of the people I worked with come to the hospital, handcuffed, basically dragged by the police. As you are trying to treat a drunk man who just shot his pregnant girlfriend and then crashed his car trying to flee the crime scene, as he is spitting in your face and yelling "Fuck Da Police" and "fuck you, bitch, I'm gonna kill you bitch", and as those police officers and security personnel help subdue him so you can do your job and save his worthless ass..."Fuck Da Police" changes its meaning. Never ever was I mistreated by the police. I have been protected by them, protected from violent assholes and idiots with weapons. I also have the displeasure of following American politics. Best part? I have been paying taxes for years, but cannot vote because I am foreign. Cry me a river, at least you can vote, and if people's vote is in the minority, they should take a hint. Not try to secede. As far as I know those states been trying to secede ever since the Civil War ended, so no news there. Also, if you look at statistics of police confidence that you just presented, and compare that to police confidence statistics in the rest of the developed countries, US is right in the middle. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_con_in_soc_ins_pol-lifestyle-confidence-social-institutions-police" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_c ... ons-police</a> (old link, but best I could find for cross country comparisons). The confidence in police is dropping for example in the UK, yet you do not see the people arming themselves as a first response. TLDR: Many interactions with police, no problems. US in the middle of rich countries in terms of confidence in police. Still confused why the family of my friend owns an old tank (legally) and assault weapons. Do not want them as neighbors, will turn to police for help.
Well d26, that I can agree with. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when a single gunman killing on a scale of 20+ seemed nigh-impossible, with no reason to expect this sort of development in the approaching future; also, they could not be reasonably expected to imagine a time when 99% of the populace had no legitimate need of hunting. I imagine that is why they gave us amendments. That being said, I did not ask you about the 2nd Amendment. I asked you about the American Revolution. As far as democracy... shrug. Democracies do plenty of shitty things, especially historically. If you regard democracies as that trustworthy, you have more faith in your fellow man than I do. The idea that one may be morally justified in shooting the fist of a king and not of the potentially-deplorable 51% doesn't make a ton of intrinsic sense to me.
My argument is, is that if you flip your argument, why do you have no parity between gun deaths and alcohol related deaths? Aren't all preventable deaths equal? Why are guns such an evil boogyman and alcohol and DUI related deaths, the social ills of which are widely known, something no one will address? Yet somehow zero gun deaths is your mind is the only answer yet you do not have the same zeal for a inanimate object the kills just as many people. Yes, as a society we accept the risk on the things we do. The risk of being killed by a maniac gunman with a assault weapon is minuet at best. Saying that to the Sandy victims parents would be cold and callous as would be telling the parents of a child killed in a DUI accident we have to accept it because alcohol consumption is a social norm (also if these emotional "could you say this to the Sandy victims" argument is the best you have. It certainly a far cry from the arguments you put up last go around.)
Are you suggesting that modern society would come to a grinding halt without civilian-owned handguns? Because that is why we tolerate car deaths. I for one would like to actually lay out what you think is flaws in the text that you quoted.
You are misreading what I said. Im talking strictly about car deaths in relation to DUIs as one, they are criminal acts, two are a comparable evil we seem to tolerate on the level of gun homicides.
I have found this to be true. My wife has had a gun pulled and pointed at her twice before. After that she really didn't want anything to do with them. When we got married a had a target pistol. She knew this, she didn't like it but was ok with it. As time went on and as i explained how to properly handle a gun, how to properly store it, how to properly use it, and everything that went along with being a responsible gun owner. She actually wants to go get her restricted license(canadain license for pistols/ar types) and join me at the range.
First off, why are pro-gunners alway so quick to come up with different ways these killings could have gone down, like it makes the situation better or their argument valid? Second, I didn't know pistols could hold 30 rounds, but why the fuck would you need that? Why couldn't you guys, as apparently reasonable gun owners say, "You know what, I only need something that holds 10 (five?) rounds in the unlikely event of a home invader, and re-loading after 10 wouldn't totally ruin my day at the gun range, so in the interests of not letting psychos get more than ten shots at a time (when it inevitably happens, which you know it will), I will sacrifice SOME of this thing I hold so dear"? And again, if you aren't willing to sacrifice, fair enough, but don't pretend that your unwillingness isn't directly related to mass shootings like these. Again, what's your point? They're both horrible and both should be curbed. Your argument isn't exactly in good company. The difference is I haven't heard anyone promote things that would directly increase the likelihood of DUI's, where as the pro-gun argument of "access to any and all guns is our right", directly increases the likelihood of gun deaths. Thanks again for reasonableness, but honestly, just stop with the car analogy, or any other variation of the tool/weapon argument. Cars have many purposes, knives have at least a couple -- shit, even explosives are used as actual tools to make things. Do accidents happen, or are they sometimes used as weapons? Of course. But guns have and will always have exactly one single purpose: to put holes in things, most often living things. That is their sole, intended use and the fact you guys need to have this explained to you shows just how big of a problem you have.
His point is- even if they are banned, you can accomplish the same thing with other means quite easily. It would be a very ineffective law (like gun control laws in general).
I see. For what it's worth, reported gun deaths outnumber DUI-specific deaths by a factor of one-and-a-half to three depending on source/year; another critical difference is that I have never heard of people DUIing with malicious intent for others. I suspect there is a major difference in enforcement: for every one DUI death, there are over 80 arrests. I can't find any number of arrests for gun related issues, but the number of reported violent crimes is less than half the annual DUI arrest total. And many (most?) of those involve no guns. I would be very surprised in illegal firearm arrests were frequent enough to make up that gap. But nonetheless, this is a fair point. I'm hardly a pro-gunner, if you had read the last several pages. I might be kindly disposed towards second amendment repeal. I am also, however, kindly disposed towards good arguments being made. I just think the idea that you can stop these sorts of attacks by forcing the perpetrators to use pistols rather than some other sort of gun is fallacious. Maybe the death toll will be slightly lower next time: he kills 23 kids and adults instead of 26. But let's not pretend that banning particular sorts of guns will stop these attacks. Yes you have. I imagine you in fact engaged in such an activity at least three times in the last week. Kubla Khan's point is that no one seems in a hurry to ban alcohol.
I would, as well. Explain to me how hunting today is necessary for survival, as it was in 1776. Explain to me why it is necessary to carry a gun that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute to hunt a deer, or a rabbit, or a fox, or really any other animal. Explain to me what you are hunting in the United States of America that requires high powered rifles that are capable of firing through a car door. Is the hide of a deer so thick that a gun that powerful is necessary? Wouldn't a gun that powerful, in fact, ruin the hide of a deer or, quite frankly, cause small animals to explode into nothingness? It is one thing if you're hunting elephants in Africa, but the average hunter in the United States is hunting deer. I am not attacking hunting in the United States. Again, if you hunt, I really don't give a fuck. I am attacking the notion that some of these weapons that are created are used for 'hunting,' and the notion that hunting is somehow still necessary for survival in the modern United States of America. Even hunters call it a 'sport,' and sports are, by their very nature, NOT necessary, but rather done for fun and leisure. I guarantee hunters in 1776 weren't hunting for fun. They were hunting so they wouldn't starve to death. I also guarantee they weren't using highly accurate semi-automatic high powered weaponry. They were using unreliable, inaccurate, take-forever-to-reload muskets.
It is completely fallacious. If they enact a new "Assault Rifle Ban", I'd bet it will resemble the old one and simply go after cosmetic things that make no real impact on the effectiveness of the guns themselves. Like banning sprinkles on donuts.
See, you're illustrating the problem with implementing "common sense restrictions," the term so many politicians throw around. You've already stated that you don't have a problem with home defense, but you do have a problem with a guy being able to carry enough ammunition to carry out the attack on Friday. If you're going to say that we have to do something (and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do something), you must define what that is. If you're unhappy with the capacity of the current magazines, what should the maximum capacity be, and why? It doesn't matter that all of us are upset over this and want to prevent it in the future unless we're willing to sit down and define what it is we're going to do. We cannot wave a magic wand and make it all go away. If you think we should ban all guns, stand up and say that. If you think some guns are okay and others are not, which ones are they? If you're going to use the excuse that you're not educated enough about guns to tell us, then you need to bow out of the discussion until you are educated enough.
I think the bolded part is just a part where we differ based on our upbringing. I am under no illusions that somehow guns aren't designed for killing. But the fact that you say it is their sole intended use is just flat out wrong and a difference we may never see eye to eye on. Having been raised around guns, their proper use, safety, and multiple uses in various hobbies, as well as the great joys they bring as a leisure time activity. I just do not see guns as some demonized military destruction unit as you seem to do. Intended use to me is finding a bullet load I create that brings the holes on a piece of paper closer together or hunting dangerous and/or delicious game. That goes for AR-15's, that goes for 30 round clips, that goes for Barret .50 cal sniper rifles. Just because you see it only one way doesn't mean that's how it is. As with alcohol, as with anything that can be dangerous, I don't think the entire populace should suffer restrictions and banning because of the bad apples. We could keep with this line of argument where you demonize and balkanize the board or we could try and find things that we can mutually agree on and work from there.
I think the point here is that implementing regulations and tighter restrictions on either guns themselves or gun ownership will not significantly impact society, since guns have a basic purpose of killing things. Implementing regulations or more restrictions on vehicles would have a serious impact on society, since cars have a basic purpose that has nothing to do with killing things.
Shit, I have typed responses and deleted them about three times since this thread started. You guys are making much better arguments than I can. D26, I appreciate that you didn't bail on this thread. I disagree with many of your opinions, I enjoy getting other viewpoints if for no other reason than to remind me why I believe what I do. Two comments for you: One, where I live, I know a number of people that rely on hunting and stocking their freezer with deer meat to help their family. So, we all bring our biases to form opinions based on our own experiences; I understand why you don't relate to that. And, you can get high-powered ammo for lots of different gun types - not everyone who owns a rifle purchases ammo that can or will shoot through an armored vehicle. And, some high-powered ammo may just be for longer shots. Second, you've brought up the "musket" comment several times. I know that 1776 and 1791 are not that far apart, but I would think that during their lifetimes, the authors of the 2nd amendment saw at least some advances in weaponry. Yet, they chose the word "arms" not "muskets," and the 2nd amendment doesn't mention hunting or the need to put food on the table as a reason to bear those arms. In the case that started this thread, Adam Lanza had mental problems. He used a gun that had the ability to fire multiple rounds to gain access to the school. Why? Some seem to suggest that if he had not had access to the guns, this wouldn't have happened. And, likely, that exact scenario would've then been different. But, what would it have been? Without access to guns, he wouldn't have magically been cured of his problems. Maybe he strangles his mother and sets fire to the school instead or something. So, for this case, isn't the more important debate how to address his issues and recognizing them, response time, levels of school security? If we're going to argue the impact of guns on this particular case, wouldn't it be fair to argue that if the principal at Sandy Hook had been armed and trained, this also might have had a different result?