Guns
Fellow Dutchman ‘Joey’ left a comment in the Tragedy At Amish Schoolhouse thread. His comment was the following:
When does America finally do something about the amount of guns freely available to anyone in the country?
The reason that I quote Joey is that he is asking a question many, many, many, many (fellow) Europeans ask themselves (and if possible they will ask this to Americans) just about every time something is reported about a tragedy like this one at the Amish schoolhouse, or when we hear about the gang wars in US cities, the list goes on and on.
One could very well argue that, rationally, guns cause more harm than good. That the right to bear arms, is not protecting Americans, but hurting Americans.
That, although legally people indeed have the, unquestionable, right to bear arms, it is quite a different thing politically: laws can be changed.
Guns do not serve some noble purpose: they are designed to help people kill (or severely wound) other people (or animals).
On the other hand the conviction that people should have the right to own weapons / guns, is deeply ingrained in American culture / history. One could very well make this case by simply pointing out that the right to bear arms is the second Amendement of the Bill of Rights: that says it all, doesn’t it?
Personally, I would enjoy knowing more about that -> the conviction that people should be able to own all kinds of weapons, that taking away that right would somehow severely limit one’s personal freedom, &c. So if any one of you could explain that to me: it would be greatly appreciated.
However, the intention of this post is not that ‘request’, the intention is to start a debate: the right to bear arms: unquestionable or time to change the law?
59 Responses to “Guns”
Elite, do you honestly believe that the militarily powerful nazi Germany was deterred from invading Switzerland because its citizens had guns? The nazis had no fear of facing the Soviet Red army when it invaded Russia, so I hardly think the nazis were deterred by citizen gun owners of Switzerland. The gun crowd makes the most lame arguments in justifying their opposition to any regulations of firearms.
Laura,
Hitler may have felt it wasn’t worth invading Switzerland, wasting time and taking losses, since the country was neutral and not a threat. In that sense, the well-armed and militarized population of Switzerland may have well preserved its independence during WWII.
A country doesn’t necessarily have to be capable of winning an all out war to deter another country, it just has to be capable of being enough of a pain the ass not to be worth the effort.
Jim S.
even items such as that used by a gunman last year in Kansas City when he was able to use a .50 caliber military weapon to shoot at emergency workers when they responed to the house explosion and fire he set. This rifle punched through a responding ambulance to hit and almost kill the driver. Sorry, I don’t think that weapon should be available.
Then where will it end, Jim? .50 caliber was already set as the limit a long time ago. That is why you can’t buy say .60 or .75 caliber bullets. Should we slim it down to .45? When people argue .45 is too much, will we have to go down to .40 or .38 or 9mm? When someone argues that these are really too much, will we be forced down to .25 or even .22 caliber.
You might argue that it isn’t a slippery slope. I would argue that is probably what they told people when they originally restricted bullets to .50 caliber. “It isn’t a slippery slope,” they said, “we are stopping here.” And here we are and you want to go further. Gun control advocates always say it isn’t a slippery slope and then they proceed to prove themselves wrong every single time.
Mikkel said:
MichaelF I assume you are for legalizing drugs? Personally I used to be for gun control but then was convinced that it is for the best not to both pragmatically and idealistically (in theory I’m for an “assault-rifle” ban if they were a problem, but the research I’ve done shows that they are used in so few crimes that I am not certain they are).
You would be correct. We can debate all the issues surrounding drug laws but ultimately the issue is one of freedom of choice for me. I feel a drug thread coming on.
I am not in Europe, I’m in Washington D.C. and I do favor reduction of automobiles that waste gas, including those that waste it by excessive speed. But this is a non-sequitor and proves my point
It is neither a non-sequitor nor does it prove your point as I confined the issue to the design of an item without regard to other aspects.
First of all it need not “waste” gas. On a practical level my large Suv,’s transport a family of 4 plus two dogs on many occasions, even more when my soccer Mom wife is car pooling. Run the numbers. Individuals driving alone waste more gas even by your limited definition of what it means to waste gas . Recreational use may not be important to you, but others find it quite valuable. Consider the amount of energy expended on the worlds golf courses. According to your definition, it is all wasted.
B8ovin said :
I am not in Europe, I’m in Washington D.C. and I do favor reduction of automobiles that waste gas, including those that waste it by excessive speed. But this is a non-sequitor and proves my point
My response above was to his comment
Just remembered the phrase “Son of a Gun’…what does that mean?
MichaelF Said: It is neither a non-sequitor nor does it prove your point as I confined the issue to the design of an item without regard to other aspects.
On the contrary, it is a non-sequitor because it proposes to shift the debate to an unrelated topic: guns are not important because automobiles kill more people through accidents. This is a non-sequitor. Guns kill people whether cars do or not. This is the topic of discussion. When I bring up lawn darts it is relevent because it shows that legislation has been used to limit dangerous items, and items of far less consequence: it is connected. Bringing up accident rates of cars is irrelevent.
But it DOES prove my point not on the basis of wasted gas, which is another non-sequitor, but because, as the ensuing paragraph illustrated, the use of the automobile is highly restricted and regulated, which is what I propose we mandate for guns. Please note, I am not positing a carte blanche criminalization of all guns.
Forgetting the gun issue for the moment, and returning to your SUV, the fact that there are alternatives to SUVs, that mandated minimal MPG standards are fought by the auto makers of said SUVs, and that more modern and effective emission controls are not standard for said SUVs frames your “family car pool” in a weak perspective. If your family existed in a vacuum of alternatives you might be right that your arrangement is the best of all possible alternatives. But it does not. Thus, I will continue to wish for restriction of “wasted” gas.
I believe, on review or your remarks and my response that I missed the point you made: the design of cars to exceed posted and reasonable speed limits creates vehicles subject to abuse, just as guns do.
It remains a non-sequitor because it frames the debate in such a way that if we don’t do one we shouldn’t or can’t do the other. This of course is nonsense. We could easily advocate for one without the other or both. It’s like saying children choke on peanut butter and are accidentally killed by guns, therefore, until we ban or limit peanut butter we shouldn’t ban or limit guns.
While it is true that automobiles designed for speed add to the accident rate, they are not exclusive to the accident rate. Cars designed strictly for transportation and with maximum safety design are also involved in accidents. Guns are designed for killing and nothing else. There is no “accidental” death caused by guns, as that is their intended use. There is only accidental use. Cars are primarily used for transport.Related death is accidental.
While this may sound pedantic at first blush, it is a reasonable argument in that it separates the overall social good and intention of the two items: guns and automobiles. The majority of automobile uses are safe and reasonable. The majority, one could argue the entirety, of gun uses results in the death of something, including people. Even limiting the discussion to cultural opinion demonstrates the difference: an overwhelming majority of people would agree that the automobile in normal use is beneficial. A congruent consensus would not be reached for guns, as this entire discussion would illustrate.