First - you didn’t actually answer my question to you -
Yes, that is what laws are for. Our current laws are there for this purpose. Our constitution is there to prevent laws being enacted that violate our sense of ordered liberty that firearm ownership is fundamental to. Our constitution can be amended if we believe it is in our best interests to do so. So it’s rather facile to characterize it as “it’s just that you don’t want such limitations”, but that has some truth to it.
This is a two part question. To the first, yes there should be restrictions. The nature of those are debatable of course. I personally think full auto should be fine. It’s quite fun, though unbelievably expensive.
This is not an either/or question. I believe essentially all of the limitations that have been proposed recently will e of little efficacy towards reducing firearm homicide, so on their face I oppose them. I simultaneously believe that it is a more effective strategy to oppose all limitations to as to not embolden further limitations. That is a sufficient criteria for me, but for the sake of debate I could engage on any individual limitation without relying on the latter portion above.
Have you actually read Heller? This idea that the protection only extends to technology that existed at the time of its drafting was directly addressed in the opinion and it was dismissed as idiocy (that’s my editorializing, but it was dismissed).
Actaully, suicide is closer to 2/3 of the total, and rising recently. So when you talk about magazine limits to reduce gun “violence” or “death”, you are including suicides. And since they are about 2/3 of the total, it’s a fair criticism that your presentation is misleading either intentionally or not.
And yes, suicide and homicide both result in death, but it’s ridiculously shortsighted to think the solutions to address suicide would be the same as that to solve issues regarding homicide. And about the comparison with other countries, see post #159.
And yes, the NY Times came out and is advocating for banning guns. I am shocked! Bears shit in the woods too. It’s like the echo chamber is full circle - it’s a big deal because they say it’s a big deal, but what they are saying is not a novel idea or surprise - it’s widely believed they want to ban guns already.
The history, culture, and system of laws are sufficiently different in the US to make most comparisons difficult to be of any use, IMO. That’s not American Exceptionalism - just differences.
Utah and Idaho are as white as Canada and the UK in terms of demographics, but those two states have significantly higher murder rates than Canada and the UK. Do you think is possible that the amount of guns in those two states might have something to do with that?
That’s not how I understood you to be using the term American Exceptionalism. It has nothing to do with America. If I were in Canada, and someone compared things in other country, I would feel the same way. That’s nice, it’s not persuasive in the least. It’s not unique to America, in the way I was thinking of it.
In any case, differences make it hard to affect change, yes. Differences aren’t necessarily better. I have no desire to go towards other country’s gun laws.
But see here’s the rub. I addressed two of your sets of questions, and you have now avoided answering mine twice. Do you think that’s having a discussion in good faith? Yes the first amendment has limitations. So does the second. Kumbaya!
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that this was snark rather than an honest question. Because as an honest question, it’s silly.
I don’t care about cars means, I don’t much care what kind of car I drive. It doesn’t mean that I don’t care if other cars on the road are dangerously unsafe to their drivers and to my family.
I don’t care about guns means that despite living in some shitty neighborhoods, I’ve never needed or wanted a gun and it’s not something I ever anticipate picking up as a hobby. It doesn’t mean that I don’t care if the mentally ill and people on terrorist watch lists are permitted to own as many weapons as they want with unlimited fire power.
I don’t care about the object doesn’t mean that I don’t care about how it could end up killing my family.
Ok - I think if a person proposes something, concludes that is reasonable, that should be based on an understanding of the subject matter.
That means proposing restrictions on appearance cannot be taken seriously and anyone that does is not a serious person. (Not saying you’ve done that). Related, proposalss also about electronic limits on firing rate should be based on knowledge about how those would function and the tradeoffs of the proposal. Without this basis I think it would be premature to conclude something is reasonable.
So yes it would be silly to construe the “not caring” as you’ve described. But once you draw the conclusion that it is reasonable then the question is fair game.
Similarly, someone who objects to research and in so doing makes their ignorance on the topic evident is not a serious person. That person cannot be taken seriously and should be disregarded.
I’ve lived in Utah for a little over 20 years now, so this post interested me. In 2013, the Census Bureau estimated that Utah’s population was 2,813,673 (cite). It’s also worth noting that Utah’s “white, non-hispanic” population was estimated at 80.1% in 2013. We’ve also got 13.1% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 1% black, 1% Native American, 0.9% Pacific Islanders, and some other odds and ends thrown in. I believe that makes us a little more white than Canada and a little less white than the UK.
According to the FBI’s 2013 UCR, Utah had 49 murders, 31 of which were committed with a firearm (cite). I’m not very good at math, but I believe that comes out to a murder rate of 1.7 per 100,000 Utahns. If race is a factor you’re considering here (which it seems to be), it’s worth noting that our 1% black population supplied 5.88% of our murderers (and 7.84% of our murder victims), and our 1.9% Asian or Pacific Islander population supplied 2.94% of our murderers (and 3.92% of our victims) in 2013 (cite, which apparently doesn’t distinguish between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites).
I don’t really know if there’s a better source, but according to UNODC, the intentional homicide rate in Canada and the UK were 1.4 and 1.0 respectively. 1.7 > 1.4 > 1.0. Personally, I suspect it has more to do with the youth of our population (Utah is far and away the youngest state in the Union). Murder is largely a young man’s game, and we have lots of young men.
It may be American Exceptionalism, but in this case I think that is an appropriate approach.
Some years ago I started a thread asking if any other country in the world protected the right to bear arms in their constitution. The consensus of the Dopers was that no other country did. (I think a couple of Latin American countries had provisions about firearms, but nothing as strong as the Second Amendment - they were explicitly subject to legislative limits, etc.)
When a country puts something in their constitution as a right, that is a statement that in that country, that thing is a Constitutional Good Thing. Other countries may not agree with it, but in that country, that thing is a positive thing.
In the US, private ownership of guns is a Constitutional Good Thing by that standard. It’s in the Constitution and therefore is a Good Thing. Debates about guns have to start from that premiss.
And the US is unique in that regard. Only the US has decided that private ownership is a Constitutional Good Thing. That constitutional position affects all subsequent discussion of the issue in the US, both in terms of constitutional/legal issues, but also in the way people approach the issue as a matter of politics and policy.
Proponents of firearm ownership start with a major advantage in the US, in a way that they do not in any other country.
So yes, I think that firearm ownership in the US is properly discussed in a constitutional, legal and popular opinion context that is not shared by any other country on Earth. Firearms ownership is probably the best example where the concept of American Exceptionalism is accurate and appropriate.
I’m just applying your stated principle consistently. People who express opposition on a subject while demonstrating rank ignorance can be disregarded as unserious. So, sorry, but there you have it. You can still read along though, if you like.
And since the First Amendment was written before radio, television, the internet, copiers, high speed printers, e-books and the like, it should clearly only apply to stuff printed on a 18th century hand worked printing press.
You pose two separate questions:
[ol]
[li]Are you saying the differences make it hard to affect change?[/li][li]Are you saying that the differences mean we don’t need to change?[/li][/ol]
To question #1: Differences between countries that are being compared make it hard to affect change, yes. This is not my main objection. To question #2: No, the differences don’t mean that we don’t need to change - they don’t mean anything persuasive because countries are hard to compare in this fashion. And just becauase countries have different laws than the US, that doesn’t make them better. Different isn’t necessarily better and I have no desire to move towards other country’s gun laws.
