And they’re still the great equalizer in a world with strong political and legal institutions. The police can’t always get there in time.
That’s fine. No one seriously thinks that disarmament will end all murder. People who want to kill other people will do so whether we have laws, police, or any other inhibiting factor. So what?
You’re not afraid but you are looking for protection. That doesn’t really hold together. I don’t think the police can do much to protect me in some kind of short but violent situation, but that’s part of the risk I take when I leave the house every day.
Gun ownership as a “right” makes the entire public discourse toxic. Our society regulates lots of other important commodities, but none of them have the same result because owning a car isn’t a RIGHT, owning a mortgage isn’t a RIGHT, buying cigarettes isn’t a RIGHT, etc. Yet we don’t take all of these things away, we just regulate them sensibly, though there is plenty of room for disagreement about the particulars. If gun ownership weren’t a right, then we have a shot at trying to do the same thing. States end up taking perverse end-runs around national jurisprudence. The current scheme of gun control is bizarre, drastically inconsistent across states, and is frequently abused by people on all sides of the issue.
Then your town has the same population as my state senate district. My district is maybe 10-15 square miles, tops.
Then how in the world could you believe that letting guns proliferate will change the issues with people who feel they can or must rob/attack/kill others? In my town, getting a gun is all but impossible. Our murder rate happens to be extraordinarily low. So either we have people here who are less murderous to begin with or something about the way we run this place affects how many people get killed.
When I see poor, possibly entitled people, my first response is not to want to own a firearm.
I’d have to say that based upon your profile location, the murder rate there seems extremely high. 
Good one. But clearly, it didn’t kill me. 
A couple problems with your logic:
-
You say the objective is to “create a just world”. So how exactly does repealing the 2nd Amendment create a just world?
-
If, indeed, your objective is truly to create a just world, then I can think of a lot more cost effective ways of getting closer to that goal than spending shiploads of money to change the Constitution. (How much do you think it would cost to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Don’t you think that money could be MUCH more wisely spent in other ways that could help to create a just world?)
*But you do get bonus points for at least acknowledging that your objective is really not to save lives…altho your stated objective/remedy has me puzzled.
You are aware that “rights” are indeed regulated, are you not?? Free speech is a “right”, but can you go into a crowded theater and yell “Fire!”? The answer of course is NO, because although you have a right to free speech, that right is regulated. There are many, MANY ways that rights are regulated, so your position, once again, has me puzzled.
Have you met my distant cousin, Wladislaus Dragwlya, vaivoda partium Transalpinarum? He could give you a few tips and pointers.
You are making inferences without warrant.
[/quote]
The first best solution is universal voluntary disarmament. This is obviously unlikely for a variety of reasons, one of which is because people claim that they have a right to own guns and will not suffer their rights to be abridged.
The second best solution is to regulate firearms sensibly and rationally. At the moment, the gun manufacturers’ lobby rejects any and all efforts at rational regulation by characterizing such regulation as an infringement on Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Rights don’t come from a higher power; they are just an articulation of claims US citizens can make on their government. So the first step to neutralizing the gun lobby and proceeding with regulation is to remove the second amendment.
It would cost a great deal, and the people who feel strongly about it would bear this cost. I cannot think of a fairer allocation. You might be able to think of cheaper alternatives in line with your personal preferences, but that is neither here nor there. It might be cheaper for the NRA to bribe pro-gun control advocates instead of spending ghastly sums of money on lobbying efforts that might fail, too.
There are lots of ways to save lives. There is nothing stopping us from doing all of them. This happens to be a timely and topical one at the moment, so the time is right for a push to action.
That’s because you are not reading the words on the page.
The problem is not that rights can’t be regulated but that the public discourse about guns is made utterly toxic by issues of rights. Other activist organizations respond to any perceived infringement on other rights as an intolerable imposition, too. Consider the ACLU and NARAL. But a large swath of the country thinks that these organizations are disreputable as it is and none are backed by industry groups like the NRA. We also have the burden of some unfortunate gun-related jurisprudence to overcome. So while guns are a right, supported by a small and highly organized industry with deep links with the government, and appeal to a base with the rhetoric of rights, we aren’t going to get anywhere. I want to erode this organization’s appeal, so mobilizing popular support to excise the second amendment looks like the path ahead. Piecemeal, bogus gun control that has to skirt around SC jurisprudence and that galvanizes the supporters of the NRA is just not the way to go.
And here you hit on my third big problem with the current push: so far there have not been any efforts that were sensible, or, frankly, rational.
If this were about swimming pools, the equivalent would be to ban new pool construction of anything deeper than 2’. It would take a long, long time, at best, before the number of children drowning would go down.
So we have a solution that doesn’t fix the problem, proposed by people who will not bear the cost, justified with " if it saves only one life" . This is what upsets me. Currently it is about guns, but we’ve seen it before.
Like the MADD initiative to lower the legal alcohol limit further, to solve the problem of repeat drunk drivers.
Now I don’t drive when I’ve had anything to drink, and I am ambivalent about guns, but the rethoric and logical fallacies disturb me.
So, that doesn’t jive with the earlier position, that people who want to outlaw guns are looking for a “just” world. So again, I ask - are these people delusional? How could there be anything near a “just” world if we still have people who want to kill other people? Gun deaths are a symptom, not the disease.
No, not really. I’m older, have arthritis and am female. In my younger days I could easily (or at least easier) deal with threats without needing a firearm, but these days not so much. I’m also not interested in having to deal with a threat in any sort of up close way, so having a gun about takes care of that as well.
I am not particularly concerned with my day to day life, but since I drive all over the western states with a few trips into the midwest, and end up in less than desirable places, sometimes in the middle of the night, I’d be a fool if I didn’t take any measures to make sure I could protect myself should something arise. That said, in almost 40 years of driving, I’ve only had to display a firearm twice and one of those was at home.
Hmm, OK, I can see this. Tho nothing is a RIGHT no matter what is written down - felons are not allowed to own guns are they?
Where in the world do you live that it is all but impossible to get a gun? I can’t think of any place in the US where I couldn’t just go buy a gun.
Nope, but when you end up living in among the result of that, you end up having to come up with ways to hold on to anything you own. It’s a whole other thread, but far too many poor- really poor - people are not interested in working hard and making their way up the ladder. They want it all “fixed” and fixed now. Other than winning the Lotto, the only ways they can do that are illegal. And generally violent.
He won’t say, and I can’t think of any large USA metro area where you have a low murder rate and can’t buy a gun. It is very difficult to buy a gun in Wash DC, but they have a rather high crime rate.
So, perhaps Oz? Narnia?
Care to tell us where you do live?
In other words, cite?
Oh? It’s a secret?
He’s being coy, and the only reason i can think of is that there is no such US city.
Even without coyness, I can’t imagine there is any significantly sized city in the US that has severe restrictions on gun ownership and a low murder rate. I do think he must live overseas.
I thought about just empty-quoting this, but, you might like to know that this isn’t at all what I was thinking of. Yes, the Scotes have the final meaningful interpretation of the law. No shit, Sherlock. Even if the bottom 11th percentile (I’m looking at you, Scalia) writes some superficially silly shit about a matter of law, it is worth at least a very serious look.
I live in Manhattan. New York County. Good luck buying a legal handgun in my city.Crime is low. Draw your own conclusions.
Violent crime in NYC is pretty square in the middle, same with murder:
That’s only if you look at the median and compare it uncritically to cities with, say, 10-20% of its population.
Your cite doesn’t work. I googled buying a shotgun in New York county and found you could do so without permit.
Read for … at least comprehension curlcoat. Maeglin said handgun, not shotgun.
And the violent crime dip in NYC after disarmament has been pretty well documented.