I’d have to say that this country seems to value the right to possess firearms more than the right to possess one’s life and safety. Is that civilized? Prudent? Logical?
It doesn’t need to be any of those things. Guns are an item of worship in this country, just as altars and images are in others. The people who worship firearms, know in their minds and hearts, that their religion is the right one and takes precedence over all other beliefs and values.
The nation’s Congress’ loyalty was long ago purchased by the high priests of the Gun Religion, who happen to own numerous firearms and ammunition manufacturing corporations that profit mightily from the practice of said faith.
As far as I know, ours is the only nation in the modern world which has adopted the Gun Religion so enthusiastically and that sends out armed evangelists to cull out the non-believers in incidents such as today’s.
Mandatory Disclosure: I too was once a card-carrying member of the Gun Religion and had several score in my home which I worshipped daily. One day I was “saved” when I realized I was not scared of everyone any more. It was a miracle.
No, access to firearms encompasses more than just a hobby. People rely on them for the defense of their lives. It’s a pretty serious subject.
But more generally, even if you were to put it up to more simplistic terms, yes, I would take that. Your emotional reaction would be “OMG HOW CAN YOU TRADE LIVES FOR RECREATION?!” but the reality is that we make the judgement call all the time. Thousands of people drown in their pools every year. Lots of people die driving fancy sports cars. There are a hundred examples of this sort where we’ve decided these sorts of matters.
How many deaths per year do you think that spree shootings result in? How does this compare to other unnatural causes of death?
Guns save lives all the time. It’s just that they do it in a way that doesn’t make the news. People defend their lives with the threat of deadly force or actually using deadly force. Even if you could magically erase all of the guns in the world, you’d just be leaving the physically weak to the mercy of the physically strong. Guns are a great equalizer.
I’ve posted dozens of posts in various gun control threads - if you’re interested in links I could dig them up. I have no particular desire to rehash Generic Gun Debate #59125.
My main point here is that spree shootings are nothing. Negligible. If you graphed them out, you wouldn’t even see them on the chart. But the media has a field day with these things and you guys love to get your panties in a bunch over them, so the emotional impact is far greater.
My point is that this emotional impact should not be a reason for policy.
Even if you wanted to make a case for banning guns, saying “look at spree killings! Like a hundred people have been killed in the last decade in a country of 300 million!” that’s a pretty shitty argument. Spree killings are a minor side show. Using spree shootings as evidence that now is the time to push a certain policy is either opportunistic or naive.
That’s not what my response was, my response was that before you prohibit something people are currently legally allowed to do, you need to have a solid reason for doing so.
Is your reason “we want to curtail mass shootings” and that’s the end of your argument? Because I’m fine arguing against that, but I’d like you to at least firmly establish what you’re arguing.
I’d have to say this country seems to value the right to drink alcohol more than the right to possess one’s life and safety. Is that civilized? Prudent? Logical?
Are you prepared to advance (and defend) the thesis that curtailing access to guns will have no effect at all on the occurrence of shooting sprees? That making it harder to obtain firearms (although not impossible, because of illegal channels) will simply not reduce their frequency or deadliness at all?
Oh hey, is this where you just make some snide, shitty remark for no reason? I hope everyone applauds you, it was really shitty and really snide!! Yea!!
Closer to 11k, not sure where you’re getting the 15k number, but this is part of my point. Have the debate on those 11k deaths vs whatever benefits gun ownership brings. Don’t have the debate based on “omg something horrible was on the news!!! BAN THEM!!!”
To be so worked up over those 12 (and I know I pulled that number out of my ass - but by all means, dig up the actual numbers - it’s going to be less than 50 by a large margin) deaths per year because they’re dressed up in such an emotional narrative is stupid. Calls for policy changes based on them is stupid. Call for policy changes based on the whole picture.
Incidentally, I expressed this in another thread, and this may seem morbid - but most of these spree shooters aren’t very good at killing people with guns. I’d be more worried about people fiddling with explosives, personally - the Columbine kids and the recent Batman guy both fiddled with explosives but decided it’d be more glorious to go out with guns blazing. Well, that may have saved lives, since explosives are generally much better at killing people than these spree killers are. In a way, guns may offer a release valve on some of these crazies that ultimately results in fewer deaths.
Not saying across the board - maybe some would never try to murder without access to guns - but that’s a factor. Even if you were to magically dissapear all guns, you may not solve the issue of crazies wanting to go out in a blaze of glory.
We could, alcohol kills more people than guns or any illegal drug every single year, both users and innocent victims.
That being said, my actual point was this, you’re questioning is it logical or reasonable that we value firearms possession over lives. My answer to that is yes, it is logical and reasonable, because a huge number of things get valued over lives and in reality for society to function we have to have a lot of things that on some level or another can kill people. That’s the world.
My question to you is why are you asking whether it is logical to have one specific thing that appears to cost people their lives, but you don’t seem to ask that about other things. Now obviously this thread is about a shooting, so your question was at least topical. But I’m asking you to question yourself as to whether you feel the same way about alcohol, why or why not. If you don’t, I think it’d be interesting to explain why certain things that kill people (like alcohol) should be allowed, but guns specifically shouldn’t be allowed.
Or maybe you’re fine with gun ownership, your post was just a question and while I inferred something from it maybe I shouldn’t have, you’re free to clarify.
This. We all know the gun debate is pointless on these boards, totally pointless. We still engage in it for whatever reason, but let’s at least make it about total gun deaths and not spree killing deaths, which truly are less common than lightning strike deaths.
I never said I want them banned. This is a favorite trope of the anti-gun control crowd: There is no difference between regulating guns and banning them outright. Just like I’m not really allowed to drive, because I have to confine my driving to city streets, and not, say, cut across a city park.
I would support limits on the kinds of weapons, including rapid-fire guns [herein insert the second most common trope: HE USED THE WRONG JARGON!! DON’T LISTEN TO HIM!!] and the number than can be possessed. Perhaps not even as few as one, but probably not more than four.
On the other hand, if knowing the right jargon and the right number is essential to a defensible regulatory scheme, then I’ll make it easy on myself: ban the whole fucking lot.
Firstly, I wasn’t saying you wanted them banned, I wasn’t actually sure what you were advocating which is why I said “banned” and then “or restricted in some way” in a parenthetical statement.
There is a difference between regulating guns and banning them outright. In Germany guns are highly regulated, but they certainly aren’t banned.
But to get back to the point, you’re saying you would enact these restrictions to reduce spree killing deaths, yes or no?
