That’s sort of the point, isn’t it? This incident, the recent one in Alabama, or at Northern Illinois University, or Virginia Tech, or the Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania, and so on. All of these seem to have been facilitated by–indeed, would not have occurred but for–the easy access to firearms in this country.
I put it to you that the following represents the uses of the private possession of guns (from most common use to least common use):
Feeling better about the size of your dick
Hunting defenseless animals, maybe followed by eating them
Batshit killing sprees
Reason 1 doesn’t bother me (maybe we could have a national guns-for-Enzyte swap?) As to Reason 2, I myself like animals, I don’t think I would enjoy killing them, but I eat hamburgers and wear leather shoes, so I get that someone has to do it. Reason 3 is right out, no?
Now, having to suffer senseless killings because someone wants to feel like a big swinging dick seems to me a bit beyond the pale. You might counter that you obviously don’t endorse a system where guns end up in the hands of murderous sociopaths; but, in for a penny, in for a pound, my hoplophilic friends. Your rationale for permitting private gun possession must explain why we should tolerate the very demonstrable excess mortality that such a regime entails. This is not impossible: when I buy grapes in the middle of an Illinois winter, I am tacitly endorsing a transportation system of big trucks and interstates and so on that result in a few more deaths than would occur without such a system. I have not seen such an argument made for guns.
Also, how many wingnuts with guns do we need before we can group them together? Or will they, forever and ever, be “one wingnut” no matter how many different crazed and gun-wielding wingnuts we are presented with?
I think some knees are predictably jerking from the gun rights people here, and they’re completely misunderstanding the OP’s point. The OP isn’t saying it’s the NRA’s fault, you dunces, he’s saying that these kinds of shootings are an inevitable and unavoidable price which must be paid to have a 2nd Amendment. Open and legal access to guns will always result in bad or crazy people using them to kill lots of innocent people really quickly. The victims pay the price for the right. You should thank them. They give their lives so you can have AK47’s to stroke and whisper sweet nothings to. Freedom ain’t free, as the saying goes. How about showing some gratitude to those who pay your bill.
To be fair to the “gun rights people here”, Kimmy and Der Trihs and Mach Tuck and I have all stated that the NRA, and it’s members, bear some responsibility too.
“Your rationale for permitting private gun possession must explain why we should tolerate the very demonstrable excess mortality that such a regime entails.”
The idea of handgun proliferation (and this is indeed what it is, when you fight against any percived infringement or toughening of gun laws) as a way to curb violence is assinine, to say the least. MAD doesn’t work on such a tiny scale. Your "D"s not big enough…
I’d leave it off because it’s complete bullshit. That’s the stated excuse, maybe, but it’s not genuine. People own guns because they get off on owning guns. I’m not opposed to gun rights. I think the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and I’m not out to take anyone’s guns away, but I wish a lot of the gun toters would be more honest about themselves. It’s a rush to fire a gun. It’s a rush to carry one. I know, I’ve done it. It’s ok to just admit it.
SPOILER ALERT: “Guns are used to threaten and intimidate more often than they are used in self-defense. Most self-reported self-defense gun uses may be illegal and against the interests of society.”
Should we also thank the families of people that are killed by criminals that were guilty of a crime but later acquitted by the legal system? Our system of innocent until proven guilty will inevitably result in this kind of tragedy. Should the ACLU send the families of these victims thank you letters?
Okay, Kimmy, so I misread your statement. You were ranking your list by rate of incidence, I was thinking it was a list ranked by the original intent of the gun purchaser.
I’m not about to claim that guns are used more often for defense than intimidation. The “ranking” is a trivial matter that isn’t core to this argument. But the fact remains that you left it off your list of three entirely. And that’s disingenuous, at best.
The ranking is most definitely core to the argument. If one could prove that (hypothetically, relax!) guns were used ten times more often to commit violent crimes, it wouldn’t sway your views? Even a little? Really?
If the incidence of guilty people set free by our legal system were ten times higher, would it make you rethink your opinion that “innocent until proven guilty” is a good idea?
How is the ACLU supposed to determine which individuals acquitted of crimes really were and really were not guilty? If a jury said they weren’t guilty, they weren’t guilty. Who is the ACLU to go around second guessing juries?
To answer the spirit of your question, yes, our sytem of law means that guilty people are going to get away with it, but it’s not an apt analogy. The victims are just as dead whether their killers are punished or not. Our legal system doesn’t cause them to be killed, it just means that sometimes their killers don’t get punished. Access to guns actually facilitates murder. You have to draw a distinction between crime and punishment. The 2nd Amendment facilitates crimes. The right to due process does not.
I still think gun ownership is a Constitutional right. I’m not arguing that guns should be banned. I’m just saying it needs to be acknowledged that there’s a price for it.
“If the incidence of guilty people set free by our legal system we ten times higher THEN THOSE CONVICTED, would it make me rethink my idea that blah blah blah?”
Ah, so it’s Republican fearmongering that provided the motive for these killings.
Maybe that shit needs to be controlled. Bust a few heads, try a few radio personalities for sedition; that sort of approach could limit the spread of serious craziness, and let us all keep our weapons in peace.