We have a right to bear arms. Ignorant people need to get over it. Someone would still find a way to kill without a gun. Bombs seem to be popular these days, and they cause more damage than a gun. Carry your own gun, and you won’t have to worry about anyone else with a firearm.
i want a pair of bear arms…
Until you can kill 12 people and injure 59, single handedly, with a spoon, that sign is completely irrelevant, and ignorant.They answer isn’t to ban guns, it’s BETTER GUN CONTROL.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. People should stop being short sighted.
Yes, banning them is the answer;it’s worked wonders with drugs! Sarcasm aside, not sure why anyone needs an assault riffle, I believe all guns are assault weapons- some just can do much more massive damage then others..I don’t own any guns but don’t want anyone being deprived from owning them either. We have to accept that psychopaths, walk among us, that want to kill people. The saddest fact to the Colorado story is it could have been prevented and it didn’t have anything to do with preventing him obtaining weapons.
Do you realize that a hunting rifle has more power than an “assault rifle” (defined by the 1994 crime ban).
You realize you are over 200x more likely to be killed by a handgun than an “assault rifle,” right? FBI statistics.
Better gun control? And how do you advise we do that? I guess its time to take away cars too then huh?! A person is killed EVERY 30 minutes do to drinking and driving every single day!!! So should we have better car selling control or just ban alcohol all together?
Yes,..inanimate objects are the cause of all of our crimes, pain, and suffering (sarcasm added)! Doctors kill more people every year than people with guns do. Let’s ban doctors! Better yet; let’s ban lawyers!
I can kill 12 people and injure 59 with my car. The only thing that ensures that I won’t is that I value human life. The problem here is that we live in and promote a culture that doesn’t value human life. Or rather, we value human life when it is popular or convenient for us to.
“Let’s ban doctors” you are the dumbest person on the internet.
You’re a douche.
only 2% of all crimes commited with a gun is by one bought legally. Stop going after people’s rights and go after the ones sold on the street. You can have gun control all you do you really think criminals are just going to turn their guns in? I know if they have guns I want one to keep me safe
This is a very salient post, though it only really
recognizes the argument in terms of intention and not the extent of
facilitation. We often only think about the intentions of people who are
responsible with weapons, but that is not the argument. You can most easily see
the problem of this comparison when you ask whether it would be equally fine to
leave a gun or a spoon lying around in your house. If intention was all we had
to worry about, we wouldn’t have to worry about the gun any more than the spoon,
but there’s inherent danger in a weapon that’s not in the spoon. Regardless of
intention, one tool may facilitate danger more than we are willing to allow (or
not- that’s what we have to decide via the evidence). I personally think we
should have the right to bear arms (and are not in any danger of losing that
right), but I think this argument (and especially the “guns make you
safer” argument) fails when you look at the stats:
“Compared with people of the same sex, race, age, and
neighborhood, those who keep a gun in the home (ironically, often for
protection) are nearly three time more likely to be murdered in the home-
nearly always by a family member or close acquaintance. For every self-defense
use of a gun in the home, there are 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal
assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et
al., 1993, 1997, 1998).”
There are at
least two kinds of danger: one is the intention of the weapons holder (which
this comment “spoons made me fat” eviscerates nicely- the intender will probably
do what they want, regardless of the tool [although, this is debatable if
considering that intentions change when calm down time is added to processes
that takes longer or is more difficult than using a firearm. PLUS, it's
been shown via the Trolley Car Experiments that when using technology we shift
our moral compass to the same part of the brain that favors utilitarian/cost
benefit style judgments]) but there
is also, crucially, the *facilitation of danger inherent in the device*. That’s
the real controversy and the spoon comment does not address it at all (it
would be a strawman to assert intention is the only issue). It’s more nuanced
than that. If you think “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (which
actually doesn’t address accidents, significant in the stats above) then make
nuclear weapons available and see if the world is the same with or without them
lying around. The difference that blows up the world is the difference between pure
intent and facilitation (i.e. the extent as to how much easier it was to cause
damage with those bombs, based upon *the inherent danger of the bomb itself*),
All that said, what doesn’t fail as an argument for an armed
society (besides that it’s guaranteed by the Constitution) is that we as
Americans simply choose to take the risks that come with bearing arms. I think
we need to just honestly admit that we want some things that are risky. That’s
just life. Just like we choose to be free to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes,
cliff dive, drive cars, on and on. But I think that we have to be honest about
what the science shows: we will probably (that’s by the odds, not guaranteed)
not be safer having guns in the home/society. THAT said, finally, the presence
or absence of guns in some kind of apocalypse scenario/war in the homeland
might be a consideration for people too. I couldn’t begin to speculate if more
or less guns around would be a good thing in those scenarios.
Interesting post, but another issue you fail to write about is in the definition of the term “safer.” In other words, “Safe from what?” The purpose of the right to bear arms goes well beyond the protection of one’s home: it extends to the protection of one’s country, sometimes from forces within that country itself. You’ll recall that it the right was put into the constitution to protect the populace from a government similar to the one that our founding fathers rebelled against, that of a corrupt king who was denying them their God-given rights. They put that amendment in to ensure that, should the US government over-step its bounds and forget its purpose, then the people can–nay, should and must–take up arms against said government.
The only reason a government has to disarm its populace is to subjugate that populace. Oh, sure, they can put forth the guise that it is for the welfare of the people, but that is not the case. It creates yet another dependance, which, when the populace becomes totally dependant on the government, the government has all the power. This is when we move back to slavery with the lower class working for the oligarchy that was established by destroying the middle class.
Jesus, not this argument, again? You’re going to use your little pea-shooter to stop/change/defend against a government with industrialized weapons, surveillance and transport. So, your closet-full of 9mm’s, Wal-Mart shotguns, hunting rifles and that 2nd-hand set of night-vision goggles you got off of ebay vs. an AH-64 Apache helicopter.
OK, how about, your “compound” in the woods, with you and your redneck buddies, with 5x the weapons mentioned above….against an AH-64 Apache helicopter.
See how that works?
You idiot, you assume that every one in the army would automatically side with a tyrannical government if the government wanted to wage war on the people? The people and their arms as well as US soldiers who would turn against the government in order to protect their families and fellow citizens from tyranny would stop any threat of the government using its weapons on “you and your redneck buddies.” And you don’t think 300+ million people armed with guns could defeat an army no matter what weapons the government has? You are out of your mind.
What kind of argument is this, “well the government has the power to kill us all anyway so we might as well give our weapons cause they are worthless against them?” You are really disturbed.
Okay then, we need to add a sign that says, “Power tools made me left handed.” More people choke on steak each year then are unintentionally shot. Should we outlaw cows? Accidental overdoses? Oh good lord, the answer must be to outlaw medication.
A lack of responsibility by society should not refocus blame onto the tool of their destruction. It should focus blame on that person’s lack of responsibility. Education and accountability are the answers to this. But alas we, as a nation, have tossed away our chain to responsibility in search of free social gain and instant gratification. Responsibility takes work.
i’m entertained because the same people “up in arms”, so to speak, about their right to bear arms are often the same individuals who will ignore the same constitution that supports the separation of church and state (an argument used to suppress gay rights). i’m further amused because the same string of logic posed on this blog can be applied to a string of issues in terms of separating the cause from the problem.
Supermarkets sell matches and are
thus accomplices to arson, self emollition, and cancer… The third highest
cause of death in the USA is mistakes made by doctors.
Who advocates shutting down
supermarkets or outlawing doctors?