191–200 of 331 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that statement about "in the mind of the 2nd Amendment folks" in any way even sort of incorrect? It's almost a rule that regulation always increases.
> It's almost a rule that regulation always increases. This in and of itself is not a sufficient reason not to pass a particular piece of regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This exchange is a case study in why people who cherish their gun rights don't care one iota for the opinions of people who don't.
So what's your point? I'm certainly not expecting any of my comments here to persuade someone who cherishes their gun rights. But I don't believe that such people come anywhere near representing a majority, so I still see value in staking out a clear position.
But, if you were just blasting an opinion out there rather than attempting to have a discussion - why are you here again? - fine. Can't argue with an opinion, even if it comes off as completely insensitive and tone-deaf.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what's your point? I'm certainly not expecting any of my comments here to persuade someone who cherishes their gun rights. But I don't believe that such people come anywhere near representing a majority, so I still see value in staking out a clear position.
Perhaps an attempt to ask you to zoom out and see some perspective. You just told someone that you're totally okay expecting someone's family to be unable to defend themselves from an attacker. But, if you were just blasting an opinion out there rather than attempting to have a discussion - why are you here again? - fine. Can't argue with an opinion, even if it comes off as completely insensitive and tone-deaf.
People project their gun attitudes onto their grandma's that have never been attacked anyway and demand that we live in a less safe society because of it.
My mom was pretty unnerved when her house got broken into (she was there, asleep, didn't wake up, wasn't attacked). She wouldn't be any better off with a gun because she isn't prepared to use it. Effective restrictions on guns would be a 100% win for her.
So do I lack perspective? Or have I maybe come to different, reasonable conclusions and am sick of people making absurd emotional arguments about how guns make people safer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work? Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"? (I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)
Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.
Put differently, "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => self defense OK" is not the same proposition as "natural predisposition to protecting self and family => guns OK". There's an extra step in the latter, "self defense OK => guns OK" (which I was not making an explicit evaluation on). The analogy in the GP is a false equivalence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work? Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"? (I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)
Just to quibble with your last point, I think it would be reasonable to say humans have a biological predisposition to use tools and to defend themselves. I know I have a very primal urge to protect my young children; I could see how that could manifest in someone else as wanting to own a gun to protect one's family.
And knowing when a gun is being handled safely will prevent many of the accidents that occur when the naive start handling a gun like they've seen done on television and film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.
Citation needed from a primary source.
In fact the CDC report commissioned by Obama after Sandy Hook showed that there is in fact a protective effect (obviously) from firearms possession.
Sources:
[1] - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-s...
[2] - https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps an attempt to ask you to zoom out and see some perspective. You just told someone that you're totally okay expecting someone's family to be unable to defend themselves from an attacker. But, if you were just blasting an opinion out there rather than attempting to have a discussion - why are you here again? - fine. Can't argue with an opinion, even if it comes off as completely insensitive and tone-deaf.
It goes both ways. People project their gun attitudes onto their grandma's that have never been attacked anyway and demand that we live in a less safe society because of it. My mom was pretty unnerved when her house got broken into (she was there, asleep, didn't wake up, wasn't attacked). She wouldn't be any better off with a gun because she isn't prepared to use it. Effective restrictions on guns would be a 100% win…
"Effective restrictions on guns" don't exist in the same way that "effective restrictions on drugs" don't exist.
So no, your conclusion is not "reasonable". It is completely unrealistic and runs contrary to the most basic laws, not to mention the culture of the country.
I'm much more interested in realistic solutions that don't involve trampling on basic rights and removing the ability of people to defend themselves from an assailant. If you expect such discussion to be not emotionally loaded, your conclusion is unrealistic twice over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an insurance policy that will unshoot someone you didn't intend to shoot? Because odds are that if you're intending to use your gun for home defense, you are more likely to kill a friend or family member, then you are a robber.
Citation needed from a primary source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So by your argument, we should allow private citizens to own surface-to-air missiles, artillery cannons, landmines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, because abstinence from weapon ownership doesn't work? Or is it more complicated than "abstinence"? (I'd argue that it is. There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. It's a different category of activity.)
> There is no biological drive to own a gun, just a socially constructed one. I'm not going to argue that a gun is the only or even necessarily an appreciable way to advance this in most individuals, but for many people it likely does work into this biological need: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs#...
In some societies, such as the US, the biological need for security is met by the socially acceptable practice of gun ownership.
In other societies, it is not socially acceptable to meet that biological need with the practice of gun ownership.