Google maps shows location of San Bruno shooting

1) that assumes gun ownership has any bearing on someone's freedom. I'd say that's very much disputed. 2) a gun offering easier impulsive suicide strikes me as a good reason to curb their proliferance. 3) accidentally shooting yourself in the face is quite different from accidentally doing something that doesn't involve the destructive power of a firearm.

My point is that for many people, the 'freedom' argument doesn't really hold. Whether it does or doesn't, I do think the suicide/accident angle is a very serious one.

I've known people who have attempted suicide, and I am convinced that the risk to their lives would've been greater if they had a gun. I also know many people who have done really stupid things, whether as kids or teenagers or adults. I'm happy guns weren't in the mix.

My opinion:

I don't have a perfect knowledge of the law. I'm also oversimplifying. Bear with me.

Back when the second amendment was created, it was entirely reasonable that citizens could arm themselves and realistically overthrow their policing force and government. It's a large part of how the US was able to gain it's independence.

I don't think that is reasonable today - weapons for waging modern warfare do more to infringe the rights of others when owned by civilians. Also, US citizens would not stand a chance in armed combat with the military.

I like drawing the line with a police force because I think police should be made up of citizens (not soldiers). Policing a population and national defense are totally different objectives that should not overlap. There should be a clear, consistent line where on one side of the line the police are deployed to enforce the laws of the locality and on the other side the military is deployed to protect the nation. If the police force deploys weapons that the military uses for national defense, that line is very blurry and citizens can be oppressed without the use of the military. It should be a very explicit, unambiguous action for a government to use military force against it's citizens.

A person that breaks the law by murdering someone and then taking a hostage is not a national defense concern and military tactics and weapons are not necessary.

A person that makes meth and sells it on the street, is not a national defense concern. It may be a concern to the society that this happens in, and the community should police this behavior (if it wants), but military tactics and weapons are probably not necessary here either.

There is a lot of grey area here. I'm sure there are edge and corner cases that are not so clear. I don't have all the answers. It does not bother me that G.I. Joe has tanks, grenades and automatic weapons. It very much bothers me that Jane the Street Cop could have semi-automatic rifles, flash grenades and body armor between 9-5, but I could not. To be clear, I don't want to de-arm the police.

> 1) that assumes gun ownership has any bearing on someone's freedom. I'd say that's very much disputed.

You can dispute it, but you'd still be wrong.

> 2) a gun offering easier impulsive suicide strikes me as a good reason to curb their proliferance.

I understand this position. Unfortunately there are rights involved. Infringing rights should not be done lightly, especially if there are other options. Let's increase mental health services in our communities and eliminate the driving cause of suicidal behaviors if possible before we remove our rights.

> 3) accidentally shooting yourself in the face is quite different from accidentally doing something that doesn't involve the destructive power of a firearm.

Yes, different things are different. I'm not sure your point here. People have accidents while piloting 2 tons of metal every day, which certainly has more kinetic energy at 60mph than a 9mm bullet.

> My point is that for many people, the 'freedom' argument doesn't really hold. Whether it does or doesn't, I do think the suicide/accident angle is a very serious one.

You're going to have to be more clear and precise than that. What do you mean "it doesn't really hold"? People don't care about their freedoms? Or they don't care about my freedoms?

> I've known people who have attempted suicide, and I am convinced that the risk to their lives would've been greater if they had a gun. I also know many people who have done really stupid things, whether as kids or teenagers or adults. I'm happy guns weren't in the mix.

For any example like this, there are examples of defensive gun use that saved lives.

He's saying that the ideal is zero shootings. Having fewer shootings is good and can be appreciated, but the ideal goal is still zero.

Beyond that, it is like people have never heard of guerilla warfare. The United States is a vast area and lots of it is lightly inhabited. It would be very difficult to suppress an insurrection.