Sassenach wrote:

I would defend the Second Amendment, but no serious argument has been made against it.

Plenty of arguments have been made against the 2nd Amendment. In fact people have been making arguments against the 2nd Amendment for as long as I've been posting here, which I believe dates it back to about 2006. The subject has come up again and again during that time and I'm quite sure it had been going on just as regularly before I arrived. Is it only a 'serious' argument if it's one that you agree with ?

Tell you what, why don't you make a positive case for mass gun ownership and then we can see whether it stands up to scrutiny.

Sass, you asked about defending it HERE--on Redscape. I said no serious argument has been made and I thought it would be reasonably inferred by readers that I meant here. Why would I, or anyone, defend something not being attacked?

I'm not going to make a positive case for an already-existing situation.

However, there is a reason mass shootings tend to happen at schools, theaters, and other "gun-free zones." That reason is obvious. Even in San Bernardino, the terrorists knew there would be no resistance. Syed had (effectively) "scouted" the room.

I was talking about here. I've attacked the 2nd Amendment myself on multiple occasions, as have others.

Look, this is a very important question of public safety and citizens rights and can't just be brushed off as a fact of life that doesn't need to be defended. The question is whether the law should protect the rights of gun owners to such an extent, not whether it does. Is there a wider societal benefit to the 2nd Amendment which counts for more than the undoubted cost in human lives ? The reason that gun rights advocates are continually forced onto the defensive is that evidence of the cost keeps coming in every few days in graphic detail, but we don't seem to be seeing any benefit. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this really is a cost that needs to be borne for the greater good. If so then I don't think it's unreasonable for you to point out what you perceive that greater good to be.

Sassenach wrote:I was talking about here. I've attacked the 2nd Amendment myself on multiple occasions, as have others.

Look, this is a very important question of public safety and citizens rights and can't just be brushed off as a fact of life that doesn't need to be defended. The question is whether the law should protect the rights of gun owners to such an extent, not whether it does. Is there a wider societal benefit to the 2nd Amendment which counts for more than the undoubted cost in human lives ? The reason that gun rights advocates are continually forced onto the defensive is that evidence of the cost keeps coming in every few days in graphic detail, but we don't seem to be seeing any benefit. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this really is a cost that needs to be borne for the greater good. If so then I don't think it's unreasonable for you to point out what you perceive that greater good to be.

Would you agree that Vermont is about as liberal as you can get in the US? After all, they elect and re-elect Bernie Sanders, right? So, this exemplifies the "gun culture" of the US and it is not going away:

Hunting is a way of life in Vermont, and so are guns. Anyone can carry a concealed weapon there without a permit. Other Democrats from the state, such as Sen. Patrick Leahy and former governor Howard Dean, have also sought the middle ground on guns. Sanders's overall stance on gun rights isn't too surprising, given that he's represented Vermont as an independent in Congress for 24 years, first in the House and now in the Senate.

Some say that Sanders first won his seat in the House because Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent he defeated, supported a ban on assault weapons. "There was absolutely no doubt in that '90 vote that the NRA got [Sanders] elected, and he owed them," Chris Graff, a former Vermont bureau chief for the Associated Press, told Paul Heintz of the Vermont paper Seven Days in 2012.

Whether or not constituents chose Sanders because they hoped he would better protect their right to bear arms, the senator did not take any contributions from the National Rifle Association or other gun-rights groups that year. He hasn't since then, either, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Sanders would later vote against the 1993 Brady Bill, which required background checks for gun purchases.

You might as well try banning beer or "football" in the UK.

Sassenach wrote:I was talking about here. I've attacked the 2nd Amendment myself on multiple occasions, as have others.

Look, this is a very important question of public safety and citizens rights and can't just be brushed off as a fact of life that doesn't need to be defended. The question is whether the law should protect the rights of gun owners to such an extent, not whether it does. Is there a wider societal benefit to the 2nd Amendment which counts for more than the undoubted cost in human lives ? The reason that gun rights advocates are continually forced onto the defensive is that evidence of the cost keeps coming in every few days in graphic detail, but we don't seem to be seeing any benefit. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this really is a cost that needs to be borne for the greater good. If so then I don't think it's unreasonable for you to point out what you perceive that greater good to be.

Freedom is the greater good in my opinion. I agree with the second half of your statement. Freedom is worth the cost. You don't agree, and I am fine with that.

My perception of the greater good is that I can have a firearm to protect my family if a situation develops that requires deadly force. You are not required to own a weapon any more than I am. I choose to own one, just as much as you choose to not own one.

This is the same as a vehicle discussion we had a while back. I choose to have a larger vehicle that is better in crash tests than a smaller one such as the Chevy Volt. I recall RickyP castigating me for my choice, saying that it could endanger other drivers. Personally, I don't have other driver's choice of vehicles high on my list of responsibility. It is other drivers who must make that choice.

Just because you do not like something, does not make it an imperative that we should all follow. You don't like big cars? Don't get one. You don't like firearms? Don't get one. You don't like student debt? Don't get loans.

Isn't freedom great? You get to make choices, and you have to live with the results.

bbauska wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I was talking about here. I've attacked the 2nd Amendment myself on multiple occasions, as have others.

Look, this is a very important question of public safety and citizens rights and can't just be brushed off as a fact of life that doesn't need to be defended. The question is whether the law should protect the rights of gun owners to such an extent, not whether it does. Is there a wider societal benefit to the 2nd Amendment which counts for more than the undoubted cost in human lives ? The reason that gun rights advocates are continually forced onto the defensive is that evidence of the cost keeps coming in every few days in graphic detail, but we don't seem to be seeing any benefit. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe this really is a cost that needs to be borne for the greater good. If so then I don't think it's unreasonable for you to point out what you perceive that greater good to be.

Freedom is the greater good in my opinion. I agree with the second half of your statement. Freedom is worth the cost. You don't agree, and I am fine with that.

My perception of the greater good is that I can have a firearm to protect my family if a situation develops that requires deadly force. You are not required to own a weapon any more than I am. I choose to own one, just as much as you choose to not own one.

This is the same as a vehicle discussion we had a while back. I choose to have a larger vehicle that is better in crash tests than a smaller one such as the Chevy Volt. I recall RickyP castigating me for my choice, saying that it could endanger other drivers. Personally, I don't have other driver's choice of vehicles high on my list of responsibility. It is other drivers who must make that choice.

Just because you do not like something, does not make it an imperative that we should all follow. You don't like big cars? Don't get one. You don't like firearms? Don't get one. You don't like student debt? Don't get loans.

Isn't freedom great? You get to make choices, and you have to live with the results.

I'm good with your having a firearm as long as you have gone through a permitting process and are not on a terror watch list. I don't think you should be able to obtain a semi-automatic rifle or worse that can kill lots of people real fast.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm good with your having a firearm as long as you have gone through a permitting process and are not on a terror watch list. I don't think you should be able to obtain a semi-automatic rifle or worse that can kill lots of people real fast.

Again, I have a problem with the "terror watch-list" idea. There are 70 or so DHS workers on the no-fly list. So, either that list is useless or DHS is a joke.

Further, there is no notification made that you are on a list and no appeals process. I see that as inherently un-American. Now, if someone is on the list and not American, that's a different situation and I have no problem with it.

As for semi-automatics, I don't understand the issue. A revolver is nearly as fast. A shotgun is probably faster in terms of wounding people.

RickyP, do you have a problem with me having a semi-automatic pistol that has 20 rounds?

I have completed a background check, passed proficiency tests, and have them secure.
How about a seven round 12 gauge shotgun that can fire all rounds within 10 seconds (accurately! I have done it!)

I do understand the attitude of law-abiding gun owners who feel that their right to defend themselves should not be impeded just because other people are killers. I don't agree, but I do understand. The problem as I see it is twofold. Firstly, when you permit mass gun ownership in a society then the argument becomes somewhat circular. You feel you need to own a gun because there are a lot of other bad guys out there who also own guns. What you don't see is that this state of affairs is not necessarily natural, it's a product of the permissive laws on gun ownership. If you didn't have the 2nd Amendment and made a serious effort to control gun ownership then over time (not immediately) you'd find that the bad guys didn't own guns and your own need for one would reduce accordingly. Secondly, I simply don't believe that owning a gun does actually make you safer. The added danger that comes from so many other people having a gun far outweighs the additional 'safety' that you get from owning one in my opinion. The likelihood is that if you ever find yourself in a situation where somebody draws a gun on you, you won't be holding your own gun and even if you are you'll still be facing a situation where one false move is going to cost you your life, or potentially the life of a loved one. As such I reject the 'personal protection' justification for the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't stack up for me, and I think any serious analysis of the statistics will back me up.

Firstly, we do have the 2nd Amendment, and secondly, you are welcome to the right to not own a weapon as a matter of choice.

I know that you do have it. What I've been asking for is a positive case for its existence. What I've been presented with is various shades of "well we have it so there", which isn't really what I had in mind.

It's probably my own fault though. I should have known better than to try and strip this argument back down to the essentials, it never really makes any progress when I do. In fairness to you Brad, you did make some kind of an attempt to answer my question when you said 'freedom'. I don't agree that this particular arbitrary freedom is worth 30000 lives a year, but it is at least an answer so fair play to that.

I am not trying to write my answer to please you, Sass. I wrote my opinion on why it is important. Great question, however.

Sassenach wrote:I know that you do have it. What I've been asking for is a positive case for its existence. What I've been presented with is various shades of "well we have it so there", which isn't really what I had in mind.

It's probably my own fault though. I should have known better than to try and strip this argument back down to the essentials, it never really makes any progress when I do. In fairness to you Brad, you did make some kind of an attempt to answer my question when you said 'freedom'. I don't agree that this particular arbitrary freedom is worth 30000 lives a year, but it is at least an answer so fair play to that.

Firstly, that 30000 lives figure is bogus. It includes 20,000 suicides. Those people could easily end their lives another way.

Secondly, if the number of lives potentially "saved" is the issue, then ban alcohol. It costs more lives, by far, than guns.

Thirdly, pragmatically, there is no way to get rid of (at least) 310 million guns.

Fourthly, there is no substantial sentiment for repealing the Second Amendment.

Fifthly, if the government cannot stop the drug trade, why would anyone think we can stop an illicit gun trade?

The evidence is that owning a gun correlates with higher risk. If you own a gun for home protection, do you keep it loaded and close at hand (and so easier for a child or a quiet invader to get hold of) or do you keep it sensibly locked in a gun safe (in which case it is much harder for you to get to in an emergency).

danivon wrote:The evidence is that owning a gun correlates with higher risk. If you own a gun for home protection, do you keep it loaded and close at hand (and so easier for a child or a quiet invader to get hold of) or do you keep it sensibly locked in a gun safe (in which case it is much harder for you to get to in an emergency).

Neither one. I keep it on me.

Trigger locked, above children's reach and secured. Safety, Safety, Safety.