You are an odd one sometimes. Why would you presume something you can't even think of a reason for? But, fine. Your complaints about tactics ring a little hollow now though.

Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. — Thorongil

OK, so only guns that were available at the time the Second Amendment was written should be allowed.

Also, you've switched back to talking about constitutional rights, whereas before you were talking about inalienable rights. Are you saying that we have an inalienable right to 21st century handguns and semi-automatics?

This sounds reasonable. Among my favorite ads from a while back:

It seems I was right about the persecution complex. — Thorongil

Hey I'm not the snowflake who can't write a sentence without crying about persecution. And like, do I need to /s everytime I'm being sarcastic? It's really no fun if I do.

Oh, well why didn't you say so sooner? I guess that makes it okay, then. I'll bear that in mind in the case that I'm shot by some idiot who was able to get his hands on a gun far too easily. It might be of some solace. — Sapientia

If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team.

@Agustino: Rene Girard, eat your heart out!

The debate about gun rights has a history.

Guns are nothing new in the United States; many of us grew up in regions where hunting was common and lots of people owned and used ordinary rifles and shotguns. There were also handguns, which of course were for not for hunting game. In the 1950s--even with all the paranoia about communism--there was very little (if any) talk about gun rights. The 1960s were busy with dead Kennedys and dead civil rights leaders, the summer of love, hippies, Vietnam, the Great Society legislation, and the Democratic train wreck in Chicago. It wasn't until the late '70s, post Richard Nixon, a spike in crime, New York City near bankruptcy, and so on that a group of conservative insurgents staged a coup d'etat at the NRA convention that gun rights became a "thing".

Under the new conservative leadership, the NRA became proponents of gun rights, second amendment fetishists, and were dedicated to the normalization of guns in public and domestic settings. The new NRA with 5 million members, a 100 million dollars for lobbying, and a very focused agenda was able to bump stock the whole conservative movement forward.

Sure, there have been some dramatic mass shootings. Yes, it's appalling that nearly 600 people have been shot with handguns in Chicago this year, so far. But the reason this debate is taking place here is that it has very much been ARTIFICIALLY INSEMINATED into politics by the conservative NRA and Republican Party.

You are an odd one sometimes. Why would you presume something you can't even think of a reason for? But, fine. Your complaints about tactics ring a little hollow now though. — Baden

You said one thing in the Shoutbox, which you then contradicted here. I'm just calling it like I see it.

You also ignored the first half of my post. So my point about leftist tactics still holds good.

OK, so only guns that were available at the time the Second Amendment is written should be allowed. — Michael

Or their rough equivalents that are appropriate means of self-defense.

Just how big is the Gun Business in the US?

Good summary at the link.

Surely we could use 18th century cannons, then -- a well regulated militia would have a few of those on hand. They weren't very precise, but a 2 inch cannon ball from a colonial era cannon could pass within a foot of one's head and cause a concussion from the shock wave. Of course, if it went through one's head, or through just about anywhere else, it would be a grim prognosis.

No. That clearly isn't an appropriate means of self-defense. The average citizen didn't own a cannon to protect himself.

If you insist on playing this game, I guess banning guns makes all the rape, murder, and theft that people would have otherwise been able to ward off with a gun okay. I'm sure they'll find some solace in being scapegoats for "the greater good" and the moral consciences of The Philosophy Forum mod team. — Thorongil

There's a false suggestion in your argument, namely the part where you suggest that a gun would've been necessary.

It is necessary. Hundreds of thousands of times a year.

It is necessary. Hundreds of thousands of times a year. — Thorongil

No, it isn't. Some form of self-defence would've been necessary, but not necessarily the one that you clearly favour.

You're right. Squirt guns and pepper spray would have been so much more effective in all those cases. What was I thinking?

You're right. Squirt guns and pepper spray would have been so much more effective in all those cases. What was I thinking? — Thorongil

You were thinking?

Hardy har har.

Hardy har har. — Thorongil

It's about sufficiency rather than what's more or less effective. And yes, in many cases pepper spray would've been sufficient, especially if you factor in the effect that tighter gun controls would have on the weapon of choice that your attacker pulls on you.

It's about sufficiency rather than what's more or less effective. — Sapientia

Yeah, and sometimes a gun is the most sufficient.

especially if you factor in the effect that tighter gun controls would have on the weapon of choice that your attacker pulls on you. — Sapientia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.944a791e15bb

Yeah, and sometimes a gun is the most sufficient. — Thorongil

That makes no sense. There's no "most sufficient". Something is either sufficient or it is not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.944a791e15bb — Thorongil

'"All guns start out as legal guns," Fabio said in an interview. But a "huge number of them" move into illegal hands. "As a public-health person, I'd like to be able to figure out that path," he added.'

There you go. Get rid of legal guns and there won't be gun crime.

It was believed by the founders who wrote the amendment. — Thorongil

Perhaps. But the militias, as I understand it, were at the service of government; primarily state and local but also, in some instances, the federal government. So, for example, state militia were provided by the governors of certain states to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion." It seems now that the militias envisioned by some are to be available in opposition to the government.

They literally just said they supported potential regulations on bump stocks. They have never called for people to be allowed to own any kind of weapon they want. — Thorongil

Well, it's rather hard to maintain that bump stocks are, themselves, arms. But I know the NRA leadership is fond of AR-15s and semi-automatic weapons, and American Hunter, which describes itself as an official journal of the NRA, has been excited about modified military weapons which it would be hard to characterize as being for hunting and recreation, so I am uncertain of just how far they're willing to admit of restrictions. There was a time when the NRA actively supported gun control legislation and even assisted in drafting such laws. Now it seems to actively encourage the purchase of firearms unrelated to sport and recreation.

There you go. Get rid of legal guns and there won't be gun crime. — Michael

Poor Fabio. I can just imagine him now, a confused expression on his face, deep in thought, still trying to figure that one out.

"Detective Fabio! Please help me! I gave my little boy a sharp knife to play with and he's cut himself!"

"How on earth could that have happened? I'll have to investigate the many paths which could have resulted in this mysterious incident".

That clearly isn't an appropriate means of self-defense. The average citizen didn't own a canon to protect himself. — Thorongil

Pachelbel's Canon has little self-defense value, true. Krupp's Cannon, on the other hand...

Thanks for the catch. I notice you didn't dispute what I said, though. ;)

You passed over my serious post about the NRA to bite the joke bait.

The point I was making was that THIS discussion is but one of many that result from political engineering, using the NRA and the gun industry. Towards which ends "a gun in every hand" might be targeted would be a better topic. Personally, I suspect a certain variety of conservative harbors a wish to destroy relatively peaceful communalism and replace it with a certain kind of openly hostile individualism that requires guns to maintain itself.

That makes no sense. There's no "most sufficient". Something is either sufficient or it is not. — Sapientia

Sure. My point remains either way.

You passed over my serious post about the NRA to bite the joke bait. — Bitter Crank

You didn't respond to me when making that post. I'll look at it shortly.

Your point remains whether it makes sense or doesn't? Well, it doesn't. So I'm going to discount it.

Threads aren't supposed to be merely long strings of PMs.

What? Don't be obtuse. Guns are sufficient for self-defense. Dispute that claim or go away.