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

Quite. But I've been responding to several people in this thread, all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac), so forgive me if I don't respond to every post not explicitly addressed to me.

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

It's been tried. Didn't work.

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

I do like your brand of comedy where you pretend to spectacularly miss the point, but let's be serious for a moment. My point was obviously that there are means of self-defence - besides guns - which are sufficient.

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." — Ciceronianus the White

I think this is mostly true, but the preamble to the second amendment doesn't negate, and wasn't meant to negate, an individual right to bear arms.

It seems now that the militias envisioned by some are to be available in opposition to the government. — Ciceronianus the White

That was the view at the time too, not just now.

has been excited about modified military weapons which it would be hard to characterize as being for hunting and recreation — Ciceronianus the White

Excepting bump stocks, most of these modifications are cosmetic in nature. I think it's kind of silly, to say the least, to ban guns that "look" like scary military weapons, when in fact they're not.

The point is obviously that there are means of self-defence besides guns which are sufficient. — Sapientia

And my point is that, in addition to being sufficient, guns are the best means of self-defense in many cases.

And my point is that, in addition to being sufficient, guns are the best means of self-defense in many cases. — Thorongil

No, the best is that which is sufficient and does the least damage. But even if we assume that to be true, my point from earlier undermines it. Prevention is a better strategy than self-defence when you take into account the bigger picture. Your way aggravates and prolongs the problem rather than alleviates it.

were dedicated to the normalization of guns in public and domestic settings — Bitter Crank

The problem for you is that the American founders were in favor of having every American citizen armed. In fact, the desire for people to be armed can be traced back to 17th century England and even to the medieval period. Guns were a normal feature of public and domestic settings for a large portion of American history.

No, the best is that which is sufficient and does the least damage. — Sapientia

Which is a gun, in many cases. Why do you still refuse to understand my very simple point here?

Prevention is a better strategy than self-defence when you take into account the bigger picture. — Sapientia

I agree.

Your way aggravates the problem rather than alleviates it. — Sapientia

I disagree.

Which is a gun, in many cases. Why do you still refuse to understand my very simple point here? — Thorongil

Mostly cases in which no one got shot, but in which the risk level was nevertheless more severe. Still a big problem.

Out of the fire, into the frying pan.

Excepting bump stocks, most of these modifications are cosmetic in nature. I think it's kind of silly, to say the least, to ban guns that "look" like scary military weapons, when in fact they're not. — Thorongil

It would be even sillier, and indeed creepy, I think, to want to own one because it looks like a scary military weapon.

Regardless, though, the one I'm thinking of in particular is the FN SCAR® 17S, touted as just like the weapon used by special forces, except for what those charming rouges who are amused by such things call the "happy switch" which would render it fully automatic.

EDITED

Guns were needed for hunting and protection of livestock from wolves, foxes, etc. Guns were needed for the defense of or attacks on people -- but mostly as defense. Bow and arrows were also used for the same purpose. All that, granted. But what wasn't present -- as far as I can tell from reading American literature, is that the possession, use, and valorization of gun ownership as a topic of discourse is a very recent phenomena, as is the public discussion about gun control.

Can you cite a founding father (or founding mother) to the effect that every American should own a gun--outside of the 2nd amendment? Is there an old draft of the Declaration of Independence that starts out "now, in the course of human events, it has become necessary for every man to get himself a gun and periodically wave it around to make sure everyone knows he has one and to strenuously set forth arguments and reasons for a gun to rest in every hand..."?

It would be even sillier, and indeed creepy, I think, to want to own one because it looks like a scary military weapon. — Ciceronianus the White

I think I would agree actually, but I still wouldn't ban them on account of aesthetic differences.

The English Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms. Several state legislatures did as well, prior to the Constitutional Convention. John Adams, speaking of America, said, "Here every private citizen is authorized to arm himself." Jefferson praised the importance of guns, saying in a letter to a nephew, "Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." And the militias were entirely composed of private citizens who, for the most part, provided their own arms. So to the extent that the US government supported and encouraged the militias, which it did, it supported and encouraged citizens to bear arms. Finally, look at the language of the second amendment itself, which says that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. So it's not only granting the people merely the permission to own arms. It deems it necessary that they do.

Found this just now, too. A lot of nice, relevant quotes: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A most helpful list of quotes. These strike me as more compelling, when one wants to defer to authority, than the Second Amendment.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. — Noah Webster, 1787

Tiff probably has this tattooed on her arm.

It remains to be seen whether this is true today -- one hopes it will not be put to a test. If the hundred million (give or take a few million) Americans were to revolt and turn their guns on the military, I am not sure they would win.

It is an axiom of the left that it is best to not take on the military of the state, especially a well armed state, because state armies tend to be better at violence than unorganized citizens.

And what do the Cardassians think of all this? — Baden

Kartrashians don't think.

So, if I agree with you that the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry, provided the citizenry wished to be armed, can you see the sense in placing a ceiling on the kind of arms that the citizenry can have?

It is not in the interest of the state or the citizens to have well armed and totally unregulated thugs running around armed with all sorts of guns and ammunition of varying lethality.

You objected to cannons; are cannons above the ceiling? What about armour piercing bullets -- spent uranium points, for instance? What about rockets (not ICBMs, of course -- I think there are zoning ordinances that rule out missile bases in people's back yards) like the kind that the Taliban and lots of other insurgents use? Are they over the top? If the citizenry need to defend themselves against the government, surface-to-air missiles would be handy for keeping the air free of government attackers.

Dune introduced the concept of family atomics. Maybe the Bush clan would want an atomic bomb at some point, or perhaps Trump's real estate operations would need to clear a slum quickly. A big bomb would save time and money.

Were the The Kardashians trashy when Deep Space 9 conceived Cardassians??

It remains to be seen whether this is true today -- one hopes it will not be put to a test. If the hundred million (give or take a few million) Americans were to revolt and turn their guns on the military, I am not sure they would win. — Bitter Crank

I've seen this point and its general template before. Here I would point to a fact that is sure to warm the anti-war left's cockles, which is that the American military, with all of its objectively superior armaments, has found itself bogged down in Afghanistan for well over 15 years, unable to finally defeat a ragtag insurgency numbering far less than the total of gun owning Americans. Think of Vietnam as well. If the US government fully descended into tyranny and, among other things, attempted to disarm the populace, I think it would have a very hard time indeed emerging victorious in a war against them. I would note that we're very far from that potentiality, however, since those in the military are often the most vociferous defenders of the second amendment.

So, if I agree with you that the founding fathers wanted an armed citizenry, provided the citizenry wished to be armed, can you see the sense in placing a ceiling on the kind of arms that the citizenry can have? — Bitter Crank

Yes. I've said just that in this very thread.

Were the The Kardashians trashy when Deep Space 9 conceived Cardassians?? — Bitter Crank

Probably yes, although I am not exactly well up on either of their histories. But if you want to become famous the Cardassians will get you nowhere. And the kartrashians are just about as far into space as the Cardassians.

The leftist mod brigade has tried very hard, sometimes with sarcasm and sometimes with apparent seriousness, to paint me as a gun-loving and toting nutjob. Just look at the hyperventilation, condescension, and references to petri dishes earlier in this thread.

Little do they know that I've never owned a gun, am not particularly fond of them (I most admire the katana as far as weapons go), think hunting is an immoral activity, and am wary of people wielding them in public. For example, I was in an antique store with my mother several years ago, and I noticed across the street several people with assault rifles slung over their shoulders. I assumed they were part of a pro-gun rally or something of the sort, but I found it uncouth and wanted to leave immediately. Maybe this is what @Bitter Crank means by "normalization," and if so, I agree that it's repulsive.

But there is another sense of normalization that I think the founders had in mind, which is that private citizens be encouraged to learn how to responsibly own and use firearms appropriate to self-defense and to "the security of a free state."

The second amendment does actually appear to be about ensuring the right of the individual people to bear arms, to maintain freedom, and protect themselves from a potentially corrupt state (America can be pretty great). Why does everyone lie so much? I always hear people say that "well regulated militia" doesn't mean the individual people, but that just isn't true. Looking at the precedent it has been historically less interpreted to mean individuals since like the 1850s, but modern interpretations seem truer to the source, than less true historically, based on the inspirations for the law, and rationales given.

I don't think anyone important takes immaturity, and name calling as all that devastating of an opposition.

What's the philosophical rationale for an individual right to bear arms? Apart from that the US constitution says it.
I have two rationales against it earlier in the thread (Plato and Locke)

The inspiration was the British bill of rights, which allowed protestants to keep and bear arms for their own protection. They were kind of persecuted back then.

The argument seemed to be that for a government to take military power, the people must disarm, but because the Americans were not super trusting of the benevolence of government, they wanted to ensure the people's rights to self defense against a corrupt state, like the protestants maintained in Britain.

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

Maybe we could arrange for people with those good intentions to go to the US. Then let them go around and take all of the guns off the bad guys. Once they have done that I am sure that the Americans will feel safe enough to hand over their guns.

Gunshot wounds were associated with about eight times higher fatality rate than stab wounds, a pattern that is consistent with others’ findings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3309620/

A third of patients with gunshot wounds (33.0 percent) died compared with 7.7 percent of patients with stab wounds.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

Specifically, the mortality rate of gunshot wound of the heart 24.5% and that of stab wound of the heart, 11.5%. Because of the complexity of the injury, gunshot wound of the heart has the highest mortality rate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2911188

Just some information from a few studies relevant to my earlier point, which has received only a weak response, if any response at all, from those on the other side of the debate.

all of whom disagree with me (and more than that, think that I'm an evil maniac), — Thorongil

I have had that feeling too. Silly me think it was just about me.