also mentioned that most gun related deaths are drug and gang related — Harry Hindu

look, forget about gun violence in general for a second. School shootings are the reason for the rise in debate on gun laws once again and they are something that's becoming far too regular. Show me the statistic that says that most or any school shootings are drug or gang related. Blaming Americas gun violence on gangs and drugs just seems like a generic excuse for keeping the law the same. the reason we are all here is because school shootings challenge the gun laws the most, because kids are getting hold of guns somehow and using them to shoot and kill kids at their school. you cant change the reason we are here and start using the gang card. not only is it painfully naive but also racist.

I have felt a shifting of the sands that I stand on in regards to this topic, so I am very interested in what you change you have found. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I said this over two years ago: "Gun policy: Ban the private use of arms, or else abolish the second amendment, or else enforce stricter laws."

I still don't much care for guns or "gun culture," and I view hunting as positively immoral unless done for survival. What I have come to understand is that there is a natural right to self-defense by means of arms, whether in terms of defending oneself, one's family, fellow citizens, or even country. It is not merely a legal or positive right brought into being by constitutions and legislatures, it can only be recognized or not by them, and so it isn't something that can be abolished without committing an injustice, even for the sake of some other hypothetical good. I am not a utilitarian. I also reconsidered the empirical evidence related to gun crime and mass shootings, but it is primarily for the principled reason just described that I changed my mind. Or rather, since I had already been convinced of there being natural rights, it was a matter of realizing that to be consistent, I had to allow for the natural right to self-defense by means of arms. Naturally, this isn't to say that there should be no reasonable limits on the kind of firearms that are suitable for self-defense.

Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....) — tim wood

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/index-en.aspx

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/bates-gun-violence-drug-policy/index.html

http://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459

Where are your stats?

I already covered this above. We DO outlaw the use of certain types of cars on the road that are particularly dangerous and for which there is no persuasive reason to allow people to drive them. And they are outlawed FOR EVERYONE. The examples given were racing cars and monster trucks.

So where is the consistency in your opposing the outlawing of private ownership of the gun equivalents of these - military-style assault rifles, of the kind used in this massacre and the last few before that? — andrewk

Race cars and monster trucks aren't banned completely. You can still own them, just not drive them on the road.

The comparison with guns would be that you can own these guns, just not use them in schools, or in the mall or movie theaters. So you're argument is a red herring.

School shootings are the reason for the rise in debate on gun laws once again and they are something that's becoming far too regular. Show me the statistic that says that most or any school shootings are drug or gang related. Blaming Americas gun violence on gangs and drugs just seems like a generic excuse for keeping the law the same. the reason we are all here is because school shootings challenge the gun laws the most, because kids are getting hold of guns somehow and using them to shoot and kill kids at their school. you cant change the reason we are here and start using the gang card. not only is it painfully naive but also racist. — David Solman

This is ridiculous. I never said that school shootings are drug-related. I said that most shooting are related to drugs and gangs. So you want to engage in selective outrage, or general outrage?

What I have come to understand is that there is a natural right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, either of oneself, one's family, fellow citizens, or even country. — Thorongil

This sounds simple, but isn't. Absent civil society, it would be that simple. But that's not where most of live.

Nor, arguably, do natural rights survive the transition. It remains to develop, with some precision, just what a natural right is. Under the US Constitution, there are three unalienable rights, to secure which all the others are surrendered to civil authority. The rest are alienable.

You mention, "bear arms for the purpose of...." Why "bear arms"? Why not, "have a gun available"? Or are you so at risk where you live that you must carry?

And "for self-defense...."? I don't question a natural right to defend one's person. That is, to act in response to a threat to one's person. But a natural right to a gun for that purpose? That's a different right, and by no means a natural one.

I understand rights as defensible claims against other persons. When is there a right to shoot another person? Ans.: when the forces opposed are commensurate and there are no other options. Does that sound like a natural right?

Perhaps you might think some more about natural rights, what they really are.

Most of the deaths are the result of drugs and gangs. Maybe that is what we should be looking at. What are the drug laws of other developed countries? — Harry Hindu

Please cite. I see different statistics. (Either you have a source or you're making it up: now's the time to put up or....)
— tim wood

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rdcng-gn-vlnc/index-en.aspx

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/opinions/bates-gun-violence-drug-policy/index.html

http://www.newsweek.com/end-gun-violence-abandon-war-drugs-689459

Where are your stats? — Harry Hindu

Maybe you should read your own citations. You have either not read them or not understood them. Here's what I saw:

"In 2016, there were more than 38,000 gun-related deaths in the U.S. — 4,000 more than 2015, the new CDC report on preliminary mortality data shows. Most gun-related deaths — about two-thirds —in America are suicides."

It's suicide. Just search "gun deaths in America." You'll come up with lots of information along the same lines.

Under the US Constitution, there are three unalienable rights, to secure which all the others are surrendered to civil authority. The rest are alienable. — tim wood

You are misinformed. The Declaration of Independence, which does not hold the same legal status as the U.S. Constitution, lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution assumes these rights but does not list them. It provides a Bill of Rights, most of which are based on the aforementioned natural rights, including the Second Amendment.

You mention, "bear arms for the purpose of...." Why "bear arms"? Why not, "have a gun available"? Or are you so at risk where you live that you must carry? — tim wood

Do you not know what the words "bear" and "arms" mean?

But a natural right to a gun for that purpose? That's a different right, and by no means a natural one. — tim wood

Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense. I've since edited my comment to make that clear.

Perhaps you might think some more about natural rights, what they really are. — tim wood

Please do not condescend to me in this way. It sours the discussion enormously. If, like Banno, you don't care about such things, then I probably won't respond to you in the future.

dude the reason we are hear is to discuss the problem with guns and mentally ill kids getting hold of guns easily. so the law needs to change to make it less accessible. The reason the laws don't change is because of Trump and the rest of the government saying the same thing as you. The reason it doesn't change is because this gets blamed on gangs and drugs every time, even if it was a child that everyone thought was a good kid

so the law needs to change to make it less accessible — David Solman

So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. I'm quite certain everyone, including those evil people at the NRA, would be in favor of such a law if it existed, so if you've discovered the magic formula, by all means share it with us.

You are misinformed. The Declaration of Independence, which does not hold the same legal status as the U.S. Constitution, lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution assumes these rights but does not list them. It provides a Bill of Rights, most of which are based on the aforementioned natural rights, including the Second Amendment. — Thorongil

You are correct. Not misinformed - I know it's the Declaration - just momentarily stupid. My bad. Now, are you one of those that "interprets" the 2d amendment as affording you as an individual a "right" to have a gun? If so, please share with me how you get that, from the amendment.

And you apparently decline my invitation to consider natural rights more closely. Maybe I can persuade you to, if you're of an open mind - if it's closed you're unlikely to be persuaded of anything. In what follows I will accept correction.

Let's start here:

Do you not know what the words "bear" and "arms" mean? — Thorongil

Right, it's a different right, but grounded in the natural right to self-defense. I've since edited my comment to make that clear. — Thorongil

I do know what they mean; I looked them up. Bearing arms means carrying weapons, serving in a military, having a coat of arms. The latter two don't apply. And hence my question: whether you misuse "bearing arms" or you just want to carry your weapon. Because how could carrying a weapon be within the horizon of a natural right unless you are at all times threatened with like force?

I buy your argument as to a fundamental ground for natural rights, and against any authority's right or ability to enjoin them. And most people understand the right to defend oneself, or certain others, as a fundamental natural right. I understand this right as a prior restraint on any who would deprive you of it. But not as prescriptive as to what you can do to protect yourself. That is, it stands as a principle.

Imo it's instructive to see how it's interpreted in different places. Florida and Massachusetts as antipodal can represent our spectrum. In Massachusetts you can defend yourself if you cannot retreat. If you can retreat, that is your duty and obligation. You're not allowed to shoot someone at the front door if the back door is an option. And you're not allowed to use disproportionate force.

In Florida, you can "stand your ground" and shoot anyone you please, a plausible claim of feeling threatened(!) being sufficient defense.

The principle of the right to self-defense grounds both these; clearly in both cases there's more to it than just the principle. Both take into account living in a civil society. (Clearly Florida is a much less civil and civil-minded state than Massachusetts. Similarly the South than the North!)

How does your (apparent) understanding work? You want to carry a gun (yes?). How do you get that from the principle - the natural right? You're not at all times subject to the threat of lethal harm, are you? In short, your claim of a right to "bear arms" calls for additional argument beyond the principle. What is that argument?

Most rights (I cannot think of an exception), while they may be expressed in positive terms, are in substance negatives on what others may do. Rights, then, are claims against others. My right to this, that, or other simply says no one else can arbitrarily deprive me of that "this, that, or other." Any right to carry a gun - if such exists - is not of this sort. And you acknowledge as much, saying it's a different right, though grounded in the natural right. Presuming you do not at all times need the gun, how is it grounded in the natural right?

Nowhere here am I arguing that you cannot have a gun. To my way of thinking your right to a gun is the same as your right to drive. That is, in such terms, there is no such right. Rather, there is a right to apply for a license. Pass that and buy and have a gun. But what of those states that don't require a license? Do you have a right to have a gun absent a license? Not a right to have a gun - they're too dangerous. Rather a civil obligation to become a demonstrably responsible gun-owner through self-education and training.

I argue against claiming as a right, anything that legislation has failed to control. The practice of any such thing is not a right, but a self-granted license - the which, conceivably, should not have been granted.

And, no surprise, I hold that the current legal status of interpretation of the 2d amendment is a vicious misreading of it - a different topic.

So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. — Thorongil

Are you confusing buying guns with having guns? The suggestion was that buying should be tightened up. Getting guns away from folks who have them is a whole other problem. I favour registration and making someone, presumably the owner, responsible for the trouble his or her gun causes. Most - well, maybe many - folks give up what mature reflection shows they don't benefit from having.

if you cant see that the accessibility of guns is the problem here than you're just being stupid. — David Solman

Exactly where did I state that the availability of guns is not the problem? Maybe you should read the posts before replying to them.

id suggest you read the article before posting here. — David Solman

And just who the hell are you to tell me what to do, but please do take your own advise.

If you cannot see the need to capitalize your writing then you must be rather ignorant of things like basic grammar and punctuation as well as common courtesy and manners.

Now, are you one of those that "interprets" the 2d amendment as affording you as an individual a "right" to have a gun? If so, please share with me how you get that, from the amendment. — tim wood

I am. The grammar of the Amendment makes it clear. As the majority opinion in Heller reads: "The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms." A court of appeals also wrote: "The Amendment does not protect 'the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,' but rather 'the right of the people.' The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias."

And you apparently decline my invitation to consider natural rights more closely. — tim wood

More condescension.

Maybe I can persuade you to, if you're of an open mind - if it's closed you're unlikely to be persuaded of anything. — tim wood

I think I have already shown the openness of my mind, as I just got done explaining how I changed it on this very issue. You, on the other hand, have given me no evidence that your mind of a similar nature. In the future, if you care at all about persuading the other side of either your views or your sincerity, to insinuate of your interlocutor that he is not of an open mind on the basis of no evidence, while providing none that you are yourself, is a poor way of going about it.

And hence my question: whether you misuse "bearing arms" or you just want to carry your weapon. — tim wood

I don't understand the question. I am arguing that there is a right to bear arms. I don't myself have to bear arms to acknowledge and defend this right. If it wasn't already clear, I don't own any firearms and have no desire to own them at present, but that has no relevance to the argument I'm making.

Because how could carrying a weapon be within the horizon of a natural right unless you are at all times threatened with like force? — tim wood

The question is incoherent. I don't have to be threatened in the immediate moment for there to be a right to bear arms.

You want to carry a gun (yes?) — tim wood

No. I want, and in fact have, the right to own and carry one.

How do you get that from the principle - the natural right? You're not at all times subject to the threat of lethal harm, are you? In short, your claim of a right to "bear arms" calls for additional argument beyond the principle. What is that argument? — tim wood

I gave a couple versions of such an argument earlier in this very thread, but not to worry, I don't expect you to have gone back and read the whole thing. I might not formulate it in precisely the same way now anyway. Since we apparently agree that we have the natural right to self-defense, the missing premise you're looking for is that I have the right to adequate, effective, and reasonable means of self-defense. This includes firearms.

Most rights (I cannot think of an exception), while they may be expressed in positive terms, are in substance negatives on what others may do. — tim wood

I agree.

Are you confusing buying guns with having guns? The suggestion was that buying should be tightened up. Getting guns away from folks who have them is a whole other problem. — tim wood

I don't know what "the suggestion" is to which you refer. Some here have suggested an outright ban on all guns, while others want more gun control of various kinds and degrees, some of which I have agreed with and some not.

Since we apparently agree that we have the natural right to self-defense, the missing premise you're looking for is that I have the right to adequate, effective, and reasonable means of self-defense. This includes firearms. — Thorongil

Nicely put. My point is that a right to self defense presupposes a present threat. If there's no present threat, then the right is mere principle, which as principle is unobjectionable. You spoke of "bearing arms." That means carrying them, not just having them. Do you claim a right to carry, absent threat? Btw, in some jurisdictions you do not have the right to carry what you want. Of course you may argue that the law is wrong, but the reverse of it is that anyone can carry anything, which does not sound reasonable in a civil society. Maybe in parts of Africa or the Middle East.

so the law needs to change to make it less accessible
— David Solman

So tell us your plan to change the law so that sane, nonviolent gun owners are not stripped of their guns while mentally ill, violent individuals are. I'm quite certain everyone, including those evil people at the NRA, would be in favor of such a law if it existed, so if you've discovered the magic formula, by all means share it with us. — Thorongil

You spoke of "bearing arms." That means carrying them, not just having them. — tim wood

Yes, I can carry and own them. The Second Amendment reads, "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."

Do you claim a right to carry, absent threat? — tim wood

Yes, that's why the argument is one of principle, not utility.

Not sure to what purpose you gave those quotes.

I am. The grammar of the Amendment makes it clear. — Thorongil

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Right. The security of the state, as opposed to the new federal authority or any other usurper, calls for a well-regulated militia. In as much as militias often provide their own rifles, the right of the people who compose the militia to own such rifles, shall not be infringed. That is, shall not be infringed by federal authority. I trust you're aware that before the Civil War, the several states would have felt free to infringe on all kinds of things, and would not have tolerated any infringement of their own capacity to infringe, beyond what they did explicitly agree to. In short, this was a protection of the military capacity of the state as against all comers, and of its militiamen to bear arms. Any personal right of gun ownership is therefore derivative of this need for an effective militia.

This derivative right has simply dissolved into thin air with the reality of modern weaponry and armies. Just like the right to walk or to ride a horse or bicycle on any thoroughfare.

This interpretation is not just one of many, take your pick. It is the one that must be destroyed, rendered nonsensical, before another can take it's place as authoritative. Because it is the one that is the case, clever, destructive, alternate readings do not avail.

It's as if you wanted two plus two to be five, because, after all, for large values of two.... But for it to equal five, you either have to qualify the arithmetic as non-standard, or simply insist on nonsense. You've apparently bought the nonsense. Why??

Not sure to what purpose who gave those quotes. — Thorongil

Your response was to David Solman, whose interest was laws to make guns less accessible.

Do you claim a right to carry, absent threat?
— tim wood

Yes, that's why the argument is one of principle, not utility. — Thorongil

I don't know where on earth you call home, but you might like Texas or Florida, or a number of other states. Or you might like Massachusetts, the state with the lowest gun death rate. Of course, you might have to leave your gun at home, to be safe.

This interpretation — tim wood

What interpretation? I don't follow what exactly you're trying to attack now.

Your response was to David Solman, whose interest was laws to make guns less accessible. — tim wood

Yes, and?

I don't know where on earth you call home, but you might like Texas or Florida, or a number of other states. Or you might like Massachusetts, the state with the lowest gun death rate. Of course, you might have to leave your gun at home, to be safe. — tim wood

I don't see the relevance of this. In case you were unaware, Massachusettsians possess the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment applies universally.

Why not change gun laws? Why are you people so ignorant, kids are literally shooting people and guns are legal and very easy to purchase. Make it safer, more secure so that this doesn't keep happening. It's the obvious thing to do. Are you really saying that the laws on guns are perfect the way it is currently?

It's suicide. Just search "gun deaths in America." You'll come up with lots of information along the same lines. — tim wood

I didn't include suicide for good reason. People have the right to choose to live their lives or end it. They do not have the right to end other people's lives and that is what we have been discussing in this thread. When the gun control debate centers around preventing violent crime I don't see suicide as being the correct place for that discussion.

These gun control debates always crop up after mass shootings and that is the context and the problem we are trying to address here (which includes all homicides, not suicides). Being that mass shootings are such a small fraction of gun-related deaths, maybe you should have brought this up earlier in the thread for everyone to show that they are engaging in selective outrage, not just me - just to create a red herring against my argument. The fact that you brought it up only now, and in an attempt to undermine only my argument shows that you aren't being honest or consistent.



The problem with most people in this thread is that they are reacting emotionally to this topic, and emotions cloud your logic - hence all the logical fallacies cropping up in this thread.

dude the reason we are hear is to discuss the problem with guns and mentally ill kids getting hold of guns easily. so the law needs to change to make it less accessible. The reason the laws don't change is because of Trump and the rest of the government saying the same thing as you. The reason it doesn't change is because this gets blamed on gangs and drugs every time, even if it was a child that everyone thought was a good kid — David Solman

Wrong. Trump and the rest of the govt. are not saying the same thing as me. I have proposed that legalizing, or at least de-criminalizing drugs, is a means of making a drastic cut in the number of homicides where guns are involved. I already addressed the mental health issue in my first post in this thread.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. — Supreme Court - Columbia vs. Heller

Based on the interpretation by the Supreme Court, let's get on with actual laws:

1. prohibition on concealed weapons;
2. felony and mental health checks, no sale on a positive;
3. registration of gun owners;
4. qualification - a gun test like a driver's license, failed? you don't get a gun;
5. a limit to the number of guns one person can own;
6. prohibition to carry guns in public places;
7. prohibition on dangerous guns to include fully automatic rifles.

Of these only number 5 is contentious based on the Supreme Court ruling. 7 would probably raise a discussion whether they're "dangerous" or not but I'd say the proof is in the pudding for that one. The rest appear constitutional. At the very least, politicians could get started with that.

Your comment is a series of ad hominems and strawmen. If you want to discuss what I have actually said, I'll be here, but until then, I won't be further responding.

I don't see the relevance of this. In case you were unaware, Massachusettsians possess the individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment applies universally. — Thorongil

When you reach a certain age, and have been made a member of the community of educated persons (as I am sure you are both), expressions such as this by Edmund Burke take on life and make sense: "It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do."

The 2d amendment had a purpose; that purpose is no longer relevant. Now it's used in contexts it wasn't intended for - misused. Understood as law governing gun ownership, it's bad law - and I suspect not always correctly applied even as bad law. (Please note I am referring only to the 2d amendment and its uses, here.)

It's not terribly difficult to bend the interpretation of a text to whatever purpose is desired. But it is a terrible thing to do. It can stand as the measure of a man. Is your understanding of the 2d amendment (as you've represented it here) something you'd like to be measured by?

You are blaming the problem with guns on drugs and gangs. You are wrong. The problem is mentally ill children are getting their hands on guns too easily. This hasn't happened once or twice, this happens all the time. Instead of pulling it back to drugs and gangs can you please address what you think we should do to prevent school shootings? Or any mass shootings because unless you can give me a reasonable statistic that backs your claim, you're on your own. Facts, need facts...