What an amazing job you have! Thanks for taking the fight. If no one does, it will never get done.

First, people are not rational. They are rationalizing. This means people have a certain outcome they want, and will grab justifications for it. When someone is excessively emotionally invested in an outcome, they will not budge, and hold justifications that are easily disproven without question.

I believe gun laws (and more and more, politics) are mostly a highly emotional rationalization for people. You can cite statistics until you're blue in the face, and it won't matter. While that is the seemingly depressing part, it doesn't mean you can't persuade someone. You must first persuade someone emotionally, then give the justification of those statistics to solidify it against competing emotional pulls.

To do so, you have to find the root emotions of why a person holds certain beliefs. You then have to provide an equal, or greater emotional reason for them to leave, then apply justifications that make them feel like they are also justified in leaving their own position.

For gun owners, the emotional appeals seem primarily to me to be the feeling of self-empowerment. You can subdivide this into safety, respect, feeling awesome, etc. If you provide a solution erases the emotion of self-empowerment, many people will resist you no matter what you do. That is because many people like feeling self-empowered, and guns may be one of the few avenues they feel so.

So how can you persuade someone that regulating guns does not give up self-empowerment, or even enhances it? One brain storm idea is the notion of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is part of self-empowerment. One, it takes the notion that not only do you have power, you are wise enough to use it correctly. Personal responsibility uses the lure of status. "I'm better than others because not only do I use guns, I use them responsibly". Just look at the posts after Baldwin accidently shot his coworkers. I went on Fox news and found page after page of,

"The first rule of gun ownership is to never point a gun at someone without checking if it was loaded." This was repeated on mantra, with self-pride and superiority. Of course its completely ridiculous to apply to the situation of being handed a prop gun by people you pay to check them for you. But it doesn't matter. Its about the emotional self-satisfaction first, rational argument second.

If you can persuade the populace emotionally, that non killing someone is a form of superiority and self-empowerment, then provide justification for that emotion, then you can get people away from irresponsible use, and create a culture of responsible gun use.

That of course may not require legislation. Legislation that is about control is almost always about taking away empowerment from one group of society. It doesn't matter if its rational to do so, would save lives, or even save the world. That group will have a significant portion who will defend the emotion of their self-empowerment at the cost of a nuke going off. So I believe you need to start small. Target certain areas. Slowly integrate a better culture of personal responsibility. Seek to persuade people on an emotional level first, then only implement legislation on the minority who do not have the ethics or capability to advance to that level. If you've persuaded enough people to be more personally responsible, they will back you in stopping the people that they now deem inferior, from being irresponsible.

On more reflection after 7 years revisiting this topic to update my spreadsheets, it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

The greatest issue I see in regard to self-defense and arms is the factor of escalating threat.

A practical case by case demonstration to display what I mean:

Someone attacks me verbally. This is the lowest level of threat and I do not even have to react to it.

Someone attacks me physically with their fists. This is a somewhat mild level of threat. The damage the fist blows cause is relatively harmless and I have adequate possibility to fight back with my bare hands.

Someone attacks me with a knife. This is the point, the adaption of tools, where threat levels start to really escalate. There is a strong imbalance between me and my assailant if I do not have a tool of equal magnitude. Fighting back with bare hands is not adequate at all and will lead to serious injury that may end up fatal.

Then we reach the threat level of a gun which is off the chart even compared to a knife. Essentially what we have at hand is a tool that is capable of delivering instantenous and remote fatality. The only adequate possibility to counter such a threat level is having a gun yourself. That's not the entire problem though; Where melee weapons do have this window for me to react whether a potential threat will actually attack or not; guns do not. With a gun, if I do not act first, it's usually too late to re-act.

A liberal gun law in this sense is just a feedback loop. If everyone can get a gun, everyone needs a gun to protect themselves. If someone shows up with a gun, I need to shoot them with a gun if I don't want to be shot myself.

This basic principle of threat escalation does work on a larger level as well. It's essentially what led to the cold war.

I'd enjoy at least hearing some opinions on a new ethical position regarding the right to kill in self defense. — ernest

The assumption is that the one carrying a gun knows what it is for and how to use it. That is, a kind of gun use that time on the range does not cover. I suspect that many, even most, police do not know how to use a gun. On the other hand I'm thinking most military are trained in how to use a gun, and those with combat experience then both trained and experienced.

As to the ethics of carrying a gun, no one should own one, much less carry, until and unless they complete a rigorous course of training. I also think they should be registered, and that if your gun is used in a crime and it not reported stolen, then you're part of the crime and subject to civil and criminal penalties.

As to the right to kill in self-defense, in my opinion there is no such right. There is of course a right of self-defense, and if someone gets killed while attacking someone, then that has to be looked at. But the idea that somehow you have a right to kill an attacker is repugnant. Such a right would amount to a prior judgment, and who has the right to execute another?

It's always possible...

I’ve always understood that suicides make up a majority of firearm fatalities.

But as far as I can tell the right to self-defense arguments still stand, and for the same reasons countries employ armed soldiers and police. Sometimes people need to protect themselves and others. Sometimes using a gun is the best way to do that. I’m not aware of any new arguments, nor do I think new ones are required.

Gun ownership, like the right to be unvaccinated/unmasked, is of the family of purported rights, favored by right wingers, which come at the expense of the rights of everyone else.

The gun owner may feel more safe with their gun, but this safety comes at the expense of everyone else's, as they now must contend with one additional rando running around with a gun.

Although I disagree with some of your post, I thought much of it was reasonable and nuanced. I appreciate that.

I generally support the position that what are called "gun rights," as described in the Second Amendment applied to private individuals are in fact protected by the U.S. Constitution. I have three primary reasons for this.

First, in historical context, the goals of the Second Amendment can and will not be achieved unless reasonable access to firearms is provided to private individuals. Those goals are clearly expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

"...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." means very little without that protection.

Second, like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in the manner.

Third, as you note "Public opinions have are suffering from bipolar disorder, either demanding guns be banned entirely or that all gun-control laws are a violation of constitutional rights." The controversy about this issue is incredibly politically divisive in a way I think may be more damaging to the country than gun violence itself. I'm a liberal Democrat. I think my party's rigid position on this issue makes consensus on other important, traditionally Democratic, issues; i.e. climate change and other environment, voting rights, health care, support for the working class, etc.; much more difficult. Support for onerous restrictions on gun rights also make it less likely that more limited controls will find enough support to be politically feasible.

For the record, I am, as I wrote, a liberal Democrat. I don't own guns, but did when I was younger, including a rifle and a shotgun. I come from a hunting family and I hunted myself. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and use, as do many Americans who identify themselves as conservatives and who strongly support gun rights.

Here are some specific comments on your post.

An Ethical view of 2nd amendment rights — ernest

I think this title is misleading. Your post isn't really about gun rights or the Second Amendment, it's about killing for self-defense. Conflating those two issues increases the controversy unnecessarily. The Constitution says nothing about policies that allow that. I was pleased you recognized that access to and ownership of guns will continue and that the court ruling allows reasonable restrictions.

The post is also not really about ethics. It seems to be more about support gun control as a public health issue.

it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

I'm 70 years old and reasonably heathy, although I have some of the usual infirmities of my age group. What methods of self-defense which are not potentially lethal are available to me? Of course I'll lock my doors and call the police. In some areas that's a very weak defense.

a campaign to change the attitude to the right might be the best action. This is because I observe the highly deceptive marketing for John Lott's 'more guns less crime' has taken over. — ernest

It's an appalling state of affairs and Im not even sure even a few million dollars on promoting a more cogent view would really make much difference. — ernest

Campaigns to change attitudes have been used, with little in the way of political success. A lot of the reason for this is the contempt supporters of gun control show for gun rights supporters.

"A few million dollars" would be a completely inadequate amount.

I think your post is very reasonable, nuanced, and well-expressed. I agree with what you've written.

This is a really good post. As I noted for Tim Wood's post above, it is reasonable, nuanced, and well-expressed. One objection - I think I did note a bit of the lack of respect for gun rights supporters that is the source of a lot of the political problems with this issue.

A few million dollars" would be a completely inadequate amount. — T Clark

Well thank you all for very cogent responses. I have to agree with Mr Clark that a few million dollars would be inadequate, on concurrent reflection. It's beyond my ability to make the resources necessary to convey a change of attitude, but it seems to me the frying pan and egg campaign 'this is your mind on drugs' is just about as much verbage as most people will listen to before falling back into preconceived notions that are almost invariably based on propaganda. From both sides. Sadly. Now that Nancy Pelosi wants to ban guns entirely, and the NRA has the GOP entirely in its pocket, no legislation can make any progress on this issue anymore. it just adds to the catfight.

The belief that the Second Amendment right is absolute is of course silly.

I'm curious why you're seeking an ethical view. No ethical argument will decrease the totemic regard many Americans have for guns or their justified use, nor will it impact the law significantly. Sad to say, I doubt any ethical view arrived at or adopted by the White House will make a difference in the number of casualties

it appears to me the only rational justification for killing in self defense should be that one is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self defense. — ernest

I can't help but wonder just how it would be established that someone is too physically or mentally handicapped to use non-lethal self-defense, ethically. There are circumstances where that might be established easily; other circumstances where it wouldn't be clear. And, just what is "non-lethal self-defense" supposed to mean? Is non-lethal self-defense any kind of self-defense that doesn't result in death? If so, that could include the use of guns for defense. Would non-lethal self-defense preclude the use of anything that could cause death (a knife, a club, etc.)?

:up:

An Ethical view of 2nd amendment rights
— ernest

I think this title is misleading. Your post isn't really about gun rights or the Second Amendment, it's about killing for self-defense. Conflating those two issues increases the controversy unnecessarily. — T Clark

Well the problem as I see it, given the bipolar deadlock on the issue, is now down to public attitude. When I look at posts on Facebook from gun lovers, they put 'proud to be American' over the picture of an AR-15 or some such. Frankly it seems to me this pride is a complete fabrication by the gun manufacturing lobby for two treason.

First, the fact that individuals even need lethal self defense at all is really an appalling comment on the quality of our police. Other nations do perfectly well without it.

Second, it seems an enormously displacement of conventional ethics to be proud of the ability to kill. I can't really find any philosophical basis for it at all.

So it seems to me, if people instead thought it to be something that reflects their own inadequacy, to need lethal rather than nonlethal self defense, then it would be an enormous improvement. I don't mean any offense to elderly people or otherwise hancicapped adults, in fact I personally concur with the Supreme court's decision to uphold the right to lethal defense as the current interpretation of the 2nd Amencment, because exactly those people need it.

But it would be helpful if the general public regarded shooting other people more as a sad last resort, that we all would rather avoid, than to trumpet it in parades while shooting off rounds of bullets and waving the flag. Would that I could be more nuanced to say it, but frankly, it just looks completely insane to someone raised in Great Britain. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying it, but sorry, that's how it looks.

I’ve always understood that suicides make up a majority of firearm fatalities. — NOS4A2

Well that's true, and mostly overlooked, and this is why more gun control would be desirable, because it seems to me at least the Heller decision has ethical justification in enabling those incapable of nonlethal self defense to defend themselves, as I tried to state in my previous replay.

When it comes to the specific issue of guns as self-defense, a technological solution would be ideal: the invention of non-lethal devices that can incapacitate an intruder (particularly at a distance), without the drawbacks of current options like tasers or pepper spray.

But in the present, your best bet might to be persuade self-defense gun owners to move to the currently existing non-lethal options. That could be accomplished by making those options easier to acquire, or emphasizing/enhancing the legal peril one faces on shooting an intruder. Or simply by raising awareness of the other options and offering training in their use. There can also be emphasis on family safety and how much more likely a gun is to result in someone in your family dying than other options.

Personally I'd rather the federal role, if any, be only to support states which strongly desire to reduce the appeal of guns. Trying to convince Texans to give up their guns will only produce a harmful backlash and make them fight the efforts of other states. Gun control should only be pursued in places with a culture amenable to it.

It seems to me that that the category “those incapable of non-lethal self-defense” would also include those who lack the strength and numbers to defend themselves in certain situations, which could be anyone of any level of strength and ability. Accordingly the same ethical justification should extend to them—everyone—and not just the disabled.

I was led to believe that the right to bear arms has one and only one purpose - to enable the people to fight fire with fire in case of a government, like a cop, gone bad. In other words, guns = distrust of any government, including democratically elected ones. The people don't want to give up their freedom without putting up a fight. Armed citizens are basically an army just waiting for a leader in the event the powers that be use the military to oppress the people.

Distrust any and all governments seems to be the underlying premise for the right to possess and use firearms. It makes sense from a prepare for the worst perspective, but then it comes at a cost - gun violence.

To prevent the baddest, one has to, at times, be bad! :chin:

One objection - I think I did note a bit of the lack of respect for gun rights supporters that is the source of a lot of the political problems with this issue. — T Clark

I appreciate the feedback, and did not mean to come across that way. I will be more careful of attitude going forward. Funny enough, I own a gun, I support owning a gun, and like the second amendment.

Frankly it seems to me this pride is a complete fabrication by the gun manufacturing lobby for two treason.

First, the fact that individuals even need lethal self defense at all is really an appalling comment on the quality of our police. Other nations do perfectly well without it. — ernest

I think you're wrong about the kind of attitudes we're talking about being a result of political action and public relations. The attitudes have always been there. The NRA and others just use it as a lever. I also don't think the gun problem of the quality of policing. I'm not sure it's a problem policing can fix.

Second, it seems an enormously displacement of conventional ethics to be proud of the ability to kill. I can't really find any philosophical basis for it at all.

So it seems to me, if people instead thought it to be something that reflects their own inadequacy, to need lethal rather than nonlethal self defense, then it would be an enormous improvement. — ernest

Telling gun rights supporters that you see them as people who are using guns to deal with their inadequacies is not a winning strategy. They already know what a lot of Americans think of them. You're not giving them any reason to find a middle way.

But it would be helpful if the general public regarded shooting other people more as a sad last resort, that we all would rather avoid, than to trumpet it in parades while shooting off rounds of bullets and waving the flag. — ernest

I think more people would think and act the way you'd like them to if they didn't think that any sign of conciliation was an opening for gun control activists to make inroads.

Would that I could be more nuanced to say it, but frankly, it just looks completely insane to someone raised in Great Britain. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying it, but sorry, that's how it looks. — ernest

Most Americans don't care how it looks to people in Europe, on our domestic issues in particular. Maybe we should, but we don't.

I appreciate the feedback, and did not mean to come across that way. I will be more careful of attitude going forward. — Philosophim

As I noted, it was a good post.

I was led to believe that the right to bear arms has one and only one purpose - to enable the people to fight fire with fire in case of a government — Agent Smith

The original language of the amendment included "well-regulated militias" so that local governments did not have to rely on a centralized military to provide security. From that point of view, the logic was not focused upon resisting the forces of central authority but to diminish the need for a standing army which was considered an evil onto itself, regardless of how it was commanded.
The Federalists Papers are chock a block with debates concerning the issue.

a standing army which was considered an evil onto itself — Paine

:up: