It's just that we have public roads, upon which it's difficult to hide a car while in use. Yet routinely many people drive unregistered and uninsured vehicles.
Even on public roads, where it's illegal. It's almost like people don't obey the law when they don't want to.
Then we'd have to get rid of a LOT of gun control laws. You sure you want that?
Which isn't to say there isn't some reasonable compromise to be had there, just that there is a pretty reasonable argument why we don't do that.
If the primary purpose of cars was to drive over people then they would be banned.
This is why you can own a car, but not a tank.
Why don't I ban you from browsing the internet, clearly the primary purpose of the internet is porn, which drives a lot of human trafficking and ruins lives every day.
And the stats, if only you bothered to look it up without prejudice, would show that self defense cases are counted by millions, while murders are under 20 thousand (and hardly more than 5 if you subtract inter-gang disputes).
First off it's not "pseudo-logic" to state that gun owners are more likely to be killed or injured in gun-related deaths or injuries. How are you going to kill or injure yourself with a gun if you don't own one? 66% of gun deaths are suicides. There is a causal relationship between owning a gun and committing suicide with a gun.
As for the stats, the only source I can find on that "millions" comment is from a conservative think tank citing a single 1995 study. The actual number of reported cases in the article is 67,000-- of which, most are actually not true self-defense cases.
"4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal
We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective." -- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-thr...
The 1995 study is such an insane outlier that it's safe to say that the methodology was likely flawed. If any news source is using that as a legitimate number it's not because they're actually interested in the truth. It's because they have an agenda to peddle to you.
Link to the think tank article: https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defen...
Finally, to claim that the number of homicides is "hardly more than 5" is hyperbolic and dishonest. Especially considering the fact that just the MOST RECENT mass shooting event has left 18 dead. If you think guns are cool just say that, don't be intellectually dishonest.
https://brandongaille.com/24-surprising-home-invasion-robber...
3.8m burglaries per year, 1/3 of those with someone present at home during the invasion.
5 thousand, not just 5.
Go to any organized large gathering since ramming into crowds became a popular terrorist move in the 2010’s and you’ll notice a preponderance of heavy barricades. Sand trucks blocking roads, cement barriers on sidewalks, marathon crowds physically separated from roads, etc. See also how every new-ish commercial building has bollards around the entrance or at least those large cement flower pots. Even if it isn’t a government building.
All to prevent ramming attacks. Because of how common they became.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
Code for bollards was updated with intentional ramming in mind
> On 23 October 2014, the US National Institute of Building Sciences updated its Building Design Guideline on Crash- and Attack-Resistant Models of bollards, a guideline written to help professionals design bollards to protect facilities from vehicle operators, "who plan or carry out acts of property destruction, incite terrorism, or cause the deaths of civilian, industrial or military populations".[26] The American Bar Association recommends bollards as effective protection against car ramming attacks.
Various cities installed permanent protection
> In January 2018, it was announced by the then mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, that the city planned to install 1,500 steel street barriers to prevent vehicle attacks. This came after two vehicle-ramming attacks in 2017 in the city killed a total of nine people.[28]
> The city of Münster has been planning to install security bollards in public areas in response to vehicle-ramming attacks in European cities, including the Berlin attack.[29] While only selected locations can be protected this way, tight bends and restricted-width streets may also prevent a large vehicle getting speed before reaching a barrier.[30
You’re not uncovering some logical inconsistency in liberal logic any more than “oh you’re pro-life, but you support the death penalty hmmmmmm” does for conservatives. This shit spreads like wildfire because it sounds like a gotcha but it relies on putting words in someone else’s mouth and then calling them a hypocrite for something they didn’t say.
If you can’t come up with a single good faith argument for why someone might want to restrict guns but not cars then you don’t really understand the opposing stance and you’re not equipped to actually have this debate. Being able to articulate the opposing stance in a way the other side would agree with then explaining why you believe it’s wrong is the only way to not talk past one another.
People should be taught about Strawmanning and Steelmanning in elementary school, sad to see it needs teaching on HN
Mufflers would be illegal. If you are driving between states, you need to check to see if your driver's license is accepted by each state you go through -- and some counties. Adjustable car seats are illegal. Automatic transmissions are illegal. Building your own car would be illegal. If your truck is too short, it's a felony. Unless you call your truck a car, and never put anything in the bed. If you have a criminal record for drug use, you cannot drive a car, or even ride a bus. Some states will only let you put 5 gallons of gas in your tank, claiming that large gas tanks are a risk for ramming attacks. California will only let you purchase cars they say are safe--and haven't updated the roster for years. Politicians keep insisting that your tires should be laser etched with microscopic serial numbers so you can track down criminals by the tire marks left behind, and that your car should have a kill switch controlled by the government. Movies like Fast and the Furious get blamed for causing drunk driving. If you buy a Tesla, people constantly demand that you explain why you NEED to own it, and that everyone should be perfectly fine with a Vespa scooter. Whenever a drunk driver hits someone, society blames you personally, and says that you just want your dumb hobbies and don't care about children.
What the GP meant, clearly, was "what if gun users were regulated like car users", e.g. requiring training and a license. IMHO this fits the "part of a well-regulated militia" clause that people always ignore. If I had to guess, this clause was there specifically to prevent unstable people from getting firearms, since your fellow militia members are probably not going to want you if you seem unstable. Social proof is not a bad heuristic, even if it does have obvious failure modes.
If guns were regulated like cars, there would be no background check to buy a gun. A felony would not disqualify you from gun ownership. Schools would teach marksmanship starting at age 15, and you could get a license to carry at sixteen, recognized by all states. Suppressors wouldn't just be legal, they'd be mandatory. No one would try to sue Smith and Wesson for shooting sprees, just like nobody tried to sue Ford for the Waekusha ramming attack. Etc, etc, etc.
But as to what the first response said, ultimately then, gun ownership would be a privilege, not a right. You don't license rights.
The right, as written, includes the phrase "A well regulated Militia". This is the only right that includes the word "regulated". Personally, I would be in favor of a highly distributed form of regulation, similar to the "jury of your peers" system: to own a gun, you must join a militia, and it's up to that militia to determine if you're the type of person to randomly murder children or not. (This is similar to the idea I proposed after 9/11 that passengers be required to socially mingle with each other, and then (privately) share concerns with the airline or TSA. That is, the people with the most to lose are the best defense against these kinds of threats).
> ... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership. Please read DC v Heller.
Even grammatically, "well regulated" refers to function, not rules. A mechanical watch that keeps time is "well regulated".
Please understand that these points are extremely well settled, and that bringing them up is like bringing up "violent video games".
You mean like Roe v Wade and Casey? I don't buy this argument.
>Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership.
That's not clear to me. Not at all. Why mention militias at all? What is a poorly regulated militia?
>Please read DC v Heller.
Okay.
>Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only.
Also of interest are the amicus briefs. At the time Texas Attorney General but now Governor Greg Abbott, submitted a brief authored by Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz, advising that the case be affirmed. I wonder if they have any second thoughts now, and if they did, if they would admit it?
You mean "having no legal restrictions whatsoever on private property"?
> requiring training and a license
Most states do require this on public property, same as a car.
Its illegal to license a right.
We shouldn't penalize the hundreds of millions of legal gun owners in the US because we're unable to catch psychopaths before they kill people.
These days, we have autonomy in our own country, no British will invade us now. What is the purpose of keeping the full right to any gun ownership, if it's not a good thing for the nation? We didn't keep slavery when we realized it was wrong, how bad must it become before we say guns be restricted to use by qualified and safe individuals?
And the idea of "arms" as only guns is silly, there are restrictions on many sorts of weaponry, including guns, so there is not an absolute right for any citizen to have guns at any time already. There are already restrictions and they're neither enforced nor strong enough.
Did you sign up for the 1st amendment? Maybe next time we're facing a crisis of "facts" (ie. during covid), we should be able to repeal free speech by simple majority? After all, with electronic communications and deep fakes, fake news is much more dangerous now than to the colonists 250 years ago.
> "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."
Even if accurate for all the amendment signers consider the world they lived in compared to ours. I can see private gun ownership having more utility in 1800 than today. And considering the cost in lives, injuries, and distress guns don't appear to be with the externalities IMO.
Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I like guns very much.
Here's the 2A in full:
"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."
I am not a historian but I believe that this quote from James Madison in The Federalist Papers helps give some context to the second amendment:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
The idea is that a federalist country needs a power equalizer between states who wish to self-govern, and a federal government that seeks to grow its power. The gun ownership is tied to the idea of a well-regulated state militia, which we have now called the National Guard-- which is a reserve force of the US Military because in the Civil War we basically decided that a federal system was kind of stupid.
All of this to say, the second amendment is not scripture from the hand of God. It is a law written with historical context from a different time, by men whose beliefs would disgust most people alive today. It's not Orwellian to discuss licenses or background checks, it's our modern society outgrowing laws from a bygone era.
"The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions."
It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force.
The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun fetish, it's literally a tool to empower citizens. If you doubt that people armed with rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatics can overcome the Worlds Biggest Armed Forces(tm), then look at the most recent example: Afghanistan (repelled the US -and- the USSR).
This is exactly the scenario the 2A is designed to thwart.
It doesn't guarantee a win, but it gives civilians a chance to group together to protect themselves. I've got friends from Hong Kong, and what the government did there to a helpless (disarmed) population in order to crush any unapproved views absolutely blew my mind. People being murdered, rounded up and vanished, thrown from buildings, beaten in the streets on a wide scale. If the troops are given false information, and move in to attack, then they're going to be made to pay dearly for every mile they advance. There's a lot more people out of uniform then in it, and I mean a lot -- winning against a mostly disarmed population (in the middle east) is more than we can handle. Attacking a heavily armed population in its home area is suicide for the attacking forces.
On top of that, the Bill of Rights is focused on rights of the people and states. IIRC there's nothing in it about protecting the "rights" of the federal government. Why would it need to explicitly give itself the right to arm its own standing army?
That is why anyone stating the National Guard is a standin for "well armed militia" is wrong..."a reserve force of the US Military" is not representative of the people; it is a protector of whomever is in power at any moment in the US.
I am not a constitutional law expert, but the way the second amendment has been interpreted has become its meaning. At this point, I think what would have to happen is the 2nd amendment would need to be replaced with another amendment that better describes the limits on individuals rights to bear arms.
Until then, these events will continue indefinitely. I simply do not believe that any SCOTUS would make a different decision.
Although in all honesty even if an amendment did occur the faith and trust in the government at this point is so low it would probably just encourage rather than convince gun owners.
Buckle in, this is just how it's going to be I think.
At this point, I don't see the surf of shifting Congress being that much faster than shifting the court. Both are slow.
The conservatives I know believe everyone should know how to handle a firearm safely, and believe people have a right to defend themselves from criminals, as well as the government. It appears to be liberals trying to disarm fellow citizens and make sure the government has all encompassing powers.
To state that differently: one side appears to believe that if we pass law "A" or ban object "B" that everything will be better. The other side seems to believe "bad" or "evil" people/governments will always exist, and that everyone has the right to actively defend themselves and their families. Including the people that don't like "B".
So this, "bad people will find a way" is such a "let's ignore the evidence of literally every other nation" to give up and clutch pearls before swine.
Directly, though, my point is that most of these extreme conservative views are self consuming and on the way out. I thought it was Carlin that said it, but I can't find a direct quote. Basically the world gets more liberal as old views literally die off.
So the idea that guns are special is idiotic. You can already get in trouble for using a gun with too many rounds when bird hunting. Is that actually illegal?
Firearm: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.
Small arm: portable firearms, especially rifles, pistols, and light machine guns.
The second amendment as strictly read says only "arms" the definition which has not changed since it was written only the lethality of the arms has increased through technological advancement culminating in nuclear arms.
A "destructive device" is a type of arm as defined by the 1934 Firearms act nearly 150 years after the second amendment was written.
A machine gun is not considered a destructive device but is still regulated and obviously still a type of arm.
So clearly you are ok with adding restrictions on arms not specifically laid out in the constitution if you are ok with the regulation of "destructive devices" and "machine guns" semantic word games aside. Otherwise if you strictly adhere to the wording of the amendment then there should be no regulation on the type of arms a citizen may own up to including nuclear arms.
Unless the law is changed, which is what many are trying to do.
The constitution and bill of rights weren't handed down by God himself to the founding fathers. There's always room for improvement, e.g. allowing women to vote, or outlawing slavery.
I'm not saying that this is or isn't the right move -- merely that "it's in the constitution" isn't a very good argument any more than "this is the way it's always been done".
Yes. Yes we should.
(collective) Do you think Ukraine would have been invaded if they didn't unilaterally give up their nuclear weapons?
(individual) Does the bully pick on the child who stands up for themselves?
Personally I feel people should be able to defend themselves while at the same time deterred from stockpiling and accessing mass casualty capable arms.