Late night thoughts on guns

Of course that is possible, but it hasn’t been common in my experience. I know dozens of people who were wary of guns until they tried shooting.

Fair enough. I want sensible guns laws as well, but we have to deal with arguments about what is sensible.

There is wide agreement on red flag laws, required training, not allowing buying of a gun for someone else (who is untrained for example), including guns as part of “danger to self and others” assessments, waiting periods, different restrictions for different types of guns. All of these have equivalents in other regulations, and data backs up their effectiveness.

But we have a minority that keeps these laws from getting passed.

We run in different circles. Maybe if you got outside your bubble, maybe meet some vegetarians and/or vegans, you’ll find some of them have and don’t like them, even so.

Maybe you could give some thought as to what our world, or any society, would be like if there were no guns at all in civilian hands, including the bad guys. How we could go about accomplishing that would I would put aside until we can agree that it would be desirable to make the effort.

There was a time in human history, and not too long ago, that there were no guns, no guns at all, anywhere in the world. Gun powder had not been invented. People then were not much different than us today.

I think it fair to believe that the average man and woman then had desires, fears and hopes pretty much like the average man and woman today. I think most people today, as then, want to live a pleasant life and are pretty much content to live by the generic rules for a successful society presented in six or eight of the ten commandments in the Bible.

So, given that most people just want to live and let live, how was a world without guns different from today? I believe not much different. Some people still stole from others, killed others, invaded other’s homes, raped women and made slaves of men, women and children and just basically did all the bad things that people have done since there were people.

So, what makes anyone think that our behavior today would be any different just because there would be no guns? I think not. People have always wanted and used something other than their own fists to achieve aggression and defense. In a gun-less society will I need a license to own a sword or a pike? If we do away with all the different manufactured weapons will we then try to eliminate rocks and sticks?

I regret that I can’t imagine human beings attaining the utopia-like society that would make owning a weapon undesirable. If I feel the need for a weapon, then I want it to be the most efficient one I can get.

Even though I’m bigger and probably stronger than the average man, I don’t want to do hand-to-hand combat. I don’t want to to stick a blade into a person and get their blood on me. Unfortunately, a handgun that satisfies my desire to defend myself efficiently and at some distance also makes it easier for a bad guy with a gun to consider attacking me or threatening me.

I have been threatened with physical violence outside my home. I was in places I shouldn’t have been in and doing things I shouldn’t have been doing. Guns were not involved, and I’m glad I didn’t have one on me. I might have used it. I have never been threatened inside my home. I thought we did have an intruder once and I was amazed at how calm and how ready I was to shoot. It was a false alarm.

Bottom line is I just don’t believe we can eliminate weapons.

This is the only sentence where you respond to what i said. I never suggested eliminating all guns. That’s the fear mongering that is driving the gun sellers side of the debate.

And of course there are laws about other kinds of weapons. “Sensible” is the key word. As opposed to, “yeah well, if they make that law, then can I clench my fist” type of bad, illogical arguments.

1 Like

How about giving some thought as to not manufacturing guns?

Your point? No gun powder, no fireworks, which really wouldn’t be bad either. They are way too loud and trigger PTSD in some people.

Nope. Not the 10 Commandments in the Bible/Torah. Try talking to the Buddhist, the Hindus, Shintos, etc and even atheists before you make such a broad statement.

We aren’t talking about eliminating weapons or even all weapons. While some of us do not like guns, the bottom line, that we are discussing is sensible gun laws. Seems to me, you totally missed the point of the thread.

This is what happens

Doesn’t that make the governor complicit to a crime?

According to this there is widespread agreement about the right to own guns and on red flag laws and background checks, but not much else.

Most of those questions are comparing owners to non owners.

I think the first thing to do is to recognize that the “right to keep and bear arms” was predicated on the assumed need for a militia that could be raised wherein the individual would bring his own weapon. Most people seem to ignore the the first part of the statement. Once we get past the notion that an army would be composed of men familiar with their own personal weapon and accomplished in the use of it, the right to bear for that purpose is essentially mute. If the “right” is to be for that purpose then we would want individuals who would be called for duty to have the best weapons available, meaning, in today’s world, full auto machine guns with large capacity clips or belts of ammunition. I find no stated “right” to bear arms for the purpose of self defense or even for hunting.

Most people seem to believe the laws don’t address all weapons that might be available, but only guns. Bladed and projectile weapons are arms and in the right (or wrong) hands can be quite lethal. The anti-gun folks seem to be against only the most efficient weapons which are exactly what a person wants for self defense. Today those are guns; tomorrow they might be chemical, biological or electrical. In a century to come the weapon of choice for defense might be neurological or molecular.

I believe we won’t change much of anything as long as we fight against people having access to efficient weapons. One irrefutable law of human behavior is that supply will rise to satisfy demand. I agree with those who say change must be cultural. If we reduce the demand - the perceived need for guns - then the number and type out there will fall. And that gets us to the political and social issues.

You seem to have missed the important part of my statement. I refer you to “… the generic rules for a successful society presented in six or eight of the ten commandments in the Bible.” Note that I did not refer to the two or three or four that set out God as the ultimate authority.

I expect that “the Buddhist, the Hindus, Shintos, etc and even atheists” all accept that the admonitions against killing, stealing, etc do qualify as universal rules required to achieve and maintain a society even though they might discard the two, three or four regarding divine authority.

Wrong again. There have been successful societies that do not base their laws on the 10 Commandments. Out of curiosity, have you read the The Code of Hammurabi, which came long before the 10 Commandments?

This is what many laws of successful societies have for a guide and while it may seem as though laws are based on the 10 Commandments, they really are not. The U.S. never was a Xian nation. In fact, the founding fathers fought any religious affiliation in our government when they formed the Constitution. This is why we have the First Amendment. Any use of religious laws would be stringently fought by civil rights and many religious groups because the U.S. isn’t based on Xianity.

We do, but Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism and even atheism came long before Xianity. Unless you want to say that Xianity is probably based on older religions, there is relationship in the way you suggest. Buddhism did not base it’s philosophy on Xianity and neither did Shintoism, Hinduism, or atheism. In fact, you’d probably be more accurate if you said many religions found today, are based on Hinduism.

I have never seen any reference to The Code of Hammurabi in relation to the men who set up the US. You will accept that the 10 Commandments were given before Christianity existed and are therefore not of Christian origin won’t you?

No, most people seem to ignore the part where it says “a well-regulated militia”.
Knowing how to shoot 30 bullets from an assault rifle does not constitute a well-regulated use of that weapon. In the hands of a deranged person, it becomes a mass murder. How many innocent civilians have to die before you start thinking about the responsibilities that accompany ownership of a deadly weapon?

Knowing how to drive a car does not give you the right to run people over. You need to be insured to drive a car. Perhaps you need to be certified and insured in order to use a gun of any kind. The insurance company will determine if you are mentally sound and certified to use that weapon in a responsible way.

1 Like

I don’t know what “we” you are talking about, but this is what gun regulators have been trying to say for decades, while the NRA acts like it applies to all guns all the time.

Trying to put this in economic, or supply/demand terms, is another lie. The NRA changed the culture by claiming that the government was going to take away their guns, and politicians get elected by elevating crime statistics and claiming the world is less safe than it actually is, corporations saw this as a way to get big business politicians elected so they supported their media outlets in this cause.

People like IBL try to ignore that marketing works, that people can be frightened or otherwise coerced into doing something that actually is less healthy or less safe for them. Once the mass shootings ramped up, right after the assault weapons ban expired, the blame went to “Democrat Mayors” and “soft on crime” whatever. We are finally getting some to admit there is a mental health problem, but they aren’t doing anything about it.

IBL still has not addressed by OP, that more guns results in more violence.

** Added later:
The gun rights logic goes like this; There are irrational people out there with guns so law abiding and rational people need to have guns to defend themselves. If someone is successful at that, the irrational people, if they aren’t dead, will start behaving rationally and stop trying to harm the rational people. This includes friends or family of the irrational people, they also will act rationally and realize the person they loved was wrong, and they will not take revenge.

If you change any part of this, you get more violence. The only thing that reduces violence is the irrational criminals acting rationally and within the law for some other unstated reason. IMO, that reason could be that they don’t have the ability to gun down anyone, or, it’s at least difficult enough that someone could stop them without killing them and talk to them.

Here’s a guy who does great work on showing the priorities of media reporting on crime. He is on twitter if you want more

I’m surprised you haven’t. Then again, I’m not with the posts you’ve posted.

I will? They are Hebrew originally, yes, but they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

This article seems to be as good as any other I’ve found in describing the “religion” of the Founding Fathers. It appears to be pretty much fact based and not promoting some agenda. The main point I get out of it is that essentially all of the founders believed in a supreme being whom people today generally identify as God.

You are correct that the US was never “officially” a Christian nation. I think you will have little chance of forming a sound argument that their belief in God and the associated religious values held by the founders were not primary influences on the formation of the nation. The expression of those values in our laws is self-evident.