Citizens with guns

Alethea Thompson wrote: The root of the problem is emotional stability. We hate each other. Fix that. Everything will follow.

Amen. When your entire world is based on stomping everyone around you to death to get to the top, how else are you supposed to react?

"They made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'" - Cold Mountain, 2003

As Khaos has pointed out with his comparison of guns to religion, many of the most contentious issues in the U.S. are those that come with the balance of rights versus responsibilities. As Americans, we are very attached to our individual liberties and we value them above almost anything else, sometimes even over life itself. Our freedoms of speech, religion and a right to bear arms have been fundamental to the shaping of our national identity. We cling to this strongly and we don't like it when these liberties become threatened, whether it be from within our own borders or from without.

This desire to maintain our freedoms is not inherently a bad thing, except when we refuse to look at our current situation critically to determine the costs and benefits of these liberties today.

A benefit of my freedom of speech is that I can freely express ideas that others may disagree with and they can do the same. This was a step away from the persecution experienced under previous governments. This was needed to found a functioning democratic republic, but it allows for some very unpopular and possibly dangerous opinions to also be protected.

A benefit of my freedom of religion is that I get to be a Jedi without fear of government intervention. I can relate to pilgrims fleeing other nations where this was not the case. It also means that a radicalized adherent of any religion has that same protection to this very day.

The same can be said of guns. One benefit of my right to bear arms is that weapons are legally available that I can use to protect myself and my family from harm. However, these weapons are also then available to those who would use them to do harm whether they were legally attained or not.

So the questions become, at what point do the costs of potential misuse of personal liberty outweigh the benefits of said liberty, and how do we determine who is capable of using these liberties responsibly and who isn't? If there is no way to determine who will use them responsibly, is the danger posed by misuse worth the risk?

I don't have answers, only opinions, but I'd love to hear what others think.

The only thing tangibly killing people is people.

Senan, I JUST saw this before you posted - I think this is part of your argument in a nutshell...



Seriously, though. I completely agree with you. It's a balance of which freedoms are willing to be sacrificed for safety.

rugadd wrote: The only thing tangibly killing people is people.

Unless a person is killing another with their bare hands, then no. It's the gun doing the damage, controlled by the person.

We Jedi have many layers of belief...

Some of us act like [are] 'soldiers', and, we practice to defend... We are more prone to fight first, discuss second...

Some of us are 'talkers' and are more peaceful, and abhor all violence....

And, I think we need to be somewhere in-between...

Rex wrote:

Alethea Thompson wrote: I know gunsmiths. They even make their own bullets. It's not hard to make a gun if you want to learn the skill.

So no, it really isn't all that different.

Yes, I agree but my point was that having a gun in your trunk is legal whereas a bomb is not. Most bombers are caught well before they can hurt people whereas the FBI has multiple times complained that they have very little preventative measures for shootings.
Casting bullets is easy, as is manufacturing rudamentary firearms; criminal Aussie gangs are notorious for that in particular. Luckily, these tend to be break action and don't have the cyclical rate of a semi auto 556.

Most bombs are caught before hand because there is a reason to suspect the person has a bomb. Case in point: This guy was cleared by the FBI. They had no reason to pursue him. In that timeframe, he could have made some bombs, carried them to the club and set them off. They didn't pull this guy over looking for guns, your point bares no relevance unless he was pulled over and they found legal guns in his vehicle.

The other sides are better entry and exit protection, improved surveillance, but what ever is done, people will still try to do these things with whatever they need to get it done.

So the trick is to make it harder for this sorts of things to happen, since we all agree they shouldn't do it, and accept there will continue to be people trying to make them happen. The harder it is for someone to conduct a mass casualty incident then the more chances there are for authorities to detect the event in its planning and preparation phases.

Miss_Leah wrote:

rugadd wrote: The only thing tangibly killing people is people.

Unless a person is killing another with their bare hands, then no. It's the gun doing the damage, controlled by the person.

In 2014 (since 2015 isn't up yet) at least 660, and 678 in 2013, people were killed by personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc). Either case, an Rugadd's point is that the gun can't kill you without being prompted to do so- thus it is people killing people.

I mean, when was the last time you heard of a dog, cat or other pet killing someone with a gun?

Humans don't need guns to kill people, but guns DO need people to kill people.

People are killing people.