Should guns be banned?

[Unknown29]

Absolutely!

Not banned, but very heavily regulated

No, I don’t think regulating guns would stop crime

[nightdrot]

Voted for "Not banned, but heavily regulated."

We accept, with any right, the potentiality that it may conduce to evil as much as it may conduce to good. The method by which a right is exercised is less consequential then the social context and intellectual suppositions in which it is exercised.

The real issue with the Second Amendment is that rights are viewed by Americans in absolutist terms. As Burke pointed out, such "natural rights" do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Such rights are applied with too little regard to the cultural context in which they exist.

There is much to suggest that the culture is incapable of prudently and sensibly managing the rights it abstractly attributes to itself. Alexander Hamilton made the point that if you have a Bill of Rights you extend to the government the authority to regulate those rights.

Indeed, the regulation of those rights is actually routine. Free speech is limited by slander, perjury, defamation and copyright laws, among others. Freedom of religion is allowed consistent with public order - if a religion calls for human sacrifice, it is prohibited. There are other examples and the list is long.

However, in the matter of the right to bear arms, in part, guns are woven into the culture in various ways. An emphasis on self-defense - particularly in urban areas where crime tends to be high - rural areas where hunting is an important sport, gun collectors and gun clubs, and, as you noted, an ethic rooted in America's libertarian traditions of resistance to tyranny. (Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd. So supine is the government that it cannot even balance its budget lest it ask the public to pay for what they buy.)

The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.

However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.

Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.

In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.

[Unknown29]

There are two main views on guns in America:
1. Diehard pro gun
2. Uneducated on firearms
When I say uneducated, I mean Biden himself don’t even know what an assault rifle is. They have actually been banned since 1986. Also, between 10 and 30 times of people are saved by guns in self defense than killed (and that includes suicide). If democrats actually cared about the lives of the kids that are killed in shootings, they wouldn’t be forcing their radical agendas on them (Remember, transgender have nearly a 50 percent attempted suicidal rate), and would be talking a lot more about the nearly double Americans that are killed by drugs.
Bottom line:
IT’S NOT GUN CONTROL; IT’S PEOPLE CONTROL

[nightdrot]

Not sure I follow what you are attempting to say. The bottom line though is that you posit two extremes -

What you call "people control" at one end. At the other is "chaos in the streets" where the nation looks little better than a Third World banana republic and the average citizen is not safe walking in his own community.

Suffice to say, the aim of prudent statecraft is to facilitate the creation of a society wherein the balance is struck. A society where the individual is "controlled" is a tyranny. A society where it is not safe to walk the streets and where each citizen must be armed to the teeth is called "savagery."

Neither is really a desirable end. As Burke said, "In order for a country to be loved it must be lovely." At the moment, the nation with its' miserable unsafe cities and its' Third World crime and murder rates worthy of Haiti and Congo is not exactly "lovely."

[Unknown29]

@nightdrot third world crime and murder rates of California and New York is not exactly “lovely” either. But their gun laws are much stricter than in Florida, where you can carry a gun without a license, and crime is at historic lows.

[nightdrot]

Yes, and crime rates in Western Europe, where firearms are heavily regulates, are lower than in Florida. Not sure of your point.

The laws are adapted to cultural and sociological circumstances in which they are shaped. In any case, the argument you make is an interesting one.

In order to get Florida crime rates, you want a citizenry where the assumption is that the population is armed to the teeth and ready to whip out its' firearms on a moment's provocation. To be sure, there is a certain security to be derived from such assumptions, but it is arguable that a society defined by the extent that the population is safe because of its willingness to take law into its own hands is not a good one.

The bonds of social trust are fraying in America in part because the law is not seen as part of a healthy society but rather as in opposition to it. In effect, Americans prefer the tyranny of the streets to the tyranny of the government.

Not sure that either tyranny is the standard by which we should be shaping society. Rather, a balance must be struck. In your formulation, Florida is safe - comparatively speaking to New York - but neither is a really healthy society where the citizenry is bonded to its' fellows by the assumption that all share in the health and safety of their communities.

[Unknown29]

I see your point, but I disagree. Look at stabbings in UK. A gun is just a tool in the hands of a nasty person. The criminal is the root of the problem, and that’s what we should be attacking. Fund the police, ramp up penalties for violent crimes, and arm the citizens. Chicago has the strongest gun control in the country, and also the highest violent crime.

[nightdrot]

Look at the crime rates overall. The method is the means, the fact of crime is the real issue. Those who favor gun control outright imply that the problem is the guns themselves, when in truth, the real problem is the breakdown or social order.

The point in regulating guns is that as we shape the laws, the laws shape us. By regulating guns, we inculcate an ethos of responsibility that can, in due course, conduce to a respect for law and authority.

Yes, knives in the UK are a problem. Of course crime overall is much lower in the UK than in any part of the USA. That does not mean you will have no crime. Human beings are neither perfect nor capable of being perfected, and thus perfect outcomes are not to be expected.

Indeed, as Sir Thomas Moore said, "The pursuit of Utopia is the primal madness of the species." See also the Marxist, National Socialist and Fascist social experiments of the last century. Indeed, to a lesser extent, see also the Great Society agenda of the 1960s and 70s.

The bottom line, you will not, by regulating guns eliminate crime. What you can by such regulation is reduce the most violent modes of crime and nurture in the culture, over the long term, a respect for law.

[Unknown29]

I thought you voted for not banned, but very heavily regulated. You sound like a 2a patriot like me👍🏻

[nightdrot]

Yes, I did. As Alexander Hamilton pointed out, when you articulate a bill of rights, the government then has standing to regulate those rights. That is my position.

[Anonymous]

I don't like guns, but I also recognize that they're a constitutionally protected right, regardless of how I feel about the 2nd amendment. However, I don't think they should be as plentiful, or as easily obtainable, as they currently are.

At the very least, I feel like there should be mandatory training, prior to obtaining a license to own a gun, with different levels of certification, depending on the particular firearm in question.

Owners should also be required to carry liability insurance, in the event of accidental/wrongful injury, or death. Now, situations like home defense should be justified, and insurance would not be a factor in those situations. An accidental discharge that injures an innocent would be covered by their insurance, though.

Firearm proponents are constantly saying that they are responsible gun owners, so I don't see why they object to mandatory training & certification, if it would help keep others responsible, as well.

I know that the analogy "Vehicles require training and insurance" is thrown around a lot, and the general counterpoint is that driving isn't a constitutional right, but there are some parallels that can be useful. A person cannot drive a semi with a regular operator license, for example; they require additional training & certification. Why not apply the same premise to a gun?

Owning something like a 9mm handgun requiring one level of certification, and a rifle using 5.56 ammo requiring a separate certification for ownership, for example. A person who is proficient in one may not automatically be proficient in another. If you want both, then prove you can handle both, and get certified.

[Anemone978]

Regulated... if you ban them it will be like the UK where no one has guns except the criminals.. it's stupid..

[Whatthefluff]

No. I want reports of mass murder to not be reported in mainstream news as they are.

[Dargil]

Regulating people will reduce gun crime. We should begin with prescription drugs. And anyone who purchases one should get a drug test like for a new job. Ditto Driver licenses.

[call_me_scar]

No or at least not all of them maybe ban a ar 15 as that weapon was just made for war but people still do like to hunt so just heavy regulate them to insure crazy people don't get them and insure they can use the weapon in a professional way

[Unknown29]

I would recommend watching this:
https://youtu.be/SDlSVE0X3Ao

[call_me_scar]

So u sent me a video of the dude who abused his pregnant wife and if I recall correctly can't even get on get behind legalizing drugs

[Poliker]

I feel like they are necessary for survival, but when you live in a city somewhere, your survival looks different from someone who lives in a third world country.

[PeanutbutterAnd]

Criminals should be banned and put to death.

[SandyKandy]

Law abiding citizens hate that they need guns.

[Unknown29]

I agree with the fact that law abiding people don’t want to have to use a gun. I personally have many guns, but would never want to kill someone. That is IF they are not putting my life or loved ones in danger.

[Anonymous]

Heavily regulated. Those on antidepressants shouldn't be allowed a gun.

[Unknown29]

There are already background checks from preventing felons and anyone with a violent criminal record from obtaining firearms. Why don’t that stop shootings? At this point there are so many guns in the US the only way is to defend ourselves.

[Opinion Owner]

What is the most common thing about mass shooters? They are all on antidepressants.
https://youtu.be/dwJ1TJSa7Ao

[mommymommymommy]

No, I'm an ardent supporter of the second amendment BUT, that doesn't mean we should be having AR-15's, as private citizens, either

[Anonymous]

Of course, they should.

[Exterminatore]

No, criminals should be banned. Wait….. they already are. Ok then we should ban murder…. wait, we already did. Well that wasn’t very effective was it?

[Mimi_758]

No, guns should not be banned

[BeMuse]

They can't be. Get over it.

[gorydetails]

Lol, no.