3 ms·

> If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The

by 15155 8y ago

> If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say? "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." > mass shooting deaths Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country. > suicides Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights? > law enforcement killings Do you know how few of these actually happen? > accidental discharges by children Sad, but statistically very rare. > road rage incidents ?? > and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place. You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" - far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list. I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.

mikepurvis 8y ago
Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.
- 15155 8y ago
  I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives: As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence? How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves? I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it). Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.
    - 15155 8y ago
      > Is it a statistically significant number It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged. > How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice." What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening. > That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative. Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from! You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"

by 15155 8y ago

mikepurvis 8y ago

Suicides do have a real cost (https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere. In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.

15155 8y ago
I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives: As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence? How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves? I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it). Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.
  - 15155 8y ago
    > Is it a statistically significant number It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged. > How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice." What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening. > That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative. Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from! You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"