4 ms·

It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding

by cygx 14y ago

It's not as clear-cut as you make it sound. Holding a loaded gun is equivalent to having strapped explosives around everyone in your line of sight and holding the trigger. You have the right for effective self-defense, but I have the right of not having explosives strapped around myself. Which right weighs greater, and who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances where vastly different and firearms far less effective?

nthj 14y ago
You could say the same thing about free speech. "Anybody at any time could start calling for us to overthrow the government in the town square! Newspapers need to be reviewed by the government!" Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.
hga 14y ago
That's an amazingly bogus analogy: First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it." Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff. The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.
- cygx 14y ago
  First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. So limit the signal of the remote trigger. The analogy is still basically sounds, ie only as flawed as any other analogy. My point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power. I'm not arguing for or against banning guns, I'm arguing for the right to make that decision. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested. That'll be a big comfort to anyone who got shot before the police arrived. I'll stop here - I'm getting cranky, and if I don't I'll start calling people ugly and stupid ;)
  - hga 14y ago
    "My main point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power." Maybe that's true where you live, but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power. Rather, "society" decides who shouldn't hold it (e.g. felons, the severely mentally ill, unsupervised children, and they have to have serious reasons for such bans), everyone else by default can.
    - cygx 14y ago
      Must... resist... Dammit! To quote myself: who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances were vastly different and firearms far less effective? Circumstances change. Stopping to adapt is normally not a winning strategy. And I promise to stop trying to slaughter your sacred cow - at least for now ;)
      - eurleif 14y ago
        >who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? How about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states, which is the standard for amending the constitution, not a simple majority? If you really think what the constitution says is outdated, that's what you should be advocating, not that we simply ignore it.
      - hga 14y ago
        Erm, you are aware those "dudes a few centuries ago" included a mechanism in their constitution to allow adaptations? Sure, "society" can change what I outlined about the enumerated RKBA. Just get 2/3rds of each house of the Congress, or a Constitutional Convention to propose it, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
    - Someone 14y ago
      "but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power." This being in the US constitution only indicates that society in the US finds this rule very important. Putting it in the constitution makes it hard to change or abolish the rule. Hard to change is different from unchangeable, though. Extreme example: if the constitution were unchangeable, slavery would not be constitutionally prohibited. So, this is up to society.

by cygx 14y ago

nthj 14y ago

You could say the same thing about free speech. "Anybody at any time could start calling for us to overthrow the government in the town square! Newspapers need to be reviewed by the government!" Liberty is dangerous. If you don't like it, don't go outside.

hga 14y ago

That's an amazingly bogus analogy: First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. Else we wouldn't have gun safety rules 2 and 4, "Never let your muzzle cover something you're not willing to destroy", and "Be sure of your target and what's behind it." Second, in the context of self-defense (vs. hunting, which is ... safer than golf as I recall), no one is "holding" a loaded gun unless they're in a self-defense situation where the use of lethal force is justified. At that point we, or at least the vast majority of the US including most anti-gun states, have decided the possible increased danger to innocent parties is an acceptable tradeoff. The only time I hold my concealed carry gun is when I put it in my holster before leaving my dwelling (with thumb firmly over the hammer to prevent an accidental discharge) and then the reverse when I return. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested.

cygx 14y ago
First of all, guns are directed energy weapons in a loose sense of that phrase. So limit the signal of the remote trigger. The analogy is still basically sounds, ie only as flawed as any other analogy. My point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power. I'm not arguing for or against banning guns, I'm arguing for the right to make that decision. Anyone out in public "holding" a gun, loaded or not, for any period of time outside of a self-defense situation is going to get arrested. That'll be a big comfort to anyone who got shot before the police arrived. I'll stop here - I'm getting cranky, and if I don't I'll start calling people ugly and stupid ;)
- hga 14y ago
  "My main point stands: Guns can make heads explode, and it's for society to decide who should hold that power." Maybe that's true where you live, but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power. Rather, "society" decides who shouldn't hold it (e.g. felons, the severely mentally ill, unsupervised children, and they have to have serious reasons for such bans), everyone else by default can.
  - cygx 14y ago
    Must... resist... Dammit! To quote myself: who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? Some dudes a few centuries ago when circumstances were vastly different and firearms far less effective? Circumstances change. Stopping to adapt is normally not a winning strategy. And I promise to stop trying to slaughter your sacred cow - at least for now ;)
    - eurleif 14y ago
      >who should decide if not the majority (or their elected representatives)? How about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of states, which is the standard for amending the constitution, not a simple majority? If you really think what the constitution says is outdated, that's what you should be advocating, not that we simply ignore it.
    - hga 14y ago
      Erm, you are aware those "dudes a few centuries ago" included a mechanism in their constitution to allow adaptations? Sure, "society" can change what I outlined about the enumerated RKBA. Just get 2/3rds of each house of the Congress, or a Constitutional Convention to propose it, and then the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
  - Someone 14y ago
    "but I live in a constitutional republic where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enumerated in said constitution, and therefore it isn't up to "society" to decide who should hold that power." This being in the US constitution only indicates that society in the US finds this rule very important. Putting it in the constitution makes it hard to change or abolish the rule. Hard to change is different from unchangeable, though. Extreme example: if the constitution were unchangeable, slavery would not be constitutionally prohibited. So, this is up to society.