Sorry for the long post
@Danoff . I reckon we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree but I was curious about some of the things you've stated.
We go through this every time.
When a mass shooting occurs in the US, a parade of people descend into the thread to denounce the US for allowing citizens to legally own guns.
"US" being the reason why. It's curious how those threads are usually opened because something happened in the US and not somewhere else in the western world. It happens
way too often in the US (another link for some stats
here). That's why people come here.
This is done without regard to any other events of any kind happening anywhere else in the world, and without care as to the particulars of the event in the US, and even (often) before information is known about the event. The folks that wish to explain that it is the US Bill of Rights that is the problem see each one of these events as proof-positive of their position, and come here to explain that this time, there is no denying it.
Do you think the 2nd amdt. is fully implemented as it was written? Do you thing the BoR is inerrant and couldn't be outdated / amended? Is it a fixed, finished, perfect document?
Each time they are met with the same set of (mostly) principled responses, because the event changes nothing. Why would anyone think that the latest mass shooting will be reacted to differently than the previous? All of the same principles apply. All of the same reasoning applies. The US Bill of Rights and the principles upon which it was drafted are not utilitarian. Unlike most of the rest of the world.
You might be coming here perplexed that the latest deaths do not change positions of those who value the right to bear arms... but we are not performing some calculation based on how many deaths we can prevent. The goal of our laws is not to minimize casualties, it is to preserve human rights. The Bill of Rights does not attempt to serve the greater good, or calculate whether some people must make a sacrifice to their freedom for the good of the rest - it codifies the rights of the individual.
That's where probably the crux of the matter lies. Why is it that we have systems that serve the greater good of the people, including in the US, (like the requirement of a driving license in order to drive a car) but when we talk about guns, the individual right of the people to bear arms is above all else and there's no requirement for even a simple license / permit before or regulation after the guns being sold? If the goal of the law is not to minimize harm / casualties, why is it illegal to drive after a few beers (random 0.x gr/l, I can't recall) or while speaking on the cellphone? Isn't your right to drink or talk with someone else being infringed upon by the law in order to serve the greater good? Why do we have parking tickets and speed limits or why can't you take a bottle of water on a plane? These seem pretty utilitarian laws / rules. I mean, the list goes on and on for every aspect of life. Unless utilitarianism means something different.
Also, can you back up this sentence: "Unlike most of the rest of the world." I have no knowledge of such thing happening at least in western societies. I don't know of any country where a court will decide to put an innocent in jail just to avoid a riot by the people who think he's guilty or let a guilty man free just to avoid a riot by those who think he's innocent. OJ Simpson came to mind - free man again.
So don't be surprised when you get a seemingly stubborn response when you think that the latest tragedy is a tipping point and find that there are people who are not pushed off of their principles. Those principles are not utilitarian. They are not based on a calculus of human lives. They are based on what power you justifiably have over other human beings, and that is all. And yes, it is worth dying for. Utilitarianism is an immoral view of the world.
That specific principal happens to be those people's principal because someone thought it was a good idea to have it in a particular time in history (citizens to bear arms). It's not something absolute and for sure not as commonly regarded as a good principle as the freedom of speech/press/assembly. Only radical lunatics argue against free speech. But most people in developed countries do not think that common citizens (easily) owning guns is a good principle. Do you think you would hold on to that principle or come up with it if it wasn't in the BoR?
There's no perfect moral view of the world that works every time in all situations imo. If the right to have guns was so good, you would think everyone everywhere in the developed world would want that too. But people don't. It's a non issue. Why is it? Because the greater good is immoral? I'm safer living in a country where I know the guy next door who yells at his kids and wife or the crazy guy behind me in the traffic jam doesn't have the legal right and easy access to a gun.
I am not a ward of the state. I take personal responsibility for my actions, my well-being and the well-being of my family. Not everyone can learn mixed-martial arts to defend themselves with their hands or a bat. But we can all learn how to use a gun effectively and safely, and we can afford it. If some tragedy in the future (or this one) is abused as a political tipping-point to deny people their ability to take ultimate responsibility for their lives, it will become a far more tragic event with millions of victims.
You say "But we can all learn how to use a gun effectively and safely" but data shows that police forces and armed forces in general, in several countries (including in my own country) have a higher chance of committing suicide even though they get better training than the average citizen. Imagine people who don't have any type of training. The chance of doing something crazy like killing other person or killing yourself has been shown to be higher if you own a gun. Also, there's the obvious chance that mistakes happen and people kill other people or themselves with no intention or because they have no idea what they're doing (kids).
Why would it take millions of victims? That sounds like fearmongering. Compare the numbers of gun violence in the USA with other developed countries (or even with the entire western European continent). Do you think it's safer to live in the USA than, say, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Finland or Denmark (pick any country really) because you have guns to defend yourself and your family? Don't you think that that idea will only add to the problem of gun violence and not the opposite? If having guns is so important for so many americans (I think 35% own guns), everyone should have a gun if they wanted, right? Because, in the end, a black belt is useless against a bullet.
Hypothetical situation:
If a crazy guy (without criminal record and with a legally purchased gun) has a gun and wants to do me and my family some harm, he'll do it. Because me and my family don't carry our weapons all the time and we're not alert at all times. Having a gun could be and often is simply useless because when we need it we don't have it. The crazy guy wins and the good guy/family loses because we were unarmed despite our willingness to die for the second amendment.
I have 6, what do you think? Unhealthy? Does it mean I'm preoccupied? I'm in the market for one more.
How is owning more guns than hands to hold them possibly related to your safety and your family's safety? Do you keep a gun in every place you live/work? Do you carry them all with you in case you need to use them?
I agree... and that's because banning guns is immoral. Full stop.
A ban on guns is telling someone that they are a criminal, despite no wrongdoing, simply for the act of possessing the firearm and using force against them to demand compliance. No one on Earth has the right to make that judgment against any other human being. I know I know, utilitarianism, the greater good, blah blah... it's a human rights violation.
Immoral? Human rights violation? Seriously? How? And how is a ban on guns telling someone they're a criminal? That doesn't make sense at all.
If so, why stop with firearms? Why can't people have military drones, bazookas, full auto machine and modified weapons guns if they're not criminals, have done anything wrong and just "possess" those things? Why is it immoral to ban some guns but not the ones I mentioned?
Is it immoral to block you from taking over 100ml of liquids into planes? Is anyone telling you you're a criminal if you have a bottle of 200ml and never did anything wrong?
Let's focus the discussion on what we can do to solve the problem of violence (gun violence is an arbitrary brand of violence), in a way that is consistent with morality instead of jumping to human rights abuses because we don't want to think honestly about the problem.
Then maybe we have a chance of preventing this from being changed to a truck plowing through people instead of a gun.
What morality? Yours? You seem pretty settled on the topic already. Possessing guns are your right and nothing can change that. What do you want to discuss really, if you dismiss the "greater good" or the well being of others for the sake of owning a gun as you apparently do. Saying you want to discuss violence in abstract and ignoring the pretty apparent problem of gun violence in your country seems like raising a smoking mirror to me.
I'd also like to know the reasoning behind how a ban (I don't defend an outright ban but a strict control as it happens in most other 1st world countries) would lead to a massive conflict. What evidence supports that? Are all those none criminal, responsible gun owners going to turn into crazy lunatics from one day to the next and start killing people as revenge of some sort? Then I'd argue they're not that moral to begin with.
PS: I ignored the "well regulated militia" part because I'm not an expert but even the experts disagree on this. It's not a clear cut fact that the 2nd amdt means simply that all citizens can own guns.
USA can get their illegal weapon goods from countries like Mexico
@RESHIRAM5 The USA doesn't need to go to other counties to get weapons... On the other hand, 2000 illegal weapons cross the USA to Mexico
every day. The gun problem in the USA is connected to other countries in the south and not because the other countries are the ones producing and selling guns to the average citizen but the other way around.
edit: just adding
this. In Brazil, most of illegal weapons that cross the boarder come from the USA. They state in the article that the easiness with which you can get a gun in the US is part of the problem for them in Brazil and for Latin America in general.
