Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

[Shimitup]

Or... you can give them an answer that helps them see where their own reasoning might be in error (JackBurtonJr)

Personally, I like this method. As I recall Ben Franklin was very effective with this as was Jesus with his parables. (not to give Ben rank over Jesus)

 

[easyg]

New York city is banning all soft drinks over 16 oz.

I predict restaurant deals "Buy one 16 oz drink and get one free".

 

[gym]

So they will just give you 4, 8oz drinks. These things are a waste of time and money. There is always a way to get around stupid laws. restaurants may give the drinks away for free with a meal, the price just get's included in the price of the hot dog. I can't see how they can stop you from giving something away for fee. Just stupid and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Like telemarketing, I stlill get telemarketing calls. They can never stop these things, when I had my club, I had a telemarketing room, but I wasen't selling anything, thus the rule fell flat on it's face when somene reported us. I was just giving away free 2 week memberships. It worked great "by the way" the state or Govt official who called me was so flustered, when I asked him why he was calling. I wasn't selling these folks anything, just inviting them to try my club, and try a multi million dollar facility for 2 weeks for free, as long as they were permanent residents of the county and state. She or he, "i don't remember, could not find any law we broke". So we continued to do it for a year until we went through the white pages. There are laws and there are laws, if you pass a stupid one, then don't expect it to stand when challenged.

 

[Alaska444]

I read an essay a while back talking about society is free because of the guns we have. That is a different take than what you hear today, but there is much truth in that statement.

 

[citizenzen]

Alaska444, actually I've heard (but don't personally believe) that statement all my life. How is that different from what is being said (by many) today?

 

[JackBurtonJr]

Well if you're going to perform a utilitarian balancing, you need to have the proper items in the scales. In this case, the freedom to own firearms does not cause murder. Murder is already illegal. So it's like asking if the freedom to own cars is worth the damage caused by drunk drivers. The vehicle is merely the instrument, and it wouldn't make much sense to ban cars because of drunk drivers.

But beyond this, a fundamental right remains regardless of utilitarian balancing. It restricts the ability of the state to restrict the right EVEN IF the exercise of the right is thought to have too many negative consequences.

a careful reading of the article shows that there is no balance that is acceptable... indeed... there is no balance at all. Balance is not an issue.

Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do either purposefully or willfully. There is no tipping point, no level of unacceptable behavior by those who choose to live outside society's rules that counterbalance the concept of freedom. Once we begin to quantify freedom and parcel it out in part based upon some kind of social formula where the most fearful, the least apt among us have controlling interest then it is far from freedom and becomes instead merely privilege.

[i am dding the above paragraph to the article to make it more clear to those who have problem with nuance ]

 

[citizenzen]

Freedom is freedom.

Freedom is more nuanced than that, otherwise you'd be free to light up a cigarette wherever you want. With rights come responsibilities and restrictions. That is not in question.

The real question is, what responsibilities and restrictions are we willing to bear for each given freedom?

In the case of pro-gun folk, the answer is, not much.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Yes it is Jack nothing we have done would have prevented any US President from being killed or anybody else. We need greater axcess not less.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Directly addressing the question as stated and from my perspective I would say that the potential scenarios you present..."...hundreds of thousands of horrific situations and incidents when those who mis-use an otherwise legal substance create chaos and harm innocents?" represents acts in relation to individuals - regardless the number or especially if presented as a percentage - and not a singular, unified act against or to society.

Now, directly countermanding an amendment which is otherwise; necessary, clearly written, clearly motivated and debated with only the most self-serving flexi-logic, well, that's damage to society.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

The justification for not allow you to light up a cigarette is that you are somehow imposing upon someone else's freedom.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

Yes it is Jack nothing we have done would have prevented any US President from being killed or anybody else. We need greater axcess not less.

Todd... the "damage to society" has always been a popular justification for a denial of rights and activities.

 

[citizenzen]

The justification for not allow you to light up a cigarette is that you are somehow imposing upon someone else's freedom.

That's what I get for trying to be a little poetic.

Okay ... freedom of speech is not entirely free. You cannot libel, slander, yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or in many places even curse in public without breaking a law.

No right is entirely free of restrictions or responsibilities ... even owning a gun.

The real issue is where we, as a locality, state or nation choose to draw the line in how restrictive or lax these measures will be.

 

[JackBurtonJr]

That's what I get for trying to be a little poetic.

Okay ... freedom of speech is not entirely free. You cannot libel, slander, yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or in many places even curse in public without breaking a law.

No right is entirely free of restrictions or responsibilities ... even owning a gun.

The real issue is where we, as a locality, state or nation choose to draw the line in how restrictive or lax these measures will be.

You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater all day long and be perfectly legal doing so. And that, along with your libel, slander, and other examples are judged after the fact to see if one actually did anything to harm someone. Outlawing speech before the fact is what is called "prior restraint" and the SCOTUS has ruled many times that prior restraint simply is not compatible with the 1st Amendment. BTW, the SC has ruled very clearly and in the strongest terms that offensive, cursing speech is not illegal and cannot be mandated so except in rare locations such as within a court hearing. And even then, it has to be excessive.

The vast majority of gun laws operate as prior restraint. You can't do X because (take your pick) someone might get hurt, you might have an accident, there might be panic in the streets, etc.

 

[citizenzen]

The vast majority of gun laws operate as prior restraint. You can't do X because (take your pick) someone might get hurt, you might have an accident, there might be panic in the streets, etc.

Many thousands of people do get hurt and killed every year.

No "might" about it.

Again, it's our choice how much we choose to regulate it.

We just choose to regulate it very loosely, and pay the price in wounded and dead.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Most gun laws apply BEFORE THE FACT because they treat potential as intent.

 

[citizenzen]

Most gun laws apply BEFORE THE FACT because they treat potential as intent.

Potential as intent?

I've never thought of it like that.

I simply see an implement that increases mortality and bodily injury.

I look at the benefit derived from allowing that implement to be possessed.

And my conclusion is there is no longer much need for the implement, and that society would be better off with far fewer of them, and therefore far fewer deaths and injuries.

 

[SuperNaut]

There is already an ultimate prohibition in place that protects "society": Murder is against the law. If someone decides that the ultimate prohibition is meaningless, no number of smaller prohibitions will be effective.

Freedom is dangerous and scary, safety is a padded cell.

 

[SunnySlopes]

Any feedback would be appreciated

Sure. I wish you guys would stop posing these ludicrous questions.

I cannot see the need to have high capacity magazines

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497014

This is a pro gun forum. Questions like yours are trollish at best.

What kind of answers do you expect?

"No, the damage to society isn't worth the freedom to own guns. We need to confiscate privately owned guns."

Ludicrous question.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Potential as intent?

I've never thought of it like that.

I simply see an implement that increases mortality and bodily injury.

I look at the benefit derived from allowing that implement to be possessed.

And my conclusion is there is no longer much need for the implement, and that society would be better off with far fewer of them, and therefore far fewer deaths and injuries.

Wow. That's really broken.

. . . implement that increases . . .

Assigns volition to an object. Fail.

. . . benefit derived from allowing that implement to be possessed . . .

Allowing? Benefit derived from allowing? Staggering fail.
It's a right. Life is a right. Speech is a right.
You allow nothing. You presume much. It's not yours to "allow."

. . . no longer much need . . .

A) presumes "need" is the governing factor. Fail.
B) presumes "society" matters more than the individual. Fail.

. . . therefore far fewer deaths and injuries . . .

As though preventing deaths and injuries was the actual objective. Fail.
If "preventing deaths and injuries" is the worthy cause for which it is sold, there are so many other things to address and prevent and proscribe before we get around to guns.

And proscribing guns has turned out so badly, over and over, that one has to be immediately suspicious of anyone proposing a "reduction" or "control" or "reform" of gun ownership.

Fail.

One of two things is true here. Either you have a truly epic amount of studying to do -- of history and the contexts of disarmament -- or you already have your mind made up, and this is sport for you.

Good luck either way.

 

[citizenzen]

Assigns volition to an object. Fail.

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't say the object itself increases mortality and injury.

Increasing the number of guns in the hands of human beings increases the number of dead and injured ... at least when you compare the United States to other western industrialized countries.

Nice straw man, though.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I did nothing of the sort. I didn't say the object itself increases mortality and injury.

Increasing the number of guns in the hands of human beings increases the number of dead and injured ... at least when you compare the United States to other western industrialized countries.

Nice straw man, though.

Feel free to expand on that.

Is it that the object causes people to do more killing?

Because, let us not pretend otherwise, guns are lethal force. They are the equalizer. They are lethal force in the hands of people who are otherwise "criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings."

 

[citizenzen]

Feel free to expand on that.

Is it that the object causes people to do more killing?

I saw a funny bumper sticker the other day that i think summed it up nicely. It said, "Guns kill people, like forks made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

After chuckling to myself I thought a little bit more about it. Forks are called eating utensils. They make it easier to eat. Guns are like forks in that they are a utensil too ... a killing utensil ... they make it easier for humans to kill one another.

I hope that helps to explain it more clearly.

 

[gym]

What makes you think having less guns will make society less damaged? Any proof this would work, of any studies you can site or projections. Otherwise it's just you making a statement based on your own premise.
You are asking people to believe that guns caused society to become more damaged, when we all know that's not true. perhaps selling door to door is a better use of ones time.
Not having guns would definatlly make everything more damaged as those who have illegal guns are not going to give them away, which would leave the rest of us like sheep to be gunned down.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

I saw a funny bumper sticker the other day that i think summed it up nicely. It said, "Guns kill people, like forks made Rosie O'Donnell fat."

After chuckling to myself I thought a little bit more about it. Forks are called eating utensils. They make it easier to eat. Guns are like forks in that they are a utensil too ... a killing utensil ... they make it easier for humans to kill one another.

I hope that helps to explain it more clearly.

They make it easier for potential victims to kill the person attempting to murder them.

They make it easier for a motley collection of citizens to kill an invading horde.

Good.

It would seem to make sense, then, for them to be standard equipment for everyone. Hell, forks are standard equipment. Virtually everyone has several. Even the fork abusers.

I understand that there will always be people who abuse their forks. They have the freedom to fail. It is not for others to force them to eat right, nor to eat less. That's what freedom is about. You're free to get it right, and free to get it wrong.

We don't do "prior restraint."

That's not freedom.

We prosecute and penalize actual acts, not the imaginings of the worried.

And when we do penalize the imaginings of the worried, we perpetrate gross injustice.

 

[citizenzen]

What makes you think having less guns will make society less damaged? Any proof this would work, of any studies you can site or projections. Otherwise it's just you making a statement based on your own premise.

I think Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand provide models that demonstrate how fewer guns mean fewer dead.

While I will grant you that some of the blame rests with American culture, guns and the number we have in circulation plays a part as well.

We prosecute and penalize actual acts, not the imaginings of the worried.

I'm not imagining the thousands dead and injured every year.

They are quite real.