Other People's thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

[Lost...]

I am stongly PRO GUN. To me, whether you ban guns or not, people are gonna kill people. I know that sounds absolutely terrible, but think about it. People will find new ways to quicky kill people. They'll use different weapons, and we can't just go around banning kitchen knives. Also, People will illegally sell guns, they've done it for decades.

In the 1920's, the government tried to ban alcohol, resulting in hidden, illegal bars and boolegging, the crime rate only went up and eventually the ban was repealed because it was doing more harm than good.

Even now, we have illegal drugs that thousands of people are still able to get their hands on and use incorrectly, harming them and people arund them.

It's a simple 'the more you say no, the more they want it' idea. Bad people will find ways to get their hands on guns, and by banning guns for law abiding citizens, it's putting them defenseless. I have three guns in my house, specifically for self-defense in case of an intruder. If an armed man gets in my house with a gun and I only had, say, a kitchen knife, it wouldnt end well for me.

I think we need to focus less on the presence of guns, and more on the people. Pe do ple committing these mass-murders are often mentally ill, have issues with famiy or are terrorists. We have the capability to better defent against at least the first two of these things.

We have mediction and treatments for different mental illnesses, we need to make sure people are getting treatment.

Family issues CAN be helped with therapy and other things if they were made available to the people who needed it.

Terrorism is something we can't control quite as well, we do a somewhat decent job preventing it, but, thats one thing that doesnt often deal with our own people

Guns dont kill, people do. If we focus less on the objects in our country and more on the people in action, I think we will have a much more successful prevention of these kind of events

 

[Nastarial]

I think the 2nd amendment could stand, at the very least, to be updated if not removed. In the area I live in within the USA, everyone quotes it either wrong or in portion (which is probably just a result of our education lacking in funding, but that's a whole different matter entirely). IE, "I have the right to bear arms!"

I think it served a good purpose for the time it created, but it's quite outdated. I get that a lot of our people don't trust the government, and it's led to a state of "I always have to be ready" whether its their fear of the government coming for its people or Shady Sam down the road who any day now will try to break in and hurt their family.

But this is also the same country that is very desensitized to gun violence, since we have mass shootings so often.

This is just my opinion based on my experiences in my community, though.

 

[Catori]

I love the second amendment. Let's give everyone guns.

 

[Mirgris]

So I see a lot of thoughts and very strong emotions here.

Unfortunately guns are one of those subjects where people can be extremely emotional and extremely ignorant on the subject matter at the same time.
Which is a dangerous combo.

So I want to address a few of those ideas and present a few others.


Within the united states whether or not we should or should not have the right to bear arms is irrelevant.
It isn't a discussion worth having, pandoras box is open.

Americans will almost certainly always have the right to bear arms in most states to some extent.
There are simply to many difficulties to remove every fire arm from every citizen, or even the majority of them.
It would among other things require an amendment to the Constitution.
(Which has had over 350 attempts and 0 of which have passed) Amendments simply don't happen yet one this polarized that only takes 13 states to veto.

So keep that in mind, the best discussion is not what should have happened in the past but what we do now.

One of the largest issues is we are talking about federal laws and America is a huge country with vastly different needs.
Rhode island probably needs less rifles than Texas or Alaska. Due to the huge open areas and deadly wildlife. (I've had to kill a rattle snake that crawled into my sisters play toy for instance)

To say someone in Alaska or Texas can't own any gun would be very problematic, farmers for instance have a very real need to protect their live stock, families and themselves.

So this is where state laws come into play. As they should.

However that doesn't really work, the states don't do deep inspections between each other, such a thing would be incredibly expensive and for most things useless.

Is America willing to spend *Billions* So that a farmer can own his rifle in Texas, but can't drive it to new york?
Because the size of the borders, number of roads, amount of man hours that would take, billions would be under selling.

So state laws on purchasing is somewhat ineffective.

We have to ask what we are trying to reduce, a lot of mass shooters followed the laws, or obtained weapons from someone who did.
The vegas shooter as a millionaire. He could of gotten those weapons in any country in the world and do what he did. Money talks.
And often they kill themselves, (or suicide via cop). So no increase to sentencing or various other methods would work.


I live next to a homeless shelter. I pick up drug needles out of my yard weekly. I had a window broken by a wrench that sent glass 22 feet. I had my life threaten for walking down the same street as a homeless man who was paranoid because of the drugs he was on.

I own a gun. I think I have a very valid need for one. There has been threats to burn down my home and the police can't do anything because they simply walk back into the homeless tents or shelter and they are lost in the crowd and the other homeless won't talk to the police.

I don't want to, or plan to shoot anyone. I may very well get attacked again, and some crack head won't feel or care about my solid left hook because they are to high to feel pain. I may very well have the choice between shooting someone to getting stabbed to death. They all openly carry large knives for protection from each other. The drug trade leads to a lot of crime.

I don't know what I would do without 2A.
Carry a knife like they do? Hope I win a knife fight?
I know that owning guns is one of the reasons they are hesitant to attack our home.

It isn't an ideal solution, but often like this the gun isn't the disease it is the symptom.


So why does gun control fail? (Well interstate travel as mentioned above)

Well one of the first issues with gun control is that it's layered in mistrust. Mistrust that is earned because of so many laws that are made with incredible ignorance. (Ghost guns, and that time new york made it's own police force illegal)

So what does that mean? It means any and all gun control laws will be fought to the full extent that many are capable of doing so.
Because they are permanent loses to a right (Whether or not it should be a right, it is) chipping away at something more total.

Many people would accept these laws if they were the last. But right now if a dozen gun laws were passed, a dozen more would be submitted tomorrow.

There is no such thing as compromise if you know that any ground given will seek more being given tomorrow.

Like I'd be cool with a high capacity magazine ban, but if it was given without a fight then we will just see pistol grips being fought over tomorrow. If that is passed in a day then it something else ad infinum.

We would need to see a set of laws that also would be immediately invalidated by any further gun control laws.
(Like a contextual sun set law) This would be the only way to make both sides agree on a set of gun control laws.




So that is the Grid lock we are in.

Both sides have extremist (No guns ever for anyone, fuck that it isn't practical or legal we will somehow eventually take them all)/ (Arms includes nuclear weapons, millitas should have any weapon the government does so they have a fesabile chance of over throwing it)

And both sides massively distrust the other for fairly good reason.
(Ignorance of fire arms and the issues) / (Not caring about the innocent lives lost, because that is the "cost of freedom")

So any and all things will be fought entirely tooth and nail until we change our culture from the strong division.

So the states do their own things and the rest of us suffer.

 

[Silanon]

I agree that someone who really wants to get their hands on a weapon will likely succeed at some points, strict weapon laws or not. Yet, I do not find the argument that you need a gun for self-defense very convincing. When you buy that gun, you're not getting safety in my opinion, just the illusion of security. Of course, it feels good to have that thing in the house that kills people from afar, right? Gives you confidence, and all that good stuff. The problem, as noted before, is that as soon as you use it, shots will be fired - and not just by yourself, most likely. And in most cases, that'd not happen if you'd just comply in that moment, and let the police do their job after that. Yes, you might kill that pesky intruder - but if that guy brings a gun, he'll know how to use it as well, and he'll be prepared to use it. Your illusion of security gets you in a position where you might be far worse off, because suddenly, lives are at stake - and most likely, they were not before. That confidence to be able to win a fight thanks to the gun you bought - that confidence is what actually escalates the situation into a fight.

One thing that was mentioned is the relative simplicity and quickness of killing with guns - I do agree that those make them special, but would like to add that they also very much promote you to pull the trigger first like no other weapon does. Because of their deadliness, you're never in a situation where getting shot first is a good idea - and this holds for both sides, so you're more likely to have people shoot even though neither side really wants to begin a fight.

I do believe that we all agree that crazy people should not carry guns - and I do believe that, even with strict laws, it is needed to take precautions that none of those people ever get their hands on a gun. Some people here have argued that those will use other weapons instead that might lead to a similar result in the end - I do believe that there are other options to defend yourself against a knife etc. without carrying a gun - there are self-defense techniques out there that will keep you relatively safe while not committing murder. Besides, I do believe that the answer to the regular threats as described by Mirgris is for the police to actually find a way to do their job. I'm aware that that's not always as easy as one might hope, you described the police's point of view yourself. Still, enough places in the world have reached a point where you don't even have to think about the need for guns. My point of view is that you should not need a gun, the police should provide your safety. Note that this is highly idealistic, and probably what you'd describe as ignorant - take this more as a long-term goal, not as a "hey, we'll collect all your guns tomorrow, see you then!"

Making therapies etc available should be a no-brainer, strict gun laws or not - we have the means to help people in those situations so we'll have to find a way to actually help them as well. Wildlife is something that I did not consider too much - only wolves here, and there are other means to keep them away from the livestock.

 

[Mirgris]

Spoiler: Response spoilered because it's adressed later in post.

, just the illusion of security. Of course, it feels good to have that thing in the house that kills people from afar, right? Gives you confidence, and all that good stuff. The problem, as noted before, is that as soon as you use it, shots will be fired - and not just by yourself, most likely. And in most cases, that'd not happen if you'd just comply in that moment, and let the police do their job after that. Yes, you might kill that pesky intruder - but if that guy brings a gun, he'll know how to use it as well, and he'll be prepared to use it. Your illusion of security gets you in a position where you might be far worse off, because suddenly, lives are at stake - and most likely, they were not before. That confidence to be able to win a fight thanks to the gun you bought - that confidence is what actually escalates the situation into a fight.

But that is equally true of anything, at least the illusion of security.

I'm sure someone has pepper sprayed someone then gotten stabbed in return.
Self defence instead of relying upon the police is wildly different in different parts of the country.

My uncle owns a ranch in Texas, his drive way is several miles long type of ranch.
Police response time for them is over an hour. If someone wanted to break into his home and threaten him and his family, the police are not an option.
Yet alone the wild life in the area.

Some people need a way to handle rattle snakes that they got a bit to close to by accident or even to put an animal out of it's misery that is sick/injured.

Like, this idea comes across very "City minded" and that just isn't always the case.

Alabama middle of nowhere town I was fixing my mothers home. We heard a woman screaming out in pain as her husband beat her. It was from across the street. We called the police, it was over half an hour.

The police themselves were only an illusion of security.
Now her husband having a gun, or taking her gun would have been just as bad yes.

But half an hour? She could easily have been dead with or without. She would have been better off with one.

Besides, I do believe that the answer to the regular threats as described by @Mirgris is for the police to actually find a way to do their job. I'm aware that that's not always as easy as one might hope, you described the police's point of view yourself. Still, enough places in the world have reached a point where you don't even have to think about the need for guns. My point of view is that you should not need a gun, the police should provide your safety. Note that this is highly idealistic, and probably what you'd describe as ignorant - take this more as a long-term goal, not as a "hey, we'll collect all your guns tomorrow, see you then!"

Maybe ignorant is to harsh a term, but idealism that is centuries away is problematic. In fact the creation of guns in garages and homes (3d printers) is becoming easier, cheaper and more effective. I would actually think that we are going to see gun crime go up world wide in the future.

What happens when someone makes a 3d printer that prints metal?
And then someone uses it for the one or two gun parts that can't be made of plastic?

It's problematic and it isn't common yet but it is growing. (In fact one man who was giving away 3d printed gun blueprints got told by the supreme court that was illegal, so now he charges it is a "pay what you think is fair" system so normally people give him just a dollar)

Also, that assumes that the police are always upon the side of the citizen.

I think an old idea of America has been forgotten.
The 4 boxes.

Soap
Ballot
Jury
Ammo
Please use in that order.

Which means that the final step in political disagreement is revolution. Which sounds insane but from a military stand point is still a relatively real risk in a variety of ways. (There is a reason we haven't won a war in such a long time).

This may sound insane but is it?

2 of the largest world leaders are doing incredibly shady things and removed term limits putting themselves in power for life.
Dictators are still a threat today. America is in no way exempt from the situations that creates these. (Trumps threats to declare a state of emergency over immigration is a scary power grab if it actually happens, some nebulous threat being used to extended power, with no clear cut off for when it is fixed)

Now I don't think either of those two are going to see a citizen rebellion anytime soon. However if they do I hope they are well armed.

Ultimately freedom can be taken by the goverment, human rights can be taken, and massacres happen.

To disarm yourself and hope that you will be eternally sheltered from evil by others is dangerous.
I only have 4 boxes to defend myself and my country men from these threats and the last and most drastic is dangerous but important.


Not only that I don't even know that the economics actually work in the long run.

Several people much smarter than I have been talking about small European countries doing incredibly well economically but they (and America) disproportionately use natural resources to fund that incredible life style. Which in turn makes it unsustainable.

Wealth which lowers crime and lowers a need for personal fire arms.

Now lets ask economically, could we do bring that standard of living to all of Africa, the Middle East and South America?

How expensive is it to make a nation capable of having such little crime that the police and the citizens have no need for guns. (Still doesn't solve animals, hunting or militias, but that's a whole other bucket)?

The median global wealth (Half have more half have less is 4000 American dollars, half of all people on earth are worth less than 4000 US dollars )
That really isn't a lot when we are talking about how affluence affects crime (and in turn effects gun ownership and police competence)

Idk, the big rant is just to say economics are getting worse for the average person not better, there fore I find it unlikely that the police quality and safety of the average US citizen unlikely to so drastically increase that people will feel no need for guns.

 

[Silanon]

Interesting to read your thoughts - thanks for sharing. See, I do indeed live in one of the larger cities out there, and while I have had some impressions of the country life as well, I wouldn't ever claim to be able to see things from that perspective. Also, it's easy to write stuff when you're not personally endangered too much - yeah, we got burglary etc around, but it's nothing that'd threaten me daily. So from that point of view, the things I mentioned don't seem so far off that it'd take centuries to get there, particularly for a country like the US that should, in theory, have the means to be a leading example in most regards. That's my perspective - you certainly have a different one, and that's what makes these kind of discussions worthwhile.

You have a point about the access of guns in the future - as I said, I'm inclined to believe that everyone who really wants to get a gun will find one somewhere, given enough time and/or money. I'm merely questioning the philosophy that the way to deal with that is to carry a gun on your own. Same holds for things like pepper spray etc. - while I do not see those as critical as guns, I also think carrying those around is not the solution. De-escalation is the right way to go in almost all situations, and any kind of weapon you carry makes it more likely that you use those instead of taking a safer approach. In one of your examples: If either the woman and the man would've had a gun, then one of them might have been shot before the police arrived. To me, that does not sound like a good solution, and I disagree that she would've been better off with a gun. Same for someone living far off - if someone were to try to rob him and his family, it might be better if he gets robbed instead of him trying to kill the intruder - you can replace many things, but human lives are not amongst those.

As one can probably read in my posts, I have faith in the work of the police around me - even though they screwed up several times already. I find it hard to see them as an opponent, though that's clearly the case in some parts of the world. Either way, I do not think that fighting the police forces directly is ever the way to go - see below.

General note: Context is important, as always - a change of the 2nd amendment would likely demand other changes as well, mostly to deal with the threats that some people believe to need guns for. That's an important part, I'd say - it's not only about banning weapons, but also about dealing with the problems that apparently demand their availability. Certainly a long process, though one for the better. That process does include finding a way to reach a certain level of living standards for everyone - as you said, some prognoses aren't too promising, but those are actually questions that mankind needs to solve at some point. Probably too far off from the initial question of this thread to discuss things further, though.

I do think that those four boxes you mentioned (just had a short read, didn't know them before, at least not in this formulation) are not set in stone - I, for once, think that the first three boxes should always suffice, and thus I do not see the need to carry guns for that reason.

Let me add that I can see the usage of guns for certain professions other than just police etc. - you named a few examples. Perhaps in that direction, more thoughts are in order, I mainly focused on the points made about the right to own weapons for self-defense purposes. I do think that all countries with strict gun laws have specific solutions for those cases, and I do not believe that those interfere with the general ideas I mentioned here.

 

[Mirgris]

a country like the US that should, in theory, have the means to be a leading example in most regards.

See I don't think that's true we often compare the entirety of the united states to cherry picked examples like Germany which is a fraction of the population.

It's a kind of inherent intellectual dishonesty to make that comparison and ignore that parts of America have the same crime rate as Germany.
We also have the deep south which is more poor than the chech republic has a huge drug crisis because those huge open areas and woods are great for meth labs.

It's another instance of "The US is really big and diverse"

It would be fairly easy to make Washington DC safer.
It's another to look at Mississippi and Alabama the two poorest states in the nation and somehow compare those to Germany.

Also I keep using germany because the national average of median and mode wealth fits USA pretty closely (and it's an example I hear a lot) but the US also has a disproportionate top 1% throwing those numbers off fairly harshly. On average (Once you remove outliers) the USA as a whole is less wealthy than Germany yet alone the deep south where it is more extreme.

So I really don't see the economics being viable to make the entire nation comparable and affluent enough that, that type of low crime rate works.

As long as homeless people walk around with K-Bars threatening to burn down homes, I think the home owners need their right to have a rifle on the wall.

I do think that those four boxes you mentioned (just had a short read, didn't know them before, at least not in this formulation) are not set in stone - I, for once, think that the first three boxes should always suffice, and thus I do not see the need to carry guns for that reason.

I think this is where your idealism and my pessimism separate.

I believe in preparing for the worst at least within government, I feel people should have the right to plan for the failure of their government.

China and Russia both in our modern day and age have presidents for life. I do not think the first three boxes will practically change those nations and with the social credit score system and how it is advancing I very much worry that they need that fourth box.

I essentially do not trust that a nation can be built in such a way that we can be sure that the people will NEVER need to revolt.
And if we are not certain that they will never have that need, then they need the right to own the tools of a revolt.

Hell look at England brexit and now Article 13, the peoples first three boxes seem to not be working, I am concerned that in time England will be no better.
The USA has "Camps" where children 10 or under are going to court on their own to defend if they need to immigrate to America or not.


It may not be now, it may be 200 years it may be 2000 years later. However Governments allow the greatest evils in human history. Stalin, Mao, Hitler all lead a nation (3 largest "Kill counts" in history) and I have no reason to believe that the next one like those 3 won't be an American president.

And if it is, I can only hope that me and my fellow country men are armed, and resist with all that we are capable of.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

I’d like a 2nd Amendment.

 

[RayPurchase]

I’d like a 2nd Amendment.

I'm going to take a punt and say by your username you mean in the UK. Why would you want it?

 

[Axel The Englishman]

A. Because I'd like to be able to hold the government accountable.
B. Because the police are absolutely useless to such a point that you would assume that's a comedy sketch.
C. I like guns.