So I was thinking about this recently since everyone seems to be talking about gun control. Why are some guns allowed and some aren't? Is it based on what would be reasonable to use in real life? If that's the qualification, then why in hell is anything but pistols legal? Nobody would ever need a gun that requires you to scope in for anything but hunting and at the shooting range. For hunting, you don't need anything powerful. And at the shooting range, there is no reason for that gun to come home with you.
I'm also going to switch it around, and say that all guns and military equipment should be legal. It's probably not practical to do that at this point, considering the power of modern military equipment, (pure chaos and self-destruction) but I dare you to find an argument against making guns fully legal that isn't a slippery slope.
Note: I'm not a gun fanatic. I actually don't own any firearms. I'm just curious what your opinion is on gun control and the slippery slope that accompanies it.
I'm a firearm owner that thinks homosexual marriage is fine and socialism isn't fascism. I don't think the government should ban certain firearms but I'm all for better background screens that prevent mentally unstable persons from buying them legally. Just another reason why the two party system is flawed. No argument can really be separated as polar opposites and doing so breeds irrational, over-zealous fanaticism. It leaves us with two sides of a divided people unwilling to compromise on even the most basic issues that should not even be issues to begin with.
I think a good judge is how usable is it for legal activity vs. illegal activity. There are very few legal activities that are made easier with an assault rifle. Obviously shooting 850 rounds per minute would make it easier to kill someone attacking you, but compare that to how much more dangerous you are to the rest of the public. Pistols can of course still be used to commit crime but it's harder to commit mass murder with one. and then there is stuff like Civilian legal artillery pieces which are only ever allowed for collection reasons, although a Flack 88 is crazy powerful it's not going to be very useful for doing anything because people would see it coming a mile away.
But a pistol is just as usable for illegal activity, if not more. They are small and compact, making them much less noticeable.it's harder to commit mass murder with one.
Are we really only concerned about mass murders? I get where you're coming from, but it's really easy to justify really harsh restrictions based on the same logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#Attacks 33 dead and 23 injured.Pistols can of course still be used to commit crime but it's harder to commit mass murder with one.
Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.
Not it is not it is a flawed argument that assumes a series of linked events that has not been proven. Slippery Slope in an Informal fallacy For instance If I want to ban say steak knives or child porn there is not a series of causal links that lead to a totalitarian state. Banning one type of weapon does not necessarily lead to the banning of others.
assault weapon bans could lead to more gun bans but not necessarily.
in Australia they banned assault rifles in 1996 this is what happened
Very interesting. I'm going to do some more research into this. You've given me some things to think about. Thank you JakobVirgil.
Part of it definitely depends on your interpretation of the second amendment:
Realistically, I don't know where we should sit on the slope. I think an equally important part of the conversation is discussing what the goals of the restrictions on gun sales are, and discussing the motivation for gun ownership (which correlates with gun violence). Recent trends in the US are positive, although public opinion is murky on gun control. I understand that in our society, there is an argument that public opinion on matters such as this deserve to be reflected in the law - that if people want to own pistols or have greater access to weapons they should have those rights - but I also don't know if I trust popular opinion on these matters, especially with how public opinion is influenced by the media's portrayal of gun violence. For myself I see no benefit towards owning a gun. I would hope that less people in the US wanted guns, but I don't think we ought to address that through gun control laws - I don't actually know how convince people that they don't need to own them. This doesn't really address your question, which I think is a really good question! I suppose I believe in general that gun ownership should allow for personal protection and sport, but not beyond that. Limits on magazine size, bullet type, etc. seem to make sense to me, but I don't actually know enough about guns to suggest with confidence what changes would be best. But I suppose if I had to draw a line, rhetorically that is where I would - in terms of legislation it would require somebody with expertise to figure out.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I suppose there's an argument to what a "well regulated militia" is, to some that could suggest that the available weapons should reflect what the military uses, which to many others would seem a gross overstatement.
I find that the 2nd amendment is ridiculous to try and draw conclusions from its wording. It was written over 200 years ago. We now have killing machines that are more effective than science fiction a while back. Drawing the line seems more and more arbitrary and basically wrong. I could only rationally choose no guns or all guns, but I couldn't really support either. I'm torn.
I agree that trying to parse meaning from the document in this sense is ridiculous, but unfortunately it's as far as I know the most major law on the subject. I disagree that all or none are the only options - maybe I think that gun control (as a society) reflects how comfortable we are with access and types of weapons - a sort of collective morality. I don't think there's a breakdown of which guns are "moral" or "immoral" for me, and for most people, I'm guessing. It seems difficult to discern how much danger is posed to me as a non-gun owning member of society by the accessibility and type of guns available - and since it's likely a continuum, it will be hard to determine how to respond to that. I would hope to view things rationally, but I do think trying to minimize gun violence while keeping in mind people's rights to guns is a combination of rational thoughts - I don't think one needs to supersede the other.
I would hope to view things rationally, but I do think trying to minimize gun violence while keeping in mind people's rights to guns is a combination of rational thoughts - I don't think one needs to supersede the other.
This is pretty much my exact feelings. I like this a lot.