The gun law in the US.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The gun law in the US. » The gun law in the US.

The gun law in the US.
Will it ever change?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The gun law in the US.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/30/09 - 03:49 PM:	#31
Keda, you sound like a socialist newspaper, though strangly you come out in favour of guns, so perhaps your more anarchist here? You and xxjoel have a point about nuclear weapons, which I can only counter by putting a torpedo in my own analogy: nuclear weapons are held by independent states with no sort of governing body, unlike the citizens of the Us who do have a governing body. I do not think that they make the world safer regardless of this, as it is safety for the present bought with the immanent threat of world destruction. Wuliheron, I agree with your point about the difficulty involved in removing guns from the US in practical political terms. Despite this, do you believe it possible to reason about the possible consequence's of such a removal, given empirical assumptions either way? Coriolis, you make reasonable points, but where do you stand on training? Shouldn't citizens be trained before they are armed? Surely the benefits you speak of can only come if this is true? An untrained man with a gun is surely just as likely to shoot the wrong person, or himself, or give his weapon to a criminal?

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 06/30/09 - 04:25 PM:	#32
A pro gun socialist anarchist in favour of private property and (at least some form of) government not to mention nukes. That's right, I'm going to sound like the average commie from now on, when I rant about the evil corporations. I figured that would be greek but thats just how it is on an orwellian planet. But guess what, you are right. You can look forward to nukes flying around quite soon. The future of our species is balancing on a razor's edge.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

coriolis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 06/30/09 - 08:21 PM:	#33
Makarismos wrote: Coriolis, you make reasonable points, but where do you stand on training? Shouldn't citizens be trained before they are armed? Surely the benefits you speak of can only come if this is true? An untrained man with a gun is surely just as likely to shoot the wrong person, or himself, or give his weapon to a criminal? Training could aim to ensure that people understand the uses and limitations of the weapon, shoot for creating the proper respect for them, and eliminate some of the crackpots from getting a gun. You could use a shotgun approach and throw in some lessons on citizenship and respect for their fellow man as well. But seriously, I think that training would add to the validity of gun ownership. At present, background checks and mandatory waiting periods are reqiured in some states when purchasing handguns, and training is already reqired for hunters to get their license. I would hold out three cautions: First, while this training would help the law abiding citizens to reduce accidents and possibly reduce theft of their guns, the criminals would circumvent most of those regulations. The second caution would be that crackpots in government could use delay, mandatory training, and licensing as a sneaky way to gradually restrict and eliminate gun ownership, negating the whole thing. Going back to the automobile analogy - the states determine who can drive and under what conditions they may exercise the "privilege." If gun ownership were reduced from a right to a government sanctioned privilege, subject to revocation, we're pretty much back to being at the mercy of the government. Going off on another tangent: The first part of that amendment mentions a "well regulated militia..." People dispute whether this means the regular army, what is done in Switzerland, or something other. Switzerland is a fascinating case. They seem able to pull it off. Even Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because every household owned a gun and shooting was a national sport. The german military described Switzerland as a "porcupine." That brings me to my third concern. Does the US have the coherence and national spirit of a Switzerland? Are our national myths enough to hold us together - or at least inspire a new generation of patriots? I hope so, but I'm not sure. In the end, we don't have to worry as much about an outside threat as we do about an inside job on our freedoms. Maybe we're doomed no matter what we do. Anyway, sorry for being more of a bad rhetorician than a good philosopher. It's getting late. In consideration of it all, I'd support a requirement for training as a reasonable accommodation to pragmatism. Edited by Bobard on 07/01/09 - 01:30 AM. Reason: fixed quote
I have a love affair with Socrates but I only know him in a Platonic way.

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171

Posted 06/30/09 - 09:37 PM:	#34
It was necessary for militia to carry and use a gun for the sake of state's defence. However, it's been changed into that it is necessary for citizen to carry and use a gun for the sake of self defence. It is said that a gun is one's necessary means for an individual right. I believe this has been justified in state and this justification has been identified with peace and equality. Therefore, gun has been a symbol of peace and equality in state. The gun-ban, in my opinion, will never be accomplished successfully unless this symbol in citizen's unconsiousness is detached and also sublimated for an desirable aim. All depend on citizen's consciousness on rationality considering guns.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 635

Posted 07/01/09 - 01:32 AM:	#35
keda wrote: Peanuts to the number of people dying due to unrestrained government, most of which happened after the people were disarmed. Are we still talking about developed countries? Corporations cause the hipocracy of democracy. Many of them pay huge sums to neuro psychologists asking: Can you make people buy more of our product... and how?. Isn’t that an attack on free will?! You might call it aggressive persuading of the people but they won’t stop on that. coriolis wrote: Switzerland is a fascinating case. They seem able to pull it off. Switzerland has a higher per capita than the US. It doesn't have anywhere near the amount of slums and ghettos America has. I'm sure that people in Switzerland, live in a pease full atmosphere. Let's say a baby has in his hand a fork. The baby is in a small room that is full of sockets. Eventually the baby kills him/herself. Why? Because the baby liked the fork so much. The fork was shiny and daddy also had one. Now there is another man in another room. He is suprised how he got there. He asks himself:Why am I holding a fork in a room full of sockets?. Realizing the situation he found himself in, he throws away the fork and walks out of the room.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4156

Posted 07/01/09 - 01:15 PM:	#36
Makarismos wrote: Wuliheron, I agree with your point about the difficulty involved in removing guns from the US in practical political terms. Despite this, do you believe it possible to reason about the possible consequence's of such a removal, given empirical assumptions either way? Sure it is possible, as I already stated the vast majority of homocides are committed by friends and family members in the heat of the momemt. People don't stop and think in such situations or, at least, they-can't-think-clearly. In other countries where small arms are rare, as I already said, such people tend to attack each other with knives and other less lethal weapons. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if somehow we could remove all small arms in the US the homocide rate would likely be more on a par with the rest of the developed world. As it stands, it is the highest in developed world barring only South Africa. However, I find such facts all but utterly useless to dwell upon in contexts such as these. It is much more productive to speculate about trends that have a realistic chance to succeed. For example, gun manufacturers are currently working to develop technology such as rings that you have to wear in order to fire a gun. Without the ring the gun won't fire and each ring can only operate one gun. If such technology were combined with serious gun registration laws it could very conceivably dramatically affect the homocide, accidental death, and crime rates.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 635

Posted 07/01/09 - 11:59 PM:	#37
I've got the feeling that because this gun law is in the constitution, people think that it's pointless to try to change it. Something that is obvious today was once thought to be unfair and an overuse of power. I'm talking about seatbelts. Earlier it wasn't mandatory to buckle up. Nowadays you get a fine or loose your life for not doing so. The same with cigarettes. In public places it's not legal to smoke. Another example: The American lifestyle of food. Americans have become more aware about there health. I understand there must be a great lobby with the gun manufactures and the conservative. So what? Obama got most of his money from the public, for his campaign. Not like Bush from giant corporations. Edited by Willowz on 07/02/09 - 03:05 AM. Reason: Fixing
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

gael
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 17, 2009
Location: Singapore, Asia

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 07/02/09 - 01:48 AM:	#38
Legion wrote: I am a U.S. citizen. I don’t own a gun. I don’t watch football. And I don’t vote Republican. But I grow weary of people questioning the second amendment. Part of the reasoning seems to be like this. The purpose of guns is to kill people. Killing people is bad. This is the morality of a three year old. The sad reality is that it’s not always bad to kill people. There do arise circumstances where it would be immoral to allow a person to live. So do me a favor. If by some strange twist of fate I become a despot and a tyrant then please shoot me dead. Wait so that means that under our sad reality, the morality "It's good to kill bad people" is for grown-up? Like if there was no other way to deal with the problem? sad indeed.. So you're pro death-penalty I presume. Killing to solve problems seems too radical for me, I guess I'm not grown-up under this so called reality.
I'm not (yet) bilingual, and philosopher noob.. sorry.

philosoraptor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 19, 2007

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 19

Posted 07/05/09 - 08:16 PM:	#39
Willowz wrote: I don't agree. If weapons were illegal, they would be hard to get into the country(US). Cocaine

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:41 PM:	#40
This past week, I saw an article about Rev. Ken Pagano, of New Bethel Church, Kentucky who held a "Bring Your Gun to Church Sunday", (with $1 raffle of a shotgun). He is careful to instruct his congregation on the legality of carrying a concealed weapon, or how to carry an unloaded gun if you don't have a license. The author of the article brought up a nice point, though -- how would his congregation feel about "Bring Your Gun to the Mosque Friday", (I'm an American Muslim, so it strikes me as funny), just down the road? Would they feel as comfortable as their fellow Americans share in their honor and defense of their Second Amendment rights? I can imagine the shock. I think that is a topic in itself. I think most people never bother to acknowledge the feeling that guns are okay -- as long as they are the ones with guns, and not anyone who might disagree with you. If that is the case, perhaps Americans shouldn't be allowed to own guns based on so many simply having such a violent culture, (like I said at the beginning), and disagreeing with most of the world, science or reason.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.