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.

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 06/28/09 - 01:19 AM: Subject: The gun law in the US.	#1
I already posted this on politics forum. I should have for seen what kind of replies I got over there. I hope that there will be some more constructive thoughts on this forum. My rebellion against reality: The Wars between gangs could be comparable with World Wars. Politicians concluded, long ago that having huge stockpiles of weapons is not beneficial for the future of mankind. Henceforth, they started reducing the amount of stockpiles. Atomic weapons are being and should be reduced. Iran and North Korea behave like 18 year olds with to much testosterone. If politicians know of what is above, then why should anybody have an Uzi under his bed? Why not conclude the same with guns in the US? Such a high crime rate is hardly met anywhere else in other developed countrys. It is in the constitution that every man can have a gun for the safety of his land and life 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. What's suprising is that after so many years people still have this right...? Today there are big citys, loonys, and people taking the law into there own hands. The right to purchase and posses guns is a condition sine qua non for the famous American freedom to be defined. Does anyone know why this law is still active? Edited by Willowz on 06/28/09 - 06:32 AM
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 06/28/09 - 02:56 AM:	#2
Watch "Bowling for Columbine". Canada has more guns-per-person than Americans, but the crime rate is much lower. The movie argues that violence is more to blame on culture than actual gun ownership. I think the movie doesn't go far enough. American culture, political, social and personal is built around violence. Its heroes are violent, its international policies are based on violence, its entertainment is violent, it projects and prospers on violence. When I'm inside America, it is hard to see, but outside it is more clear. People have misinterpreted the second amendment. Most people interpret it to mean that people can keep a gun under their bed to protect themselves from burglars. Actually, it was written so that people could keep guns under their bed so they could rise up against the government if it became tyrannical. Someone keeping a gun with the intent to use it in Washington DC would be considered a dangerous criminal or crazy conspiracy theorist, not someone simply enjoying their rights. Besides, things have changed in 200+ years. The government is significantly better armed than the average American, (my father, however, met a wealthy man in Texas with his own private air force of Messerschmidts). Atomic weapons are in a completely different category. Why only mention Iran and North Korea, (who are publicly anti-American), while ignore America owning the motherload? Russia? France? China? Israel? India? This, to me, indicates an implied premise that only America and its allies are "allowed" to own nuclear weapons, even if they have no intention of using them -- because America's violent culture insists on the "good guys" being granted the right to use violence against those who oppose them. I know there is a legal group in Washington DC who want to argue that atomic weapons, being classified as "weapons of mass destruction", are illegal under any circumstances, but especially if they are targeting nations without a declared war. One thing that Americans and Europeans don't get about the middle-east politics is the importance of posturing and theatrics. The "mother-of-all-wars" and "wipe-off-the-map" rhetoric is not expected to be taken literally, but as a statement of defiance. It probably comes from a harsh environment, but the people really aren't that bad. Western politics is exploiting the rhetoric for political gains and demonizing "the enemy" for the sake of the people. I think America will gradually come around. More and more weapons are being banned every few years. Many very modern countries get by very well with a complete ban on weapons. But it will probably be much harder to change a violent culture. Just try to get Americans to switch from football to soccer.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1021

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 06/28/09 - 05:40 AM:	#3
Well, it's in the constitution, you see. It's rather hard to get rid of as a result. The constitution was made that way. So, proponents of guns, or the "right to bear arms" have an advantage in that respect. It probably will not go away in the forseeable future.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

coriolis
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 06/28/09 - 08:49 AM:	#4
swstephe wrote: Actually, it was written so that people could keep guns under their bed so they could rise up against the government if it became tyrannical. We're getting a tyranny by degrees. World History allows for uprisings. It may become necessary. While the average guys deer rifle is no match for the govt guns, it provides a psychological comfort and potential deterrent for mischief makers. It is ingrained in Americans that the people themselves are their own last resort. I'm not keen for a new world order telling us what to do. Maybe it's just an illusion that we'd be able to defend ourselves, but it's also ingrained in us to go down fighting. Like the Greeks, we fight among ourselves to our detriment, but when faced with an outside threat, we'll rally together. swstephe wrote: Just try to get Americans to switch from football to soccer. I have no interest in automobile racing and I'm a huge fan of cycling. Does that count? Football could be a new thread - It embodies many of the values and myths that are ingrained in Americans.
I have a love affair with Socrates but I only know him in a Platonic way.

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/28/09 - 09:26 AM:	#5
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.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 906

Posted 06/28/09 - 10:26 AM:	#6
If you want the cause of its still being active, ciceronianus has the obvious answer. If you want a justification for its still being active, the standard ones are that legalizing gun ownership reduces crime, and gives the government an incentive to stay in line. (Note that the Bill of Rights did not invent the whole idea of a right to keep arms; it was part of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and both those justifications had been used in common law.) Now it's debated, of course, how well legalized gun ownership will accomplish either of those goals. 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. You mean there's two of us?

keda
Ijon Tichy

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

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3642

Posted 06/28/09 - 10:33 AM:	#7
Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun as Mao said. Every tyrant had to disarm the population before they came to power. The founding fathers were not stupid unlike the brainwashed masses today.
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

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 630

Posted 06/28/09 - 11:17 AM:	#8
Legion wrote: 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. That kind of thinking is not constructive. It will only bring destruction. keda wrote: Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun as Mao said. Every tyrant had to disarm the population before they came to power. The founding fathers were not stupid unlike the brainwashed masses today. swstephe wrote: Someone keeping a gun with the intent to use it in Washington DC would be considered a dangerous criminal or crazy conspiracy theorist, not someone simply enjoying their rights. I don't think a brainwashed society will be any better with gun's. This could be another topic about what swstephe said. The problem starts earlier. Guns will not bring change for the better.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/28/09 - 11:31 AM:	#9
Willowz wrote: That kind of thinking is not constructive. It will only bring destruction. Does this mean you think it is always bad to kill people Willowz?
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 06/28/09 - 11:57 AM:	#10
It is illegal to kill people in gang warfare. If guns were not avalible, then criminals would find them harder to get at. Think of pure numbers: if 10% of the population has access to guns, if 50% of the population has access to guns, if 100% of the population has access to guns. Which of these cases would lead to a greater incident of deaths related to guns? Are all people who own guns trained to take down a terrorist, or help in an uprising - rather than accidentally shoot someone because "I thought he was going to shoot me!"? It seems to me that this 'right' should be accompanied by training at least... perhaps it is, I am not certain. Anyone? In the UK guns are not largely available. Police do not carry them (with the exception of special police). We still have a problem with knives, but unfortunately knives are useful for things other than stabbing people. It seems obvious that guns are mainly useful for killing people, and surely killing people is not something that you would want people to be able to accomplish easily?

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.