That is what is supposed to happen, but when the Supreme Court is largely packed with conservatives, and entirely packed with members of two minority religious groups, where is the balance? The Supreme Court actually has disproportionate power because it can interpret the Holy Book (the Constitution) to fit its agenda on simple majority, whereas to clarify the holy book requires a large majority. There is no balance there, because the founders never imagined this situation occurring. They and the amendment drafters knew what they meant. I imagine if they were somehow transported to the present they would be completely amazed at how things turned out, because they knew they were only fallible men.
1 Like
Sure - I was just replying to where you said they have one purpose and ONLY one purpose. Thatâs the pedant in me speaking out. 
1 Like
What majority religious groups would you prefer on the Supreme Court?
Iâm sure youâre right about that. If guns were naturally unavailable, the world would undoubtedly be a better place. If you compare our society with guns to our society without them, the latter will win on every metric.
Similarly, if heroin naturally wasnât available, our society would be in a much better place. But since heroin is actually pretty easy to produce and distribute, some might say that means we should use the government to make it unavailable.
This is where the problem starts. Because while it often works to have the government restrict things that nobody particularly wants (like lead in gasoline), it doesnât go so well when trying to restrict things that lots of people want quite badly. So then you find yourself having to either
a) establish an overbearing security apparatus to enforce an unpopular prohibition, or
b) examine why people want the thing so badly in the first place, why theyâre misusing it, and address those factors
Clearly, (a) is not working for drug prohibition, and the side-effects of the attempt have been terrible: mass incarceration, police militarization, and a ânew jim crowâ. We recognize that (b) is a smarter, more effective approach for dealing with heroin, so why not for firearms?
Abandoning a moralistic stance on drug policy has moved us closer to solving that problem than the entire crusade against drugs ever did. But we still seem to be stuck in a discourse of morality around guns, and thatâs why we canât make any progress.
2 Likes
Of course, thereâs also a middle ground between the current âDamn, itâs super easy to get a gunâ and âHey, letâs ban all gunsâ straw man that many gun advocates seem to think pro-gun-regulations folks are touting.
8 Likes
But⌠drugs arenât guns. They serve different purposes to an individual and have different⌠consumption patterns (is that the phrase Iâm after? Basically, you donât get addicted to guns and seek them out repeatedly buying them regularly. It would most likely be a one off purchase)
1 Like
What Iâm talking about is the philosophy behind policy, not the specific intensity of policies themselves.
Thereâs the philosophy that says social problems can be solved by restricting peopleâs access to desirable but morally objectionable things, and the philosophy which says that the underlying desire for harmful items and behavior must be addressed to see any lasting social change.
So my objection is not that gun regulation is too strict, but that regulation in general misunderstands the problem.
I though thiis was an interesting read.
Certainly theyâre different, but there are useful parallels which we can learn from. Drugs are very illegal, but they continue to be used because people want them in spite of the law.
Similarly, even though the regulation might seem modest, guns are very often circulated through illegal means for similar reason. In both cases, youâre dealing with widespread disobedience. In dealing with drugs, weâve discovered two main approaches: directly prevent the disobedience through regulation and enforcement, or address the underlying social causes.
For a long time, our society leaned hard on regulation in order to avoid or deny the role that social issues have on our drug problems. Itâs possible that our focus on gun regulation is similarly motivated by a desire to avoid or deny the role that social issues have on violence.
1 Like
(emphasis added)
And the US found a solution for marijuana. Prohibition does not work but regulation does. You could do this for guns, too! (sure, the other way around - but the principle is the same)
3 Likes
I can see you donât know many gun nuts.
7 Likes
As Iâm not an American, I really donât feel comfortable telling Americans that theyâre living wrong. Honestly, I am in agreement with you in general, but I feel that Americans, through the democratic process, have the right to decide which documents govern their lives.
After all, as a Brit and a Canadian, our head of government is unelected. Iâm certain that more than a few Americans look askance at that.
Guns are already regulated, and the regulations are routinely violated. The idea that we could fix this by increasing the regulations or enforcing them more harshly is very similar to our failed drug policy. Go deeper.
1 Like
The 14 (?) legal weapons of the last mass shooter are in my book not a sign of well regulated access to guns.
4 Likes
If a person has done nothing wrong yet, why would you restrict them access? This guy wasnât crazy enough to get committed and restricted. He hadnât lashed out before to get a domestic abuse exception. You canât read minds or predict the future.
1 Like
So youâre saying we shouldnât restrict pedophilia because some people desire little boys?
1 Like
Cultural clash zone here : ) I donât see a problem in restricting access.
Bad Car Analogy Time: One can own as many cars as desired, but to legally use them on public streets the owner is bound to ensure the roadworthiness, regulated by mandatory inspections.
Providing a reason for owning gun(s) (sport, hunt, self-defence, collecting) is imo not completely different.
2 Likes
Guns arenât generally used on public property. The exceptions being public hunting areas, state run gun ranges, etc. Most guns are kept in private homes and used on private ranges or private land. Nearly every state that issues CCW for carrying in public requires licensing. I think right now there is one exception to that. Some allow open carry, but again, that is more or less transportation. They would get in trouble if they USED the gun unless it was for defense.
I announced it as bad analogy⌠As guns are mostly a problem when not used legally I still argue that restricting access is a good way.
Iâm personally not interested in using or even owning guns but it would be simple for me to get a permit here in Germany, itâs not as if guns are verboten.
The easiest way is the one for shooting sport:
- no criminal record - â
- no mental disease - â (afaik)
- membership in a gun club - tbd
This would allow me to buy all weapons used in the different shooting disciplines, I think up to two every six months. It seems sensible, but as I donât shoot I donât no if this is a too narrow restriction for competitive shooters.
3 Likes
I donât know the German framework very well. (Can tell you darn near anything you want to know about American gun law though.)
Is there a way for civilians to own full-auto weapons in Germany?
