Reply to Re: My opinion on the school shootings in the US
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
you've already thought up at least half a dozen MacGyver-esque contraptions
MacGyver is a n00b; I out-geek him any day.
More seriously, I don't think the single most important reason to allow people to own guns has even been mentioned yet: Freedom.
Good point. But there are limits to freedom; that's the "price" of living in a society. This price on my freedoms is a benefit for others. For example, others benefit from the fact that my freedom to beat them up is taken from me.
So the question is, which freedoms do we, as society, want to take away from our citizens, to make the place better for all?
The freedom to own objects which have no use other than destruction would be one of the first things I would take away; long before the freedom to walk naked in the street, for example (which I suppose is illegal in the US).
In the Netherlands, you are allowed to use guns as a member of a shooting club. But you normally don't get to take the guns home; they are not to leave the club. And there's a background check before you can even be a member there (although as I wrote, I don't think that works too well, but the clubs themselves want to prevent accidents, so they are pretty careful).
In exceptional cases hunting is allowed by people who have a license; they may also have a gun for the purpose. But they may not take that gun into the city; they can only take it to and from the place where they hunt.
These exceptions to the ban on guns sometimes lead to shooting accidents (mostly by hunters, and mostly suicides, AFAIK), but that is rare. From that I conclude that they are acceptable exceptions.
the thing is something of great reasonable use. (Like guns for hunting, hobby, feeling safe/independent)
I disagree. I don't think hunting should be allowed at all, but as I wrote above it may be acceptable to give people some fun. But I would make it very hard to get a hunter's license; allowing guns in an informal place like people's houses is asking for trouble.
Hobby...? You mean collecting? Is there a reason those guns need to be functional? Or that there must be bullets anywhere near them? If neither of those is the case, I don't have a big problem with it, as long as they don't move around too much. If you're talking about shooting at a club, then I can accept this, but I would not allow those guns to leave the building. Also, I would require each club to hire a psychiatrist, because I can't see how people who find so much pleasure in destroying things can be entirely sane. But that may be just me...
Feeling safe: you should do something about that. That shouldn't be too hard; research proves that owning a gun makes you less safe. If that message is made clear, and the weapons industry doesn't confuse things (because they can't sell guns to normal people anyway, they have no incentive), people should stop owning guns for safety in no time.
Feeling independent: You want the sort of independence that they have in movies like mad max or terminator? Even if it comes with the societies that those movies present with it? That's not really society at all; it's anarchy.
All the things you mention as dangerous are indeed restricted in pretty much all countries. But all the other things (except for cigarettes) have valid uses which are not bad for anyone. Guns don't really; at the very least those reasonable uses are insignificant compared to the harm they cause. In the US, guns are for some reason less restricted than far less dangerous things like alcohol or cigarettes.
Golden middle road, man.
That's what I was doing; the problem is that the US is currently so far beside the road, that going to the middle is a pretty extreme operation.
Now if I was to be extreme, I would go for ancient Japan: nobody is allowed weapons, not even the police. The police will have to be trained in martial arts to be able to win fights against criminals.
But don't worry, I'm not proposing that. The police and the army can have guns. And I even accept that some others may have guns. But not (nearly) everybody.
MacGyver is a n00b; I out-geek him any day.
More seriously, I don't think the single most important reason to allow people to own guns has even been mentioned yet: Freedom.
Good point. But there are limits to freedom; that's the "price" of living in a society. This price on my freedoms is a benefit for others. For example, others benefit from the fact that my freedom to beat them up is taken from me.
So the question is, which freedoms do we, as society, want to take away from our citizens, to make the place better for all?
The freedom to own objects which have no use other than destruction would be one of the first things I would take away; long before the freedom to walk naked in the street, for example (which I suppose is illegal in the US).
In the Netherlands, you are allowed to use guns as a member of a shooting club. But you normally don't get to take the guns home; they are not to leave the club. And there's a background check before you can even be a member there (although as I wrote, I don't think that works too well, but the clubs themselves want to prevent accidents, so they are pretty careful).
In exceptional cases hunting is allowed by people who have a license; they may also have a gun for the purpose. But they may not take that gun into the city; they can only take it to and from the place where they hunt.
These exceptions to the ban on guns sometimes lead to shooting accidents (mostly by hunters, and mostly suicides, AFAIK), but that is rare. From that I conclude that they are acceptable exceptions.
the thing is something of great reasonable use. (Like guns for hunting, hobby, feeling safe/independent)
I disagree. I don't think hunting should be allowed at all, but as I wrote above it may be acceptable to give people some fun. But I would make it very hard to get a hunter's license; allowing guns in an informal place like people's houses is asking for trouble.
Hobby...? You mean collecting? Is there a reason those guns need to be functional? Or that there must be bullets anywhere near them? If neither of those is the case, I don't have a big problem with it, as long as they don't move around too much. If you're talking about shooting at a club, then I can accept this, but I would not allow those guns to leave the building. Also, I would require each club to hire a psychiatrist, because I can't see how people who find so much pleasure in destroying things can be entirely sane. But that may be just me...
Feeling safe: you should do something about that. That shouldn't be too hard; research proves that owning a gun makes you less safe. If that message is made clear, and the weapons industry doesn't confuse things (because they can't sell guns to normal people anyway, they have no incentive), people should stop owning guns for safety in no time.
Feeling independent: You want the sort of independence that they have in movies like mad max or terminator? Even if it comes with the societies that those movies present with it? That's not really society at all; it's anarchy.
All the things you mention as dangerous are indeed restricted in pretty much all countries. But all the other things (except for cigarettes) have valid uses which are not bad for anyone. Guns don't really; at the very least those reasonable uses are insignificant compared to the harm they cause. In the US, guns are for some reason less restricted than far less dangerous things like alcohol or cigarettes.
Golden middle road, man.
That's what I was doing; the problem is that the US is currently so far beside the road, that going to the middle is a pretty extreme operation.
Now if I was to be extreme, I would go for ancient Japan: nobody is allowed weapons, not even the police. The police will have to be trained in martial arts to be able to win fights against criminals.
But don't worry, I'm not proposing that. The police and the army can have guns. And I even accept that some others may have guns. But not (nearly) everybody.
