Don't know who is the original author of this thought, but it seems to be my default lens for analysis when I'm still undecided.
"If your side is arguing for the limitation of personal freedom, you are probably wrong"
I would like to keep that thought in mind as I iron out my personal opinions on this controversial subject. As with many things in my life, my point of view on this subject has matured over the years, and I will try my best to explain myself.
I should start
By making it clear that I understand and support the second amendment. As a matter of fact, I currently live in a country that does not have the right to bear arms, and it's made things painfully obvious to me.
The talking point on criminals still having guns is not hyperbole at all. It's obvious to me, but I think that it should be said as to put all the cards on the table.
That being said, the organized militia, the revolting against the government "idea", of that one, I'm not so sure it's realistic, but I digress.
Both sides
It should go without saying that you can't always both side things. There is no good argument for fascism, for Nazism or genocide for that matter. But in this particular scenario, there is reasonable arguments worth listening to.
I think I'm starting to be of the idea that the extreme polarization is just a game played by politicians to keep us fighting, to "encourage" us to vote for the ones that fuels our rage enough to put up with the long lines and the always disappointing outcomes.
Gun Control
There are reasonable arguments made by those who don't have a binary brain. I must confess that I still believe that some rules, some social agreements on this matter are just common sense.
A private company not allowing guns inside their planes makes sense to me, and I don't think linking it to an "attack of our civil rights" is helping clarify the subject. (of course these rules not apply to airlines alone)
Along the same lines, if someone is too dangerous to fly, because he or she might be linked to a terrorist organization. It makes sense that they wouldn't be able to get their hands on a weapon. But it's precisely here when things get a little dicey.
It's precisely here when the bad analogies pop their heads out of the mole holes.
But WAIT!... you said that if you argue for limiting someone's freedom!!
Yes, yes I did, and consistency is achieved by my freedom to live in a society where terrorist can't buy weapons and kill me.
Forgive me for being hyperbolic, but I think it's the best way to drive the point home.
Pro guns, and their bad analogies
Again, as someone who understands and supports the right to bear arms, I'm constantly bothered by the inability that most people have to make reasonable arguments for upholding the second amendment.
One such terrible analogy I ran into today:
In my opinion suing a gun manufacturer because someone used a gun to kill ten people, is as effective as putting ketchup on roadkill. But the analogy used, makes no sense.
Let me ask you, my reader, one question:
What are guns for?
Are you telling me I can use them to start my car when the battery is dead? I mean, if this is true, I'm in shock!
OK, I'm being silly, but you see the point I'm trying to make? Comparing guns to baseball bats is like comparing shoes to elevators, it's stupid, and it makes those who argue for liberty sounds idiotic.
I think the argument for the second amendment is somewhat obvious. We have the right to defend ourselves from threat. Plain and simple.
Does this mean I'm the next Jason Bourne? Of course not, but regardless of my incompetence or competence, I'm withing my rights to defend my life.
You might ask: Are you justifying murder MenO? And I guess I would have to say yes. Self defense is a thing, you know.
If you add
To the debate, if you want to, if you feel like doing so. Then, I suggest you bring some strong, none farcical analogies to the podium.
Does this mean that you, or I for that matter, can solve this issue once and for all. Probably not. But at least we are not adding to the cacophony, and that's already a step in the right direction.
MenO
Regarding the baseball bat argument... I find that both sides to this debate love to score points by hoisting these extreme, nonsensical comparisons. Then also, no one can take a center position because to even offer any point is to be labeled the enemy of the other side. Like with abortion: If you even for a moment suggest it might be acceptable in some cases, the other side says you hate and want to kill children; and if you even hint that sometimes it might be wrong, the other side says you hate women and want to rob them of all choices.
Whew... It's hard to have a reasonable discussion these days. I'm sure part of this is encouraged, as you write. Better for the elites if we all fight each other instead of pay attention to what they are doing, after all.
Gun control is a tough issue. An interesting case in Japan, where I live. Can't own guns here for the most part. It's possible to get a gun license for hunting, but it is so difficult to get that almost no one bothers. Yakuza have them, but yakuza are policed pretty well by the organizations themselves and they also control petty criminals so there is little gun violence.
Now what does that mean for other countries, especially the US? I don't know. Just an interesting data point for comparison.
Japan might be a one off. In many ways Japanese society is one off, honestly.
I remember having this conversation with someone a long time ago, and that person pointed out that Japan has suicide parks. I was trying to put the Japanese society as a healthier one (mentally), and he got me there. (of course, its an extreme example)
I also heard that murder statistics are recorded differently in Japan. If a husband murders his wife and 2 kids and then kills himself, that's recorded as 4 suicides. I haven't been able to find a source on it, but if true, it's going to skew some results.
I've heard that too and similar things, but I've never seen any proof on it. When the Japanese news reports on something like that they will report it as a murder and suicide. But I don't know how the police then record it.
Voluntary firearm ownership IS the middle ground.
The extremes are Mandatory firearm ownership and Prohibited firearm ownership.
@mattclarke - No argument there. What I was trying to say above (and saying badly, I suppose) was that the current culture wants to push any argument into one of the two extremes, no matter how nuanced it may be. But when I say culture I mean US and Japan, being the two main cultures I am exposed to.
I'm curious: what are the gun laws like in Oz?
Pretty tight, but not quite as tight as a lot of the US rhetoric might suggest. Any firearm needs to be licensed and registered; but there are plenty of avenues for people to get licenses. It's just deliberately difficult and expensive to shake loose the casual buyers.
One main point of contention is the requirement that 'Home defense' isn't considered an appropriate reason to own one.
So even if you have one for club/recreational usage, security work or farm/culling etc; when not in use, it needs to be locked in a safe, with ammunition locked away separately.
Makes it useless as a deterrent to home invasion.
Also we have plenty of gun violence here. Every few years they (US media mostly) need to redefine "Mass shooting" or "Spree shooting" incidents, in order to keep claiming that Australia hasn't had a "insert weasel word here" in x number of years. Biker gangs are always having shootouts. They can get guns real easy.
I'm against owning guns in general but let's say the US just can't give up their guns. What is about other countries' gun policies, like Israel or Switzerland, where you're allowed to own a gun but doesn't result in a mass shooting every few days?
I think it has less to do with policy and more to do with population. Israel and Switzerland both have less than 9 million people each. The USA has over 330 million people.
Anomalies have more opportunity to occur in the USA. For example, if every day there's a 1 in 100 million chance that someone will be struck by lightning, it will happen once every few months in Israel and Switzerland. In America it will happen daily.
That's certainly a possibility. I could only find one school shooting case between Israel and Switzerland and that was a terrorist attack back in 2002.
It is like if the same person gets struck by lightning three times or more, they need to be reviewing what they were doing in the lead up to the strikes.
But the same person isn't getting struck by lightning over and over. The news just shows it over and over to give that impression. Between 2010 - 2020 there were 9 school shootings that involved multiple victim fatalities at a school. In a country with 130,000 schools, 330,000,000 people, and 400,000,000 guns, that seems like a low number of shootings.
The problem that I have with the policies that have been proposed in America is they only put limits on law abiding citizens. Guns are used defensively to stop crimes 50-100 times for every 1 time they are used offensively to commit crimes. Limiting law abiding citizens would turn a lot of defenders into victims.
From here.
Everything is a trade-off. We trade the convenience of personal vehicles for 36,000 fatalities per year. The gun trade-off is a difficult one to reconcile. Is it worth risking the occasional terrible school shooting tragedy if it saves 100 or 1000 or 10,000 lives per year? I think it is worth the risk, but that doesn't make school shootings any less tragic or heart wrenching. So far I haven't heard of any policy that would actually reduce fatalities over all, they simply reduce fatalities in one area and dramatically increase them in another area.
Statista seems to have a much higher number of school shootings but maybe they're counting isolated incidents and not just mass shootings:
Agreed - it is a trade-off but i'm not sure there would be as many incidents if guns weren't so easily available. Again it's one of those hypotheticals we'll never really know for sure.
Nice pictures of Croatia, btw. I had to stop in Slovenia and turn back the last time I was in Europe. Always wanted to visit Croatia. Hopefully, next time I'm in Europe.
I was looking at Wikipedia for the statistics that I used. I didn't count the ones like pellet-gun shootings or people committing suicide. Depending on who is promoting what agenda, you will often see things like gang shootings where someone ran onto a school campus on a Saturday included in the stats, or things like that.
I'm glad you liked the pictures! Croatia was pretty awesome. It's definitely a place that I'd like to return to.
I think there's a big cultural component too. Fame is as important as wealth, in the US. Doesn't really matter if you're known for doing good things or bad things, it's being known that matters. (Serial killer cannibals are massive celebrities, for example).
Not sure about Switzerland but I know here in Australia, being famous isn't that big a deal.
I think it's a good thing then that they're starting to not publish these mass shooters' names. No more fame or notoriety.