
Why We Can't Talk About Gun Control - prawn
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/how-to-interpret-the-second-amendment/373664/?single_page=true
======
phorese
_" It was a tool for me," Metcalf said. "Like Mom's hot skillet; don't stick
your hand on it. Like Dad's power saw; don't stick your finger in it. A gun;
don't stand in front of it."_

I honestly do not understand how these things are comparable. A skillet is a
tool for making food. It does not hurt or kill unless used incorrectly. A
power saw is a tool for shaping useful objects. It does not hurt or kill
unless used incorrectly. A gun is a tool for killing. Unless it is used
incorrectly, _it always destroys or hurts or kills_.

Would you argue the same way about being allowed to carry mustard gas? Or
smallpox? That the _freedom_ to do so is worth more than the immense hurt it
is _guaranteed_ to bring on the world?

The U.S.' obsession with firearms is utterly beyond me (I am from Germany).
Just my 2 cents.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"A gun is a tool for killing. Unless it is used incorrectly, it always
destroys or hurts or kills."

Sorry, that's wrong to the point of absurdity. None of the guns I've owned
have ever killed or hurt anyone, and I'm pretty sure I've always used them
correctly.

"The U.S.' obsession with firearms is utterly beyond me"

The European obsession with government control is utterly beyond me.
Governments with too much power have killed far more people than privately
owned firearms ever have.

"(I am from Germany)."

~~~
Raurin
As much as you might be technically correct, there's no reason to antagonize
the other guy, especially if the goal is to have him adopt your point of view.
While he might have overstepped in his argument, phorese has a point in that
guns are designed to deliver (usually destructive) kinetic energy at a
distance.

Why might European governments be more restrictive? Are there any non-
restrictive ones? Have there ever been? Where are they now? Might America be a
different case, allowed to flourish under another set of rules?

I'm not saying you're wrong. You're not. Maybe I'm just encouraging civil
discussion. Maybe I'm bored at work. Maybe both.

~~~
Turing_Machine
" there's no reason to antagonize the other guy,"

Sure thing. Him going off about "obsessions" and suggesting (none too subtly)
that Europeans are somehow morally superior to Americans was totally non-
antagonistic. Totally.

~~~
Raurin
And do you rise above that and present your argument's best face, or do you
fight fire with fire?

What's the goal? I'll admit I'm pretty new to this forum, but one of my
favorite parts is the civility of discussion that I've seen in the comments.

------
angersock
On the other side of things, here's a silly internet picture that does a good
job of summarizing many gun owners' feelings about continued firearms
legislation:

[http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/...](http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png)

On the one hand, we have a government and police that have proven themselves
more than happy to merrily victimize and destroy the lives of people in the
middle and lower classes with wild abandon. We have seen a security and
surveillance apparatus far in excess of anything remotely reasonable turned
upon its own citizens. We have seen gun control laws used to victimize
minorities and immigrants, by removing their ability to defend themselves--
from criminals created largely by the same socioeconomic factors.

On the other hand, we have a large number of firearms used in crimes (because
why wouldn't you?) and in accidental deaths and in the statistically tiny mass
shooting. People are scared of these weapons, mostly because they haven't
grown up around them and because they only ever hear about them being used in
crime (because that's what sells news).

The reason we can't talk about gun control is because both sides have problems
which neither side wants to address.

~~~
dalke
Another way to explain the first argument, without the cartoon, is to compare
it to a woman's right to an abortion. This is also a constitutionally
protected right, but in many states laws have been passed to make it ever
harder for women to exercise those rights.

With that comparison it's easy to both capture the gist of the cartoon, but
also the ridiculousness of it. There is one abortion clinic in Mississippi and
10 in Texas. In the strictest of states there is far more than 10 gun stores.

But I write to object to your "two sides" viewpoint. You write:

> We have seen gun control laws used to victimize minorities and immigrants,
> by removing their ability to defend themselves

Certainly Regan and others introduced gun control legislation to make it hard
for the Black Panthers to arm themselves. But you left out at least two
factors. 1) easy access to guns means that police can justify a shooting Tamir
Rice because the toy gun might be a real one, or Ricardo Diaz-Zeferino because
"officers said they could not see one of Diaz Zeferino’s hands and believed he
was going to reach for a weapon." 2) the co-existence of a weapon during some
other crime can be used to "enhance" the penalty, even if the weapon wasn't
used to commit the crime.

If weapon restrictions were equivalent to that of, say, Norway (which also has
'statistically tiny mass shooting', but definitely not non-existent), then
there would be less justification for police killings of suspects, and less
ability to apply even more charges.

I'm totally willing to talk about the wholesale use of gun control similar to
what's in Norway.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway)
. I don't see anything I want to avoid addressing. Therefore your statement
makes no sense to me.

~~~
angersock
Those two points you bring up are more of an issue with the widespread
corruption and behavior of police than any problem with guns. They'll shoot
you reaching for a wallet, and the answer is going to be "knife, mace, taser,
whatever" once "gun" is no longer in vogue, and it'll still be bandied about
by saying "it could've been a firearm from the time before we banned them".

Norway's rules are reasonable--for them--but again I am hesitant given the
history of abuse of authority we have in the United States.

It's been shown in the last fifteen years that mandatory firearms registration
(of a sort similar to Norway's here) may result directly in confiscation of
private and legal firearms:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_respon...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms)

It was not long ago that we've seen the effective use of an impromptu militia
to maintain order:
[http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police...](http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-02/news/mn-1281_1_police-
car)

~~~
dalke
Your first sentence is as best only partially correct. You would have to
include corruption by the prosecutors, who are the ones who file the charges.

In any case, you have attempted to distinguish between "behavior of police"
and "problem with guns". This is impossible, as _everything_ to do with police
response is an issue with the "behavior of police", including their response
to an often armed citizenry. You can only use your argument by begging the
question, and assuming that these entangled issues are easily separated.

Your best example, which you say is "not long ago", is at 23 years old almost
a _generation_ ago. Your justification is even weaker than mine! You argue
that an 'impromptu militia' has (occasionally) helped protect property during
civil unrest and therefore must be preserved. Yes, and probably somewhere a
pistol butt was used to break the window of a car and rescue a baby that was
trapped inside, so we have to make sure everyone has a pistol handy during hot
weather.

Your example with the Katrina response is equally tenuous. That appears to
have been an illegal order by the local police, which then lied to the courts
about their actions.

Census records were used to round up Japanese during WWII. Do we therefore
stop taking a census? Police have also illegally misused driving license
information and similar records (see
[http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html](http://www.copwatch.org/databaseabuse.html)
). Do we therefore stop tracking those records? The answer to those rhetorical
questions is "no". You haven't explained why this example of illegal police
use of the records is meaningful, other than to say that _no_ records should
be kept, for fear of abuse.

But all of this is besides the point. You said "The reason we can't talk about
gun control is because both sides have problems which neither side wants to
address.", but I still say that your characterization of the two sides is 1)
limited, because there are more than two sides, 2) incorrect, or at least
highly selective about the issues, and 3) hasn't pointed out the issues that
someone like me, who is for much more restrictive gun control, isn't willing
to address.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"Do we therefore stop taking a census?"

No, but maybe we should stop asking people questions about their ethnicity.
The census was intended to apportion legislative seats. Nothing else. There's
no reason or constitutional justification for any of the other questions that
they ask.

~~~
dalke
Did I manage to push a hot button of yours by accident? As your comment has
nothing to do with the original article or this thread.

------
deedubaya
We all take our shoes off at the airport because of the bad actions of one (or
a few). I can't help but feel like gun control would be similar.

