Expert Actress on Gun Control

[BoomBoomMancini]

If you think it’s ludicrous to ban knives and trucks because you can use them to filet a fish or transport furniture, then you need to hold a gun to the same standard.

I am. A gun’s primary purpose is to fire a projectile at a lethal speed. That can be a necessary or even good thing in some circumstances, but a gun killing someone isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. That’s what it’s supposed to do. There is a direct relationship between “gun” and “violence” in a way there isn’t between “truck” and “violence.” There is a primacy there that is absent in the many other ways people find to inflict harm on each other.

 

[Elf01]

Disturbing but I appreciate the honesty. The problem is that guns are seen more as a right than a tool. #repealthe2nd

 

[Theo520]

This is quote from a Facebook posting. America’s Gun Owner Free For All isn’t working.

Japan has a serious rope problem, it’s a major killer there.
Maybe they should do the same for rope.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The gun itself isn’t the right. Arms is. Tools of self defense. Just so happens in the modern context guns are the arms.

In the future it might be laser weapons.

Or back to swords. Who knows.

 

[Inisfallen]

It does? How many kids are involved in drunk driving accident? What proof do you have?

Do I really have to prove that banning liquor sales to those under 21 keeps some kids from buying booze?

 

[PHXsunsAZ]

Fire"arms" existed when the 2nd amendment was written, so I think that is what they meant.

 

[Thom18]

I am. A gun’s primary purpose is to fire a projectile at a lethal speed. That can be a necessary or even good thing in some circumstances, but a gun killing someone isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. That’s what it’s supposed to do. There is a direct relationship between “gun” and “violence” in a way there isn’t between “truck” and “violence.” There is a primacy there that is absent in the many other ways people find to inflict harm on each other.

Can’t I just say that the purpose of that projectile going at a lethal speed is to kill game or home intruders, and that any undesirable use is a “bug”?

 

[Inisfallen]

I’ll give you a few hints:

Chicago has fewer murders in 2017, but 650 killed.

NYC saw historically low number of shootings in 2016. (read the article)

This one’s interesting as well.

I would like to see their citations regardless.

It’s absolutely true that crime, including shootings, has dropped to levels not seen in 50 years.

And New York has very strong gun regulation.

Maybe we’re doing something right.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Swords, bayonets, cannons, Spears, etc all existed too. It’s all covered. Otherwise they’d have said “firearms”

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Can’t I just say that the purpose of that projectile going at a lethal speed is to kill game or home intruders, and that any undesirable use is a “bug”?

Sure, but you have to acknowledge that killing is, in fact, the primary purpose of the gun. (which isn’t to say that killing is always inappropriate.) That’s what it’s meant to do. Contrast that with a truck, which can be used to kill, but which is primarily intended for transportation. It’s just a weird apples and oranges analogy.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Swords, bayonets, cannons, Spears, etc all existed too. It’s all covered. Otherwise they’d have said “firearms”

Yup. It’s pretty undeniable that the 2nd Amendment allows for private ownership of weapons without much qualification.

But the 2nd Amendment isn’t holy writ. The Founders can be and were wrong about some stuff. Maybe it’s time for society to renegotiate the terms surrounding weapons and come up with a new social contract on the issue. #repealthe2nd. (I don’t think I’ve ever unironically hashtagged anything before…)

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I’m perfectly fine with people using the first amendment to argue for a change to the second.

What I don’t agree with is obtusificating the clear wording to try and say it allows extensive gun control legislation as it stands. It doesn’t.

Get it repealed. Pass all the gun control you can.

 

[Theo520]

It’s absolutely true that crime, including shootings, has dropped to levels not seen in 50 years.

And New York has very strong gun regulation.

Maybe we’re doing something right.

clearly this shows a negative correlation vs gun sales and gun availability. The tool is not the issue, it’s the heart and welfare of the people that directs crime and violence, not access to a tool of violence.

 

[philipl]

No, you have to prove that young people can not get their hands on booze. How many Kids obey the law as written?

 

[Seeksadvice]

Gun control is being able to hit your target. No more, no less.

 

[Inisfallen]

I’m perfectly fine with people using the first amendment to argue for a change to the second.

What I don’t agree with is obtusificating the clear wording to try and say it allows extensive gun control legislation as it stands. It doesn’t.

Heller certainly allows for some gun control. From the Court’s opinion in Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[…]

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[…]

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Seems like there’s room there for quite a bit of regulation.

 

[petra22]

On the one hand you have an identifiable group, women, who are handed a “right” to end the life of another human being for completely casual reasons – because that human being might present certain “inconveniences” to the lifestyle of the woman considering the abortion or it may be that she just doesn’t “want” the new human being in her life.

You made me think of a family relative of mine who was adopted, was raised in a loving family yet never felt WANTED. I’m looking at him now 40 living at home, on drugs, cutting himself, carrying a gun, three children who do not get his attention and often times he probably should be locked up for his own safety and the safety of his adopted family. You made me think of this because I really feel his problem is that he never felt loved enough, because his birth mother didn’t want him and his father didn’t want him… he’s also ADD. Lots of problems like the 19 yr old shooter. To me, you make a good case that it’s our family life that is broken and making a lot of broken kids…

 

[Inisfallen]

No, you have to prove that young people can not get their hands on booze. How many Kids obey the law as written?

Yeah, no. The argument, so often used by Second Amendment fundamentalists, that no law is useful unless it’s 100% effective, doesn’t hold water.

 

[petra22]

Would it be something like don’t bring a knife to a gunfight???

 

[dochawk]

I’d say that celebrities have the sole purpose in society of an emergency protein source after an apocalypse, but there’s folks here who would accuse me of sinfully promoting cannibalism.

So, celebrities are utterly useless.

But useless or not, there is absolutely no reason to take a celebrity’s opinion as more worth listening to than any random person on the street. It’s not that they should be silenced, but that there’s no legitimate news reason to give them a platform that wouldn’t given to an unknown person.

hawk