Sadly it feels like we're living more and more in a world where the people who speak the loudest are the ones who've had their minds warped by political dogma without bothering to question it.
I was listening to the radio earlier today, and a caller phoned in when the subject was on gun control. The show is Canadian and broadcasted almost nationwide, and they were discussing the recent shootings in the U.S. The caller was an American citizen, and his argument was that there should have been more guns.
His reasoning, as far as I could tell, was that if the right people in schools, for example, were well-armed, they could prevent mass-shootings. The "real" cause of the problem, i.e. mass-shootings, were society's lack of morality and society's over-medication. As a result of these two "causes", contemporary U.S. society had degenerated to the point where other citizens needed more guns to protect themselves. I was flabbergasted at this argument.
So, rather than actually do something about those supposed "causes", like fully understanding them and thus to begin ameliorating the conditions which make those mass-shootings possible, the better idea would be to not fix them and to let them persist? I can't get my head around why whenever something awful happens, some people, though they locate and isolate some cause, decide that stop-gap measures are what society needs. And from there, it seems to proceed from awful situation to awful situation, where few officials offer substantive attempts to not only understand why they're happening, but to also change those conditions gradually. A single solution would work only to the extend that that solution is itself multilayered and nuanced to handle the specifics in each area it examines.
It would have to be multilayered as it deals with concrete issues in practice (e.g. social programs for areas in need) and as it deals with abstract issues in principle (e.g. serious political investigation into what the Second Amendment meant historically and what it means today). It would have to be nuanced to know how to take issues case by case, as they occur, requiring their own specific solutions.
Not too long ago, Justice Antonin Scalia commented that to seriously challenge and change the question of the death penalty's standing, the Constitution would have to be re-written. However, his own arguments go off in directions I don't agree with, as he dislikes the idea of a Living Constitution and prefers interpreting legal texts like the Constitution in their "literal meanings" - i.e. with little or no concern for the nuances of historical contexts. So, in some sense, what was good for late 18th Century America, is also good for 21st Century America, a nation with now more complex political structures, greater global influence, vast technological changes, and centuries of knowledge to draw upon.
As you can see, such a thorough examination would likely be be contentious, since some sitting in the Supreme Court don't even agree that the Constitution is a living document. However, I don't think people should dogmatically accept given propositions as somehow eternally true because some legal theorists or some other authority suggests they're beyond question (or, that the average citizens isn't smart enough even to begin understanding them). In a world that has a history often suggesting otherwise (or is the ancient doctrine of "Natural Slavery" still a-ok to some?), taking such a stance is not only the road to ignorance, but it's also a dangerous one to follow continuously for ages.
And even self-defense can sometimes be abused. I don't know if you've heard about the case of Treyvon Martin here in Florida, I know it got national attention though. He was shot and killed by George Zimmerman who claimed it was in self-defense. There is a contentious "shoot first" law here in Florida that is under scrutiny now because of this. The picture of what happened is unclear, but it seems most likely that Zimmerman, who is known to be overly paranoid, considered Treyvon's presence in his neighborhood suspicious, and he followed the kid while calling 911. Even though the dispatcher stressed to Zimmerman not to confront Treyvon, he did, and that is when the altercation took place. The kid only had a drink and a bag of candy on him. He was gunned down in cold blood, but because no one actually witnessed the shooting, Zimmerman is building a self-defense defense.
I'm personally all for destroying all weapons in the world and forbidding anyone from building any others again.
Pickle of the Year (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
Agreed. I'm not up-to-date with all the statistics, but I do always hear that guns are more often fired at innocents (due to negligence or improper use) than out of self-defense.
I don't think American cities are as dangerous as some people think, assuming you're not in the drug business or anything that could obviously get you killed. I know I'm probably lucky, but I've lived in Chicago all my life and have never been mugged or anything. Granted, I rarely go out at night alone, but in the end, that's the price one pays to stay safe in a city. For the most part, I think all people need is common sense, a bit of survival instinct, and maybe pepper spray.
Last edited by bellpickle at 4:22:28 PM EST on December 12, 2012.
Unfortunately as it is currently I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure people think the world is dangerous enough to warrant the idea that people should be able to carry freely, but to me its just a vicious circle that never ends until we finally evolve beyond violence and destroy all weapons.
I agree too that there should at least be a cap on how many firearms one person can own.
Cure Neko (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
As someone in the military I can easily say that with the state of the world as it is, the 1700s is not far off. But I'd be lying. I knew some people involved in the Colorado shooting, and the following investigation. That man had more than just guns. It was a small arsenal. Beyond the gun concealment there needs to be a limit on just how many weapons a civilian can own.
The problem that I see is the fact that this issue is as old as that amendment. My whole life I've been hearing one side or another. And sadly, I can see no resolution. I may be pessimistic in this thought, but that's just how it seems.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/23/12 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
Completely agree with you.
Sadly it feels like we're living more and more in a world where the people who speak the loudest are the ones who've had their minds warped by political dogma without bothering to question it.
Bazinga!
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/16/12 | Reply
I was listening to the radio earlier today, and a caller phoned in when the subject was on gun control. The show is Canadian and broadcasted almost nationwide, and they were discussing the recent shootings in the U.S. The caller was an American citizen, and his argument was that there should have been more guns.
His reasoning, as far as I could tell, was that if the right people in schools, for example, were well-armed, they could prevent mass-shootings. The "real" cause of the problem, i.e. mass-shootings, were society's lack of morality and society's over-medication. As a result of these two "causes", contemporary U.S. society had degenerated to the point where other citizens needed more guns to protect themselves. I was flabbergasted at this argument.
So, rather than actually do something about those supposed "causes", like fully understanding them and thus to begin ameliorating the conditions which make those mass-shootings possible, the better idea would be to not fix them and to let them persist? I can't get my head around why whenever something awful happens, some people, though they locate and isolate some cause, decide that stop-gap measures are what society needs. And from there, it seems to proceed from awful situation to awful situation, where few officials offer substantive attempts to not only understand why they're happening, but to also change those conditions gradually. A single solution would work only to the extend that that solution is itself multilayered and nuanced to handle the specifics in each area it examines.
It would have to be multilayered as it deals with concrete issues in practice (e.g. social programs for areas in need) and as it deals with abstract issues in principle (e.g. serious political investigation into what the Second Amendment meant historically and what it means today). It would have to be nuanced to know how to take issues case by case, as they occur, requiring their own specific solutions.
Not too long ago, Justice Antonin Scalia commented that to seriously challenge and change the question of the death penalty's standing, the Constitution would have to be re-written. However, his own arguments go off in directions I don't agree with, as he dislikes the idea of a Living Constitution and prefers interpreting legal texts like the Constitution in their "literal meanings" - i.e. with little or no concern for the nuances of historical contexts. So, in some sense, what was good for late 18th Century America, is also good for 21st Century America, a nation with now more complex political structures, greater global influence, vast technological changes, and centuries of knowledge to draw upon.
As you can see, such a thorough examination would likely be be contentious, since some sitting in the Supreme Court don't even agree that the Constitution is a living document. However, I don't think people should dogmatically accept given propositions as somehow eternally true because some legal theorists or some other authority suggests they're beyond question (or, that the average citizens isn't smart enough even to begin understanding them). In a world that has a history often suggesting otherwise (or is the ancient doctrine of "Natural Slavery" still a-ok to some?), taking such a stance is not only the road to ignorance, but it's also a dangerous one to follow continuously for ages.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
@bellpickle:
And even self-defense can sometimes be abused. I don't know if you've heard about the case of Treyvon Martin here in Florida, I know it got national attention though. He was shot and killed by George Zimmerman who claimed it was in self-defense. There is a contentious "shoot first" law here in Florida that is under scrutiny now because of this. The picture of what happened is unclear, but it seems most likely that Zimmerman, who is known to be overly paranoid, considered Treyvon's presence in his neighborhood suspicious, and he followed the kid while calling 911. Even though the dispatcher stressed to Zimmerman not to confront Treyvon, he did, and that is when the altercation took place. The kid only had a drink and a bag of candy on him. He was gunned down in cold blood, but because no one actually witnessed the shooting, Zimmerman is building a self-defense defense.
I'm personally all for destroying all weapons in the world and forbidding anyone from building any others again.
Bazinga!
bellpickle
Pickle of the Year (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
Agreed. I'm not up-to-date with all the statistics, but I do always hear that guns are more often fired at innocents (due to negligence or improper use) than out of self-defense.
I don't think American cities are as dangerous as some people think, assuming you're not in the drug business or anything that could obviously get you killed. I know I'm probably lucky, but I've lived in Chicago all my life and have never been mugged or anything. Granted, I rarely go out at night alone, but in the end, that's the price one pays to stay safe in a city. For the most part, I think all people need is common sense, a bit of survival instinct, and maybe pepper spray.
Last edited by bellpickle at 4:22:28 PM EST on December 12, 2012.
TimeChaser
Madman With a Box (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
@Neko Nana Mode:
Unfortunately as it is currently I can see where you're coming from. I'm sure people think the world is dangerous enough to warrant the idea that people should be able to carry freely, but to me its just a vicious circle that never ends until we finally evolve beyond violence and destroy all weapons.
I agree too that there should at least be a cap on how many firearms one person can own.
Bazinga!
Neko Nana Mode
Cure Neko (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 12/12/12 | Reply
As someone in the military I can easily say that with the state of the world as it is, the 1700s is not far off. But I'd be lying. I knew some people involved in the Colorado shooting, and the following investigation. That man had more than just guns. It was a small arsenal. Beyond the gun concealment there needs to be a limit on just how many weapons a civilian can own.
The problem that I see is the fact that this issue is as old as that amendment. My whole life I've been hearing one side or another. And sadly, I can see no resolution. I may be pessimistic in this thought, but that's just how it seems.
NNM