US: Gun laws. Change ’em.

US: Gun laws. Change ’em. November 21, 2014

This meme is surprisingly on the money:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way in which a gun advocate could complain is if they disagreed with the shoe protocol at airports after the failed attack. But we also had pretty much a war and total airport overhauls after 9/11, and more people have died from weapons in the US than terrorism over the years. So this analogy is apt, very apt.

The idea that the constitution is no longer amendable and somehow objectively stands as an incontrovertible truth is nonsense. After all, as a Brit, it doesn’t apply to me, and I find I have more than enough rights to get by on a daily basis.

Wake up, America!


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Travelman

    American attitudes to guns are the same as they are to religion; passionate. Oh, and illogical.

  • PubliusCorneliusScipio

    American attitudes to guns may be illogical, but I believe they are not irrational.

    The depiction of gun right activists as “ammosexuals” allows many people to get aways with dismissing their claims as ridiculous ab initio.
    A fair person might want to ask themself the question: “What would lead a reasonable person to want to/feel the need to own a gun”.

    A second reading of Hobbes, a reflection on the mechanisms of law enforcement and a clear understanding of the geographical and socio-cultural reality of the U.S. might lead to surprising results.

    • im-skeptical

      What would lead a reasonable person to want to/feel the need to own a gun?

      A steady stream of fear-mongering and propaganda by Republicans and the NRA. With broad public support, Colorado passed legislation requiring background checks before gun purchases, and limiting ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. Then the gun lobby moved into action, labeling those laws as extremist, and initiating recall elections that succeeded in removing two Democrats from the state legislature. They managed to turn public opinion. Not with facts and reason, but with a concerted campaign of lies (that our rights are being taken away, and our guns could be confiscated), and fear (that we can’t be safe in our homes or on the streets unless we are all armed to the teeth).

      • “Then the gun lobby moved into action, labeling those laws as extremist, and initiating recall elections that succeeded in removing two Democrats from the state legislature. They managed to turn public opinion. Not with facts and reason, but with a concerted campaign of lies (that our rights are being taken away, and our guns could be confiscated), and fear (that we can’t be safe in our homes or on the streets unless we are all armed to the teeth).”

        This makes me so sad. I hate hate hate lobbying.

    • But this is the point: we need to decrease the perceived need to carry and own guns. At the moment, it is a snowball where gun crimes and gun ownership causes more fright and perceived need to own and carry guns.

      At least some form of regulation can combat this in some way.

  • I’m sorry, but I find the analogy to be not-apt at all. Let me explain:

    A bomb has only one purpose (destruction of others’ lives or property). Guns admit more than one purpose: they can be used to attack, but they can also be used to defend oneself. And some people like hunting.

    So this is a false equivalency fallacy.

    I’ll admit I don’t like guns, I don’t plan on owning one and I don’t feel comfortable knowing people around me are carrying guns, but I still think such is their right even if I don’t like it.

    Of course, there should be limits to how many guns you can have/carry, you should take a psychological test every once in a while and some kinds of weapons (such as bazookas, grenades and sniper rifles) should be used only by military staff, on duty.

    Cheers!

    • Travelman

      A bomb, if more widely defined as explosive device, has many non-violent uses; for example, mining or road building. A gun, however used, is a killing device, even when used in self defence.

      At this stage gun advocates usually refer to cars as killing machines. Okay but that’s not their primary purpose. In any event, cars are hugely regulated and are ownership controlled. So why not guns?

    • Actually @disqus_XiKXUCKnOH:disqus just beat me to it. Guns ARE killing devices. They are designed to hurt to kill. It is not like cars (which kill a lot but are MASSIVELY regulated to mitigate this, from roads and road design, to car design and ownership).

      The point is this:

      Something was attempted to be used to kill someone and so the use of that device in those scenarios was attempted to be heavily restricted.

      Guns freely kill far more in similar ways (ie intent, and actually accident) but have not been regulate at all. They have caused more deaths. Thus there are double standards.

  • Clare45

    As I understand it- and correct me if I am wrong, as I am not an American- Americans historically have the right to bear arms in case there is ever a need to defend themselves from or attack their own government. There is a tendency not to trust authority figures or the government and/or president.