The below post raises a valid point:
'80,000,000 people did nothing wrong in Connecticut.
80 million people haven't done anything wrong this week, won't do anything wrong next week and have done nothing wrong in the past.
When did it become normal to suggest that the United States of America punish 80,000,000 of its' citizens for the actions of a number of evil people totaling less than 0.00001%?'
Fair enough. I can point at consumer protection laws ("I've played lawn darts for thirty years and never pithed any of my friends!"), but let's take the argument as is.
So what would be the right number. Would there ever be a right number?
Because there are two ratios here:
First, the number of law-abiders vs. criminals, and at what point you restrict the rights of the former for the offenses of the latter. If 0.00001% is too small (for sake of argument), what would the right number be? 0.01%? 1%? 10%? 49%? At what point does the number of people who misuse (intentionally or unintentionally) firearms become sufficient to warrant some restrictions on the people who never err, never use their weapons irresponsibly, never go on shooting sprees, never leave their guns where kids can find them, never lead to anyone being harmed by said firearms except criminals or game critters?
More importantly, what's the number of victims that warrant restrictions? (And let's say sensible restrictions that would impact gun owners but, for sake of argument let's say restrictions that would reduce the guns available for whack jobs and miscreants, too?) Twenty kids? Two hundred? Two thousand? Twenty thousand? Is there a threshold, or is the Second Amendment, as it stands (and is interpreted) so sacrosanct that no number of dead bodies justifies infringing upon it?
I don't have an answer, because I do tend to reject the idea of knee-jerk punishing the innocent with the guilty. But I do think it's a legitimate question.
Embedded Link
A simple question
For the liberals/Leftists/what-the-hell-ever-label the gun banners are hiding under this week, I have a simple question: How would taking my guns away from me have stopped what happened in Connecticut…
Google+: View post on Google+
It seems a silly way to make a point as why would anyone put a number or qualifier on life. But I assume that is your point here.
But in any case the whole logic is a moot point as laws are commonly created to restrict the many because of a few. FDA food handling restrictions? Not every restaurant would leave chicken sitting in a tub of water to de-thaw all day. But the few that do should be punished for it. And the rest of us should be restricted to not take practices that would harm others. Does this make it a pain for restaurants to thaw out chicken? Yup. But in the words of Justin Timberlake, cry me a river.
Guess it depends on what you call punishment. Imprisonment is a punishment. Beatings are a punishment. Making someone go without food or water would be a punishment. Is it a punishment to pay for airbags even though you’re a safe driver? Or roads that go places you never intend to travel? Education for kids from bigger families than yours? Am I being punished if the law doesn’t permit me to own landmines or hand grenades?
In answer to your last question, @George, I suspect some would say, “Yes.” The basic idea is that to restrain someone’s liberty is to injure them (a principle I could probably argue either way), so restricting access to guns (or even a certain type of guns) is injurious and should require a rational reason, preferably one that indicates why the person being injured deserves it. “Why should I have to pay for something someone else has done wrong?”
Pointing out other examples just shows that they are unjust, too.
I agree with you, Jon — but that gets back against that complicating factor that "food preparation" is not a Constitutional Right, but gun ownership (as currently interpreted by SCOTUS)_ is.
My point is sort of like that Churchill joke: At a dinner party one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. “Maybe,” the woman said coyly. “Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked. “Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman responded indignantly. “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”
The question is, is gun ownership an absolute principle that brooks no restriction regardless of the blood in scuppers. If not, then we've established that there is some upper limit … what is that limit, and are we approaching it. If so … let's understand that plainly, too.
Quibble: I'm pretty sure there are not 80,000,000 people in CT.
The number (as described in the post) is roughly the number in households in the US that have firearms but don't commit crimes with them.
Another person using a logical fallacy to argue against something they dislike. The question is not how taking away this man’s guns would have helped, but how preventing the shooter from easily obtaining guns would have changed things.
I know, I did read it, but was too tired last night for a better reply. As a math guy it sort of like telling me "3 out of every 2 people like ice cream". The idea it right, but the numbers are wrong..
More serious quibbles:
#1: Must the conversation always jump directly to "taking all guns away" and ignore any possibility of a middle ground. I think this is just a diversion from ever considering a middle ground at all. It certainly isn't helpful.
#2: I understand that taking away all guns could be considered a punishment, but taking away a class of weapons (assault weapons) doesn't punish anywhere near 80,000,000 people. How many people, owners or want-to-own, does this really affect?
#3: 79,997,000 people did nothing wrong on 9/11/2001, and yet we arguably gave up greater rights for airline security and the Patriot Act. Rather more than 3000 are affected by firearms violence every year, and we continue to do little about it.
And if anyone missed it, I've proposed an alternative that doesn't take guns away (which Dave was kind enough to share. Thanks again Dave!)
In principle, I agree with the notion that we should struggle punishing innocent to punish the guilty. In practicality, I see no legitimacy in the claim that one is being "punished" by requiring a background check or a waiting period.
A good analogy is driving a car: we are not punishing teenagers when we set a certain age and minimum driving practice hours to get a licence. We're protecting both them and others.
I suspect the all-or-nothing, +Dan Eastwood, is a combination of fear-mongering and a slippery-slope concern.
I think the argument would be that taking away a class of weapons that people do, or might want to, own is, in fact, a group punishment. I understand that a lot of what gets classified as "assault weapons" are what are being pushed as modern/sporty hunting weapons these days (as well as the Last Bastion against Rampaging Poor People and Tyrannical Governmental Troops).
I don't think the argument about air travel will fly (so to speak) very far, as a lot of (libertarian-style) conservatives get up in arms (so to speak) about the restrictions there, too.
+Gary Roth, as the argument goes, inconvenience = punishment (which also gets applied to arguments regarding DRM and airport security, too.) If I want it now and I'm an upstanding, safe, sane citizen, then telling me I have to wait is a punishment. It is also arguably dangerous, if I feel the immediate need for protection.
(We'll leave aside the bitter irony of state legislatures knocking down gun laws, but imposing waiting periods for abortions.)
The car driving thing isn't a perfect analogy, as said teens are not adults and therefore don't have full adult rights. I believe in Colorado that you can wait until 18 and then apply for your license without having had any training (though you still have to pass a test — but, then, driving is a privilege, not a right).
Ummm, would new gun laws be any different than any other law that gets passed because of the excess of a few? Or for that matter the Security Theater at the airports?
@BD – Yeah, pretty much.