Re: I know. I know ...
"On the other hand, traffic fatalities--of which some few are premeditated-- approach what, 40,000 per year, and we don't hear calls for outlawing cars.""That's not a good comparison. Cars are designed to be a method of transport and convenience, and over time have been engineered to be as safe as possible, to protect life as much as possible.Guns, on the other hand, have but one real purpose, which is to put a hole in or through the object that the gun is pointed at, thereby causing some degree of damage. Some guns and their associated ammo are engineered to maximize the degree of damage."You're correct that guns are designed to put holes in things. Many that I know put holes in things all the time, using guns. Many that I know take the things they have put holes in and turn those things into food for their families. The fact that some few turn those hole-making machines upon other humans is a terrible thing to acknowledge, but acknowledge it we must.Those safety standards of which you speak do make a difference in terms of the numbers of accidental deaths. But they do not make one bit of difference to the deranged loon who decides to plow into a field of bystanders, run over a rival, or fill a rental truck with fertilizer so that he can blow up a government building, daycare included.What I am saying is, loons will find a way to do their damage. Fear should not cause us the reflex action of changing the constitution (just as the Patriot Act should never have been rammed down the pipe of the populace right after that infamous day).I'm not a big fan of guns, nor of impious comma placement (such as in the amendment you cite), but I don't see changing the Constitution as a sensible solution to the simple fact of the existence of loons who wish to do damage. Perhaps you do not see outlawing guns as changing the constitution, owing to that "militia" bit. I can understand that. But of course there is the whole history of Supreme Court decisions on the matter to consider . . . and "militia" is quite loosely defined.Perhaps if our energies could be directed toward loon-detection, then we'd have something going! This, too, has problems, which I'm sure anyone can readily see.Herring405
H
Herring405
(view)
"On the other hand, traffic fatalities--of which some few are premeditated-- approach what, 40,000 per year, and we don't hear calls for outlawing cars.""That's not a good comparison. Cars are designed to be a method of transport and convenience, and over time have been engineered to be as safe as possible, to protect life as much as possible.Guns, on the other hand, have but one real purpose, which is to put a hole in or through the object that the gun is pointed at, thereby causing some degree of damage. Some guns and their associated ammo are engineered to maximize the degree of damage."You're correct that guns are designed to put holes in things. Many that I know put holes in things all the time, using guns. Many that I know take the things they have put holes in and turn those things into food for their families. The fact that some few turn those hole-making machines upon other humans is a terrible thing to acknowledge, but acknowledge it we must.Those safety standards of which you speak do make a difference in terms of the numbers of accidental deaths. But they do not make one bit of difference to the deranged loon who decides to plow into a field of bystanders, run over a rival, or fill a rental truck with fertilizer so that he can blow up a government building, daycare included.What I am saying is, loons will find a way to do their damage. Fear should not cause us the reflex action of changing the constitution (just as the Patriot Act should never have been rammed down the pipe of the populace right after that infamous day).I'm not a big fan of guns, nor of impious comma placement (such as in the amendment you cite), but I don't see changing the Constitution as a sensible solution to the simple fact of the existence of loons who wish to do damage. Perhaps you do not see outlawing guns as changing the constitution, owing to that "militia" bit. I can understand that. But of course there is the whole history of Supreme Court decisions on the matter to consider . . . and "militia" is quite loosely defined.Perhaps if our energies could be directed toward loon-detection, then we'd have something going! This, too, has problems, which I'm sure anyone can readily see.Herring405
