The medical scholarship does a reasonably good job of quantifying firearms deaths.
It is our job to see that it stays there. The political principle at stake is quite simple: This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear. The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity.
For me, and for most supporters of gun rights, however inartfully they may put it, this is the core issue.
Do you hold that the right to possess firearms is a fundamental political right? It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position is that of most self-identified American liberals. However they may occasionally, tactically, craft their discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not.
They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above. They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.
I think we should have this discussion honestly. If the latter is your position, say it. If you want to eliminate the Second Amendment right, mount a forthright political campaign to do so.
When your discourse reeks with intellectual and moral disdain for gun-rights and gun-rights advocates, when it never endorses, and indeed at best studiously avoids, the issue of gun ownership as a fundamental political right, it shows.
I would have done it. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. How persuasive is this performance by pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands Joe? Those who understand gun ownership as a fundamental political right correctly perceive, and are right to resist, the intended threat of its incremental elimination in gun-control laws that will have little to no practical effect, other than to demand more acts of compliance and submission to the armed authority of the state.
This is not about whether anybody likes or dislikes guns, and certainly nobody should fetishize them. It is unfortunate that, as with many debates in this country, the gun-rights debate is cast in the media as a clash between two extremely silly camps — those who fetishize guns positively, and those who fetishize them negatively.
For there to be a serious political debate, both of these attitudes really have to be recognized, and dropped, by those who inhabit them. I think there should be fewer guns. I definitely think that the cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems, which is ubiquitous in America, is ridiculous and pernicious.
The answer to that is to do a lot of determined political and cultural work, not to pass a law and call in the armed police, the courts, and the penal system to enforce it on people who have done nothing wrong.
Debates on gun control are fraught with emotion and personal opinion. Statistics are easily manipulated, and gun control debate questions arise with each new tragedy. Time for collaboration on gun research. Our nation does not have to choose between reducing gun-violence injuries and safeguarding gun ownership. KENNESAW, Ga – Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
Guns are neither magic talismans against tyranny nor anathematic objects that cause crime and violence. Guns — certainly the personal firearms that are in question — carry a limited but real measure of inherent power, and therefore danger, that everyone should respect.
Indeed it is because they are powerful and dangerous that they are the nexus of an important political right. But guns are not agents of history. They are not, per se, going to free a polity from oppression or generate unrestrained social violence. Within an insurgent political movement, they can at certain moments be useful, even crucial, for the former outcome; and, within a context of social decay brought on by other factors, they can seriously exacerbate the latter.
Their overall positive or negative effect is only determined by the political and social context in which they are used, and the character of the agents who use them. American liberals can all too easily recognize and disparage the positive fetishism regarding guns, but can be blind to their own negative fetishism.
Such a consistent, rigorous, pacifism is an honorable position, and those who hold and live it deserve respect.Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian.
Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement.
IN WHICH NOVELIST David Foster Wallace VISITS THE SET OF DAVID LYNCH'S NEW MOVIE AND FINDS THE DIRECTOR BOTH grandly admirable AND sort of nuts. Donate via Mail: Brother Nathanael Foundation PO Box Priest River, ID Apr 12, · The reason for increase in shooting cases in many countries has been linked to the number of households owning a gun.
More and more people now own a gun and that has led to increase in number of cases reported for murders in some countires. In a pulls-no-punches essay intended to provoke rational discussion, Stephen King sets down his thoughts about gun violence in America. Anger and grief in the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School are palpable in this urgent piece of writing, but no less remarkable are King’s keen thoughtfulness and composure as he explores the contours of the gun-control issue and constructs.
Debates on gun control are fraught with emotion and personal opinion. Statistics are easily manipulated, and gun control debate questions arise with each new tragedy.