NRA is too radical

[rory_20_uk]

Consider a young woman being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. She can get a restraining order, but the police can only take action against the man after he has broken it, and response time can often be well over 10 minutes - plenty of time for all sorts of awful acts. In America, the young woman has the option to invest in a level of personal protection that the police simply cannot supply.

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

Including being of limited or no danger to criminals. Tasers are one shot weapons which are only effective in the right conditions even when they do hit - OR they require the user to be in grappling range. Pepper spray is useless for thwarting a determined attack - it just irritates the skin, it doesn't physically impede someone.

Also, in some cities tasers have been outlawed, and single woman carrying them for protection have been arrested. One city in Washington (where it's legal to openly carry a pistol if you're older than 21 with no permit, and getting a concealed carry permit is easy) has done this, and more elsewhere.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

So she's drunk enough to have her judgement seriously affected, but sober enough to draw and double tap somebody in an instant?

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

You know, we already have laws allowing concealed carry of firearms. And the hypothetical scenarios you lay out remain just that - hypothetical and nonexistent.

As it turns out because of the physics of weapons, something needs to be effect 25m away if it's to be effective at all.

I should have put it this way: is it more dangerous to live in a country where people can legally own firearms or not?

The majority of firearms deaths come from drug related gang violence. Staying out of the drug trade and not being in a gang reduces your risk considerably.

What do you think? Is that a good idea? Should it be legal?

I think we shouldn't based laws on extreme hypothetical scenarios with no chance of happening.

Depending on where you leave the gun in your car, yes you should be jailed for a while. CR, get your head out of the ideological cloud, when you have a gun you have a responsibility as with all freedoms. You should be jailed for leaving you gun out on a table at Applebee's and then heading off to the bathroom. When you put the gun in an unreasonable situation for being stolen, the consequences are someone taking the gun and shooting some person they hate, dropping gun somewhere and potentially leaving no evidence. You are partly responsible for that death. I don't see how you can argue that it is ok for a gun owner to leave the gun anywhere.

Your second sentence is really over the top. Holding no accountability is not the same as freedom.

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

Umm, be careful CR. The only reason why the 2nd Amendment was incorporated was because about 110 years ago, the SCOTUS did use the Constitution as a living document by rejecting the philosophy that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government and set the precedent for enforcing the Bill of Right's onto the individual states. The Constitution needs to be treated as a living document because society changes at a faster pace then the Constitution can be changed to adapt to it. Your gun right's victory is because of that living treatment, whether or not you recognize it or appreciate it.

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

I did not argue that it's okay for a gun owner to leave their gun around. Rather, that while being stupid they should not be liable for a criminal complaint for something like that - which directly results in no harm to anyone. The harm comes from the actions of others. I do not think people should be prosecuted on the chance somebody else may take their gun and do bad things with it.

So if a criminal wanted to hand guns off into the black market, all he would have to do is buy a bunch of guns legally, take them and then leave them somewhere for a bit and have someone "steal" them. Then he gets off free because it isn't his actions that will cause those guns to be used violently it's the people he worked with who "stole" them. This sort of reasoning, leaves loopholes for criminals for the benefit of what, the freedom to leave your gun where you wish?

I thought SCOTUS incorporated rights because of the 14th amendment.

CR

It is their interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave them the legal basis to incorporate the Bill of Right onto the States. But this interpretation did not suddenly appear along with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, for many years after its ratification, the SCOTUS still held that the Bill of Rights is only for the Federal government, see United_States_v._Cruikshank from 1875.

In fact take a look at that case very carefully CR. Let's go over the holding of that case from 1875:
The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

So the precedent since the beginning of the country was that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and even after the 14th Amendment this view was given as the legal doctrine to be enforced.

In fact the first case of incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not happen until 1925, with Gitlow_v._New_York when that SCOTUS made their own interpretation of the 14th Amendment to allow incorporation. They went against precedent that stemmed all the way back to the founders and treated the Constitution as a living document, able to given new interpretations. And if it wasn't for treating it as a living document, well CR, Chicago would still be asking for your guns.

[quadalpha]

Rather a gun than a tazer or pepper spray? These are deterrents which are generally sub-lethal and are of no or limited danger to anyone else.

She goes to a party and has had a few drinks and unwisely decides to walk home alone. Slightly more sober she's seriously spooked.

Some other idiot who was drinking sneaks up behind her and shouts "boo!"... and gets drilled twice in the chest.

Her ex-boyfriend does come along. She threatens him with a gun but he doesn't listen. She telegraphs when she's pulling the trigger and her aim and reaction times are seriously impeded. He dodges the bullet, but the guy 25 metres down the road doesn't.

There is something incongruous about something for "personal safety" that can still kill over 100 metres away.

Alternative scenario: Young woman pulls pistol on stalker, who pulls out the AK he was carrying for self defense.