So much for the "pesky Second Amendment" argument...

[CTyankee]

Nicholas Kristoff shreds that favorite little jab at sensible gun control by pro-gun activists in today's NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/nicholas-kristof-our-blind-spot-about-guns.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

The relevant paragraphs are here:

"Whenever I write about the need for sensible regulation of guns, some readers jeer: Cars kill people, too, so why not ban cars? Why are you so hypocritical as to try to take away guns from law-abiding people when you don’t seize cars?

That question is a reflection of our national blind spot about guns. The truth is that we regulate cars quite intelligently, instituting evidence-based measures to reduce fatalities. Yet the gun lobby is too strong, or our politicians too craven, to do the same for guns. So guns and cars now each kill more than 30,000 in America every year.

One constraint, the argument goes, is the Second Amendment. Yet the paradox is that a bit more than a century ago, there was no universally recognized individual right to bear arms in the United States, but there was widely believed to be a “right to travel” that allowed people to drive cars without regulation.

A court struck down an early attempt to require driver’s licenses, and initial attempts to set speed limits or register vehicles were met with resistance and ridicule. When authorities in New York City sought in 1899 to ban horseless carriages in the parks, the idea was lambasted in The New York Times as “devoid of merit” and “impossible to maintain.”

It is good for us to remember what Kristoff is recounting here and to remind those opposing our efforts to sensible gun regulation of our own history when it comes to reconciling rights and common sense precautions. Constitutional protection of rights has not been offended in the past, when "right to travel" is interpreted as part of a broader First Amendment (and perhaps other rights listed in the B of R) issue.

[rock]

1. And generally, the car is not the weapon of choice when

killing the bullies at school, massacring at children's playground, robbing a bank, or bullying other people by brandishing your car in public.

[packman]

2. A gun only has one purpose

and -in the final obvious outcome of that instrument - is to kill. That is its manufactured intent, its sole purpose for being is to threaten and ultimately to kill.

[valerief]

3. Yep, and a car's main purpose is transportation, not maiming/killing. nt

[Android3.14]

5. The internet has only one purpose, which is to

Transfer information.

While stating firearms have only one purpose may seem like a valid observation, it is a mistake to identify the function of a tool as its purpose.

Firearms serve many purposes, from murder to defense against murderers, from aiding in warfare to hunting for pleasure or food.

I vigorously agree with the OP that we must regulate firearms.

[packman]

7. What???

"Firearms serve many purposes, from murder to defense against murderers, from aiding in warfare to hunting for pleasure or food. "

Then you totally agree their only purpose is to kill in the final accounting.

[Android3.14]

10. Nope

Do you think that the purpose of the Internet is to transfer information? Of course no.

The situation determines the purpose of an object, such as using a stack of books to prop open a door.

I totally agree that we need to regulate firearms. I disagree that their only purpose is to kill.

[jimmy the one]

11. bearing arms

android: I totally agree that we need to regulate firearms. I disagree that their only purpose is to kill.

Technically you are correct of course, but arms were considered a tool of war circa revolutionary war; I think the more appropriate issue, in OP context, is what was meant by 'to bear arms'.

Webster's 1828 dictionary (click on partial definitions): arms 'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma. ]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility. Arms and the man I sing. To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life. To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/arms

4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.

It's most likely that 'to bear arms' meant in the military/militia sense.
One wouldn't put on armor to go hunting, predominantly just to fight a battle; nor would one take arms for offense unless he was generally going on righteous posse or to a military battle.

[Android3.14]

12. Not going for that debate

People on both sides of the historical interpretation argument ignore the documentary evidence their opponents bring to the table. I'll stick with the purpose/function silliness.

I tend to use the generic "weapons" when I think of arms, and I think firearms are simply a subset.

[CTyankee]

14. what do you think about Kristoff's article overall?

I think he makes a lot of sense.

[Android3.14]

15. Spot on

We regulate cars, and this disproves the gun nut argument that we can;t regulate guns.

[vkkv]

6. No license required

"""Cars are also killing people...should we outlaw them?"""

-------------------------------------------------------

Nation wide laws are in place so that cars are:

* Registered
* Registration MUST be carried at ALL times.
* Insured, liability insurance is a minimum.
* Require a licensed (& permitted) driver at varying levels of skill
* Designed increasingly for driver safety

Guns?

Proof of registration not routinely asked for by an officer.
No operating classes or test required
No insurance required
No license required
No key required.

[BrotherIvan]

9. ^^This!^^

[Ed Suspicious]

8. Many cars are not "street legal". many guns shouldn't

be either.

[Matrosov]

13. Cars vs guns = extremely poor comparison

Cars are designed to transport. They do far more good than harm, are an integral part of our economy and society, and consequently deaths related to cars are somewhat of a necessary evil and why we work to minimize those deaths rather than ban cars.

Guns are designed to kill. They do a great job at it and are responsible for over 30,000 deaths in the US each year. Yet the number of justifiable homicides is insignificant, and the overwhelming majority of gun deaths involve accidents, murders, and suicides. There'd be no major economic or social repercussions from banning guns, at least not negative ones like if we were to ban cars. If anything, the number of gun deaths would drop significantly, and they'd continue to drop over time as more and more guns would be taken off the streets.

It's like comparing apples and basketballs.

[aikoaiko]

19. Sorry for all the self-deletes. I thought I was in the gungeon.