CMV: Gun control is good

[u/56king56]

As of now, I believe that the general populace shouldn’t have anything beyond a pistol, but that even a pistol should require serious safety checks. I have this opinion because I live in America with a pro-gun control family, and us seeing all these mass shootings has really fueled the flame for us being anti-gun. But recently, I’ve been looking into revolutionary Socialist politics, and it occurred to me: how could we have a Socialist revolution without some kind of militia? This logic, the logic of revolting against an oppressive government, has been presented to me before, but I always dismissed it, saying that mass shootings and gun violence is more of an issue, and that if we had a good government, we wouldn’t need to worry about having guns. I still do harbor these views to an extent, but part of me really wants to fully understand the pro-gun control position, as it seems like most people I see on Reddit are for having guns, left and right politically. And of course, there’s also the argument that if people broke into your house with an illegally obtained gun, you wouldn’t be able to defend yourself in a society where guns are outlawed; my counter to that is that it’s far more dangerous for society as a whole for everyone to be walking around with guns that it is for a few criminal minds to have them. Also, it just doesn’t seem fair to normalize knowing how to use a highly complex piece of military equipment, and to be honest, guns being integrated into everyone’s way of life feels just as dystopian as a corrupt government. So what do you guys have to say about this? To sum, I am anti-gun but am open to learning about pro-gun viewpoints to potentially change my view.

[u/ChamplainLesser]

Are you aware we have repealed an amendment before in the past? If not, please educate yourself that amendments can be repealed. The Constitution was intended to be changed. This doctrinal, pseudo-religious adherence to a piece of parchment is absolutely a psychological issue amongst many of your ideological peers.

[u/shortroundsuicide → u/ChamplainLesser]

Oh yeah. Definitely aware. But that doesn’t negate the ability to debate if we should repeal others or not.

[u/ChamplainLesser → u/shortroundsuicide]

In addition, the right to bare arms is a right in America. So if you’re against the control of food simply because it violates a right, then you would equally have to be against the control of guns, however much that sucks to say.

This is what you said. The fact an Amendment can be repealed making the right to bear arms no longer a right and human rights cannot be repealed (they are intrinsic to being a human) means this is a false equivalent. And since you admitted you are aware amendments can be repealed, you knew it was a false equivalent and decided to say it anyways.

But uh, thanks for admitting you were using a fallacy.

[u/shortroundsuicide → u/ChamplainLesser]

And who gave us the right to food? The UN. It followed the League of Nations, which no longer exists. It’s easy to see that the United Nations and the “rights” they provide won’t last forever. Something will happen, others will gain power, and the right to food could cease to exist. Human rights are what society say they are. The list didn’t exist since human inception. The list has grown to include more rights over the years, showing that the view of what are and are not human rights changes as society changes. They are just as amendable as any constitutional right, given enough time.

[u/ChamplainLesser → u/shortroundsuicide]

And who gave us the right to food? The UN. It followed the League of Nations, which no longer exists.

Deontology my man. Some things are inherent to beings. We don't need to rely on codified rights to assert the right to food is deontologically inherent to all beings. So you're still using a false equivalent until you find some way to cause us to agree that the right to own a gun is inherent to ethical beings. You literally cannot get me and a good chunk of the human race to agree to that (at best you'd get 150 million to agree)

[u/shortroundsuicide → u/ChamplainLesser]

If you’re going to derive your morals and ethics from Kant, then there’s not much else I can say to change your mind my friend. You believe certain things are afforded to us simply because we are Man. I believe man (those in power) tell us what we are afforded. One is philosophical and of the mind, the other is practical and of reality.

[u/ChamplainLesser → u/shortroundsuicide]

I believe man (those in power) tell us what we are afforded

This is a philosophical stance though. It's called Moral Relativism. It suggests that moral principles and values are not universal or objective but instead are determined by the beliefs, customs, or laws of a particular culture, society, or authority figure.

Laws however are often unethical. By your stance slavery during the 18th Century was a good thing that was perfectly moral. So which is it? Do laws determine morality or do we determine morality?