KY
“If we outlaw many types of guns, will that solve the problem?
Well drugs are a problem, and outlawing them didn’t really stop the scourge”
The mistake he (and you) are making
is defining “solve the problem” as “stop the scourge”
No, restricting guns will not stop mass shootings, and making drugs illegal did not stop the problem of drugs.
but that is not a reason not to try to limit shootings.
“No. You are forgetting. The starting point is that the bill of rights gives you the right, whether you like that or not.
You want to negate that, you need to show probable benefit”
No, Im not forgetting. this is a discussion Ive had many times, and the same silly arguments are brought up over and over. Health did not mention the bill of rights, though I’m happy to discuss your new argument:
Though worth noting )again) that I’m not defining “probable benefit” as ending ALL shootings or even all mass shootings. – This is the critical mistake you are making in your post.
Falling back on the bill of rights, is silly (and is really reading a lot into health’s argument that isnt there) . The 2nd amendment isnt Torah misinai. It is man made, if it is stupid, we can (and should) get rid of it. (the idea that we are stuck with it “whether you like it or not” is not factual, look at slavery, prohibition). Furthermore the actual amendment’s meaning is debatable as It can (and has been) reinterpreted over the years thanks to the NRA lobbying hard for their more expansive interpretation which was not how it was historicly understood, and likely not how it was intended .
Moreover all agree that there are limits on the 2nd amendment. Do I have a right to buy a bomb? The 2nd amendment isnt limited to “guns” (arms are defined as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” In johnsohn’;s dictionary in 1755) Should bombs be regulated? that didnt stop the boston marathon bombing, 2016 NY pipe bombs, etc… So why limit the 2nd amendment if bomb attacks have occurred anyway?