The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Crystalmonkey on February 06, 2006, 09:04:28 PM
-
I was wondering how you folks feel about the issues about gun control. (Should be ban them, is it effective, don't we have a right to bear arms, etc...)
Just thought I would start up a new conversation, though I am going to finish what I was saying in the other thread.
-
We have a right to bear arms because or founders said so...and I am for making it as hard as possible to get them. And why would anyone need a fully automatic weapon...really? Rifles and shotguns for hunting and pistols for security. That's it. Semi-automatic is okay. Fully is not.
-
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That says all you need to know right there.
-
Banning guns all together isn't a viable solution to a gun related problem. Guns have a legitimate purpose and they can be a lot of fun. I have a friend who's into clay shooting. He owns multiple guns. His guns are registered, and locked into a massive steel safe. Each gun as a trigger lock. He doesn't take out his guns to show them to all his friends when they come over for drinks. He also hunts. He doesn't shoot at anything that moves. He doesn't shoot at a hare when there's a road with traffic just behind the target. He doesn't point his gun at people. In other wors, he's a responsible gun owner.
He owns a semi automatic (12 gage I think) which he use only for gun sports, clay shooting in his case. He won't take out that gun to go hunting. He'll stick with a pump, single shot, or double barrel gun when he hunts.
All that to say, there is legitimate reasons why people have guns. But who needs an AK47, or any other fully automatic gun? Why were these guns designed in the first place? To hunt elk? No. These guns were created with a single purpose in mind: killing people. That is the difference. Guns that fall into this category should be banned out right. They serve no positive purpose. Obviously, the military would be excluded from this ban, as they are in the human killing business. The general public, however, has no use for such weapons.
People will use the good old "right to bear arms" argument to say they are entitled to own these kinds of guns. To them, I say "Come on!" and the reason I say this is simple. The founders didn't specify what "arms" refers to. If we put things into context and look at what kind of "arms" they had back then, well we're talking riffles and handguns. Not AKs and bazookas.
It would be nice if the courts brought scope to the word "arms" and resolve the question once and for all.
-
Actually, they intended people to be allowed to own guns in order to keep governments in check and prevent effective military governments.
-
Love guns... never ask an irishman about gun control...
-
Actually, they intended people to be allowed to own guns in order to keep governments in check and prevent effective military governments.
Was it actually related to prevent governments from anything, or more towards the ablility to act in self defense when the sherif doesnt' show up. In other words, the inability to rely on the government. I don't think it prevents the governemnt from anything.
-
Citizens Right to Bear Arms:
(http://irelandsown.net/INLA7.JPG)
Citizens Right to Bear's Arms:
(http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/o/jonfoote/dali/other/Beararms.jpg)
/harharhar
/uptheIRA!
-
I'm in agreement with The Judge on this one. Citizens should have the right to bear 'arms', however, for specific purposes only. If you're responsible, careful, etc. with your firearm, I see no reason why you should not continue owning it. Judge's friend is a great example of what more gun owners should attempt to behave like: Responsible hunting, target shooting, etc. S'all good in my books.
-
Was it actually related to prevent governments from anything, or more towards the ablility to act in self defense when the sherif doesnt' show up. In other words, the inability to rely on the government. I don't think it prevents the governemnt from anything.
There was a strong distrust of central governments at the time, and in fact a strong distrust of militaries. A standing army was a necessary evil that should only barely be tolerated. The bulk of the military might rested in militias, which were comprised of private citizens.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or shooting for sport and everything to do with military applications, specifically, keeping the standing army in check.
-
So in that case, would you say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the discussions on gun control when the motives of those discussions are related to safety (prevention of accidental gun wounds) and crime reduction?
-
I will not accept a government removing my ability to protect my family, property, and myself unless they can 100% guarantee my safety.
Since that is impossible, then I believe law-abiding, private citizens without felony backgrounds should be allowed to possess whatever means they deem necessary for home and self defense.
I won't have a Senator or Representative with a $70,000 security system and Secret Service agents telling me I cannot own a firearm to protect my loved ones.
-
Judge and Demo hit this on on the head for me.
-
should be allowed to possess whatever means they deem necessary for home and self defense.
So anything at all? What if you are unreasonable or unfit to deem what is necessary? There is such a thing as overkill.
-
You've obviously never been to Newport News, VA.
-
Well, let me illustrate my point.
Say there's an ant on your driveway. The ant is heading towards your house and you want to put a stop to that by Killing it. The resonable thing to do would be to stomp on it. On the other hand, maybe you think it would be more fun to pour a couple of gallons of gasoline on your drivway, and set the whole thing on fire, roasting the ant to death.
But let's say it's windy out. The driveway fire spreads to your lawn, then to mine, and then to my home.
what you think is resonable just cost me my home. Thanks a lot jackass! :P
-
"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, more often than not.
But "responsible" isn't. What you described was irresponsible, even if to the person doing such a thing it seemed reasonable.
Nothing I am suggesting would give people carte blanche to behave in a manner that is irresponsible toward the safety of their neighbors.
-
So in that case, would you say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the discussions on gun control when the motives of those discussions are related to safety (prevention of accidental gun wounds) and crime reduction?
Yes, it does.
Firstly, I could probably get a gun. I don't mean legally. If I can get a gun, it's not unreasonable to assume a ganger can get a gun. Actually, it's been shown that they CAN get guns, including AK's.
What reduces crime more than the thought that someone you want to rob may be armed? It's a deterrent.
Second, it's more likely that a kid will die in a swimming pool than they will from a gun accident. (Freakonomic, Pg. 149)
It's fine to say "you must lock up your gun because it can cause problems" but it's not fine to completely ban people from having guns.
Third, the founding fathers had just fought a REVOLUTION where the GOVERNMENT was in control of the ARMY and was trying to take away their GUNS so they couldn't fight back. The whole purpose of having guns was that if "we", the people, had to fight another revolution against the government, we'd be able to.
Denying someone the means of self-defense is to essentially deny someone the right to self-defense.
-
If anything, I think we need more guns. I would like to incorporate firearms into our daily lives in a more intuitive manner.
By way of example, take my idea for a telephone with a gun in it - should you receive bad news, you can immediately shoot yourself in the head before the gravity of the news makes you cry like some kind of weepy sad pussy babyface.
-
Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?
-
Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?
Yesplz.
-
Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?
Heh, "PC LOAD CARTRIDGE"
-- does it want ink or bullets?
-
Could be either. With my new 8 1/2 x 11 x 9x9mm brand printer, you have one chance and two choices. Can you survive the office?
Actually, I was at a bar ***(and 'pizzeria') the other night for a high school blues band showdown between 5 groups (as a judge, no less) and began to imagine what a microphone/gun combination would do for the Seattle blues singer scene.
EDIT:***
-
Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?
Best. Idea. EVAR!!
-
I can see both sides, but I choose not too look at one of them very much. :)
I'm fond of boomsticks, and I don't know that saying felons aren't allowed to own them is really helpful. They're felons, after all! Felon status usually indicates a low opinion of the law. These individuals are not likely to lose sleep after acquiring a firearm. (Not from Wal*Mart, mind you. More likely from the trunk of someone's car. Or steal one. Or carve one out of a bar of soap.) Shooting them will prevent them from commiting crimes in the future. Since the police can't be everywhere it's up to the non-felons to help out by shooting the ciminals.
As for keeping the military in check, do you really think that guys with shotguns and 9's are going to have much impact on an M-1 Abrams tank? Or a sqaud of Rangers? Or - I dare say - a B-52 Stratofortress? Death from the sky baby! Carpet bombing for the masses!
-
They could grip it between the dorsal guiding feathers, er, wings.
-
I personally doubt that I'll ever own or use a firearm, but I wouldn't want a responsible citizen's rights to be infringed either.
-
I personally doubt that I'll ever own or use a firearm, but I wouldn't want a responsible citizen's rights to be infringed either.
Exactly.
I much prefer crossbows anyway.
-
Gun control is a dime group with your weak hand.</cliche>
-
Gun control is a dime group with your weak hand.</cliche>
Der, I don't get it . . . . :?
-
Ewwww... guns.... ewwwww....
I'm not a fan of firearms. But humans being the way they are, we unfortunately have made them necessary. Like cell phones. Another mistake.
The Second Amendment does say what it says. So that makes gun ownership a right by law. But people also need to realize that the guys who wrote the constitution lived some three hundred years ago, and times have changed more than a bit. Back in the late 1700s they used inaccurate powder rifles that took a good 30 seconds to a minute to load (the bayonets probably killed more people). Plus, the US had no standing army at the time. So citizens had to have protection against uprisings or even invading foreign armies, especially on the frontier. Revisiting the amendment may make sense in the age of automatic weapons and the military industrial complex. There's no way that amendment protects us from anyone these days. For maximum safety, we would also need the right to body armor, infared battle helmets, grenades, and air-to-air missles. I would vote for more restrictions on guns (i.e., making them harder to obtain), but never banning them outright.
-
My opinion on this.
Citizens do and should have a right to bear arms, but there should be limits. For a person to defend their home or business they can own a gun, but not 50 of them. And no one gets automatic weapons, or any semi-automcatic weapons either over a certain power. A person may want, but simply doesn't need, an AK-47 or a .50 caliber sniper rifle to defend their homes or hunt animals with. If you want to play with weapons like that, go join the military, thats what they were designed for.
I also like to remind people, that when the founding fathers wrote the right to bear arms, the most powerful rifles took 30 seconds or more to load each shot. If they had known weapons would someday be capable of firing a hundred rounds a minute or accurately hitting a target a mile away, I think they would have written it much more carefully.
-
Okay, so explain to me with logic why I cannot have 50 guns in your world.
I own 27 legally licensed firearms, by the way. I may have 50 someday...
-
See, what you are saying is that there should be a block between giving people what they want and need, and have the ability to aquire either way.
So, say I want 60 different types of handgun. Do I need them all? Hell no. Do I want them? Hell yes! But you cut me off because, I'm assuming, they have the capacity to take lives.
What if I wanted 60 different types of teacup. Do I need them all? Hell no. Do I want them? Hell yes! And a teacup has a potential to lethality as well, but do you consider outlawing teacups?
The thing is, people have this inherent desire to collect and explore their passions; when you cut off their passion for guns, you are not only violating the intention of your 2nd amendment, but the basic freedoms also granted.
As to the actual criminality factor, there is one simple line that sums up a gun enthusiast's view perfectly:
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
There are a damn lot of gun control laws already in this country, and they work fine for their purpose. Why not focus on taking out the illegal weapons instead of persecuting honest citizens.
-
If they had known weapons would someday be capable of firing a hundred rounds a minute or accurately hitting a target a mile away, I think they would have written it much more carefully.
I don't like playing the "what would the founding fathers do if they knew X, Y and Z" game, because you can't.
What you can say though is that they were fighting a war against a tyranical government, and knew the citizens have a right to defend themselves, whether it's from the government or "bad guys" is not the issue.
Do I think someone could take out an Abrams? No, the military is well trained to deal with militias after all. But if it ever came to it, where we had to fight someone, like the government or someone else, we would need weapons in order to do it, and who says the military would necessarily support the government?
-
Yeah, I'm not really sure what the difference between owning 1 gun and 50 guns is, aside from storage space and 49 guns.
It's not like you could shoot them all simultaneously and kill more people that way...although you could write an enemy's name on each one and use that particular gun to kill that person. But then what if you really hated two guys named Adam and you forgot to write their last name on the gun and accidentally killed Adam Laurier with the gun with which you meant to shoot Adam Stevenson? That sure would be embarrassing!
-
lol, ok, you can own 50 guns, or 100 if you want. I don't know, just whenever I think of someone having that many guns the word stockpile comes to mind, and dangerous cults and overly ambitious militias keep stockpiles.
I stand by my opinion about AK-47's and .50 caliber sniper rifles tho. Those types of guns were not designed for civilians, never intended for civilians, and shouldn't be owned by civilians.
About what the founding fathers wanted, who knows, many things were different back then, and I guess I shouldn't go there. An invading army took what a month or two to cross the ocean to even reach us. But I don't think they meant that amendment, or any amendment, to be permanent forever without ever being able to change it a little, if its what the people want.
Are guns even necessary for the reason they had in mind, in case the government ever does try to take over the country by force, force people to allow soldiers into their houses anytime they feel like it ? Could still happen, I wouldn't put it past Bush trying it. But I also wouldn't say no outright anymore. I would have said of course not no a couple of years ago, the US military is 20 years ahead in technology then anyone else in the world, and I would have said no army, or citizen force, really stands a chance against it. But then I gotta look at whats happening in Iraq, where, maybe not winning, but small fairly unorganized forces, fairly lightly armed, sure they got RPG's and IED's galore but they aint rolling out tanks and stealth planes, this rather small force, compared to the size of our armys, are having quite the effect. So I'd say yes now, a citizen force against the government forces could actually succeed.
-
My beef is more about the type of gun a person should or shouldn't have. But I'll play devils advocate in regards to the number of weapons. Consider this: When you fantasize about killing someone, you don't think "I'm going to spoon feed him till he explodes!" Instead, you think "I'm going to waste the bastard". A gun is the weapon of choice when it comes to murder. Some individuals out there want to kill people so they acquire guns for that purpose. Those guns are not registered and are acquired illegally.
Other people steel guns. Then they resell them to the people described above. They are not necessarly killers themselves, but they want to make a quick buck. Or maybe they are members of a gang and they steal guns to supply the gangmembers. The fact that you have 50 firearms, and everyone else on your street has 50 firearms increases the odds of success for those who are in the gun theft business and who resell them on the streets, thus increasing overall gun violence.
-
"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"HOLY SHIT NEVER MIND"
-
"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"
-
My biggest beef is also really about the type of guns people are allowed to have.
If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle. What are you gonna do with it, shoot down a helicopter ? You can't use it for hunting, well you could but why would you want to. Shoot a deer with a .50 caliber round and the deers gonna be in pieces all over the place.
-
If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
You'll be thankful that you've got that .50 cal when Bigfoot comes after your stamp collection.
-
If I wanted to murder someone a gun would not be my weapon of choice. I'm much more creative than that.
-
If I wanted to murder someone a gun would not be my weapon of choice. I'm much more creative than that.
Ditto.
-
Indeed there are more creative ways to commit murder. But there's a lot of uncreative people out there.
-
Indeed there are more creative ways to commit murder. But there's a lot of uncreative people out there.
Given the tech support questions now, can you imagine the questions people would have if everyone had a gun?
"So I point the end with the hole in it towards the bad guy and pull the trigger?"
"Yes."
"What's the trigger?"
"Just shoot yourself."
"I don't know how!"
-
Haha! Nice!
-
"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"
"So our plan is to break into the house of some guy who really likes guns?"
"Yes."
"We're not a very smart gang, are we?"
"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating this mustard."
-
"We need some guns! Let's go steal them from that guy's house!"
"Uh, I hear he has like 50 guns."
"EXCELLENT!"
"So our plan is to break into the house of some guy who really likes guns?"
"Yes."
"We're not a very smart gang, are we?"
"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating this mustard."
Actually it would be more like:
"I would answer that question but I am too busy eating my own face."
-
My biggest beef is also really about the type of guns people are allowed to have.
If you want to change my mind, give me an example of why a civilian would need a .50 caliber sniper rifle.
I will answer your question with a question. Why do people need sports cars with 510 horsepower engines? (The Dodge Viper, for example.) Is there any need to go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds? Of course not! It is excess, and that's the American way!
I'm sure Viper owners take their cars to race tracks on occasion just as owners of a .50 cal would go to a target range and blast the crap out of targets.
It's also a status symbol among one's peers. The .50 cal sniper rifle is akin to the Dodge Viper in this way. Both can kill, too.
-
The .50 cal sniper rifle is akin to the Dodge Viper in this way. Both can kill, too.
Yes both can kill, but people don't think "Man I wanna kill that fucker! If only I could get my hands on a viper so I could run him over!"
-
I would like to kill someone with a Viper. A pink one.
Or a lead snorkel. A pink lead snorkel.
The kill thing was an afterthought. I should have had my editor look over that before I posted.
Wait, I don't have an editor. Anyone know of an out of work editor willing to work for stale donuts?
-
Why do people need sports cars with 510 horsepower engines? (The Dodge Viper, for example.)
(http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2789/viperad7it.jpg)
-
I'm about $80,000 short. (Short being the operative word.) :oops: :cry:
-
I stand by my opinion about AK-47's and .50 caliber sniper rifles tho. Those types of guns were not designed for civilians, never intended for civilians, and shouldn't be owned by civilians.
Just wanted to point out here that both guns have civilian applications. The .50 calibur 'sniper' rifle series was spawned out of a very popular hunting rifle, and the Kalashnikov is perfect for civilians who want to get involved with competition shooting, security work, etc. It fires better than most commercial rifles. I own one, love it.
-
Two Words: Red Dawn.
-
(http://www.dacre.org/flash/www/gbq06317.jpg)
Just wanted to point out here that both guns have civilian applications. The .50 calibur 'sniper' rifle series was spawned out of a very popular hunting rifle, and the Kalashnikov is perfect for civilians who want to get involved with competition shooting, security work, etc. It fires better than most commercial rifles. I own one, love it.
Just thought I'd add some more info regarding the .50 cal and the Kalashnikov. Here's a pic of a Barrett .50 rifle.
(http://www.barrettrifles.com/images/82A1_04.jpg)
And a link to the company's website. http://www.barrettrifles.com/
And some Kalashnikov info:
(http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/images/0501.jpg)
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/
-
Granted, this topic has gone a bit arry, but here is my thoughts on the matter.
First: The talk about the constitutionally protected right to bear arms (the second amendment) is flawed. Most people miss an opperative phrase within their reading. The second amendment specifically states that citizens are allowed to keep firearms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia firearms are not really constitutionaly protected.
Second: I have no objections to people owning guns, hell i love guns (i like blades better, but they don't go boom). So, personally, i would be sad to see guns go.
Third: Gun control should deffinately be regulated by the states, or even counties (or parishes). My reasoning behind this is as follows: someone in NYC does not need a rifle. In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection; therefore, handguns for carrying on your person and perhaps a shotgun behind the door.
Fourth: Assault weapons should never be sold to civillians. They have a place where you can use those, and they are running low on participants (the military). To quote a former four star General "If you want to own a fully automatic weapon, i have a uniform for you." (i don't know if that is the exact quote, it was said by General Clark on Real Time with Bill Mahrer about 3 months after the ban ended).
Fifth: Collectors of guns should have every right to collect them, just like everybody else. However, due to an increased danger level with a firearms collection, the purchase of guns above a set amount should require a liscence claiming the purchases for the purpose of collecting (i know the inefective nature of this, but every little bit helps).
Sixth: Guns do serve a purpose. I personally don't hunt, but I do enjoy the food obtained through hunting. Granted, hunting can be done by a bow, but guns are just more effective. And, as an american, efficency is king (aside from the bureaucracy).
If i think of anyhting elsei ll post it, but those are my arguments in the way of gun control
-
Shall I shoot holes in your statements, or would you rather walk around believing that they're well formed and thoroughly thought out for a while longer?
-
Granted, this topic has gone a bit arry
Arry?
ARRY????
If i think of anyhting elsei ll post it
No. Please, it's ok. We're fine.
-
Shall I shoot holes in your statements, or would you rather walk around believing that they're well formed and thoroughly thought out for a while longer?
SHOOT HOLES, AHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
-
By all means, take me to task. Criticism is what debate is all about.
-
First: The talk about the constitutionally protected right to bear arms (the second amendment) is flawed. Most people miss an opperative phrase within their reading. The second amendment specifically states that citizens are allowed to keep firearms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. Since we no longer have a militia firearms are not really constitutionaly protected.
Clearly, you need to read the federalist papers. Alexander Hamilton made it perfectly clear that the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment was not just that of maintaining a regulated malitia, but, beyond that, the ability to form such a militia by gathering the armed citizenry.Second: I have no objections to people owning guns, hell i love guns (i like blades better, but they don't go boom). So, personally, i would be sad to see guns go.
Non sequitur.Third: Gun control should deffinately be regulated by the states, or even counties (or parishes). My reasoning behind this is as follows: someone in NYC does not need a rifle. In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection; therefore, handguns for carrying on your person and perhaps a shotgun behind the door.
Someone in NYC doesn't have the right to travel outside of city limits and discharge a rifle? Someone within the city limits need be reduced to an inaccurate weapon with very short range? Please provide evidence supporting your argument that "In a big city, most firearms are bought for self protection". Further, demonstrate how a shotgun behind the door is any less deadly than a rifle at a range appropriate for the weapon.Fourth: Assault weapons should never be sold to civillians. They have a place where you can use those, and they are running low on participants (the military). To quote a former four star General "If you want to own a fully automatic weapon, i have a uniform for you." (i don't know if that is the exact quote, it was said by General Clark on Real Time with Bill Mahrer about 3 months after the ban ended).
Why shouldn't assult weapons be available to the general public? Why would you mandate that we be any less armed than the general public of such countries as Iraq and Iran? Quoting a general who is clearly tasked with recruitment (Albeit indirectly) doesn't help your argument.Fifth: Collectors of guns should have every right to collect them, just like everybody else. However, due to an increased danger level with a firearms collection, the purchase of guns above a set amount should require a liscence claiming the purchases for the purpose of collecting (i know the inefective nature of this, but every little bit helps).
Collectors? Can collectors have more than one gun? Can they have more than 100? Can collectors own specialty weapons like fully automatic weapons? How about semi-automatic? Is there a size limit to the gun that a collector may own? What, exactly, makes one a "Gun collector"? How would you police/enforce such a law as licensing gun collectors, but not John Doe citizen?Sixth: Guns do serve a purpose. I personally don't hunt, but I do enjoy the food obtained through hunting. Granted, hunting can be done by a bow, but guns are just more effective. And, as an american, efficency is king (aside from the bureaucracy).
You're right. Guns do serve a purpose. The purpose is to put holes in those things that you point them at. The purpose of a gun is no more "hunting" than the purpose of the military is "policing". I don't own a gun. I won't own a gun until such a time as there are no children in my home. I have, however, put my son through the Eddie Eagle program (when he was much younger) and I intend to do the same for my daughter.
Guns are good for our society. Don't be a nanzy panzy.
Denny Crane.
-
If i may pose a few questions...
How am I being a "Nanzy Panzy?" Just out of curiosity.
Does the background intentions as put forth by a Founding Father change the wording within the constitution? And before you jump on this, i know my interpertation of the second amendment is largely drawn from an implication that may or may not be there. Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.
Now, if I may defend my thoughts briefly.
My second statement is not non sequitur (though i can see how you would view as such). It was meant to stave off thoughts that I am some anti-gun nut.
I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being. I can imagine that someone will say something about collectors and asking why they should not be allowed. I won't address this simply because i cannot arrive at a coherent reasoning.
Also, I mentioned the in-effective nature of the licensing idea. I now it is one of the more difficult things to enforce, but can be done so through a national database (I am aware that this is not exactly economical, but I'm an idealist). Also, this would provide another hoop for someone to jump through and would work to weed out a small percentage of potential criminals. Granted this will do nothing to detur their purchase of guns on the "streets."
I have no statistics of anykind that can back up my claim that most guns in a big city are bought for protection. I can, however, walk you through my thought process. (Beware the convluted wording, I can rephrase it if you wish). Rifles have little practical use within a city due to laws and close quarters. This then leaves the road open for the purchase of handguns, which serve little purpose other than protection to the common person.
Now, i appologize for bringing this topic back up, it is, after all, months old. Also, my post was just meant to be a few thoughts, though it became argumentative out of habit.
-
Does the background intentions as put forth by a Founding Father change the wording within the constitution? And before you jump on this, i know my interpertation of the second amendment is largely drawn from an implication that may or may not be there. Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.
Sometimes you have to put the wording of the Constitution in the context in which it was written.
-
Also, I am well aware that virtually nothing in the Constitution is explicitly stated.
Bullshit. The articles of the Constitution state things quite explicitly. It's what they don't state that gives rise to debate.
-
I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being.
As opposed to those other guns that can be used as planters and back-scratchers.
This then leaves the road open for the purchase of handguns, which serve little purpose other than protection to the common person.
In other words, handguns also "serve no other purpose than killing another human being". Unless you're protecting yourself against stray dogs and pigeons.
I won't address this simply because i cannot arrive at a coherent reasoning.
Ha-ha! Hasn't stopped you before!
-
My work here is done.
-
I belive that assault weapons should not be allowed to the general public because they serve no other purpose than killing another human being.
Bullshit. When Bigfoot comes after my stamp collection, I'll be ready!
-
Amendment II - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (Part One), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (Part Two), shall not be infringed.
Simple.
-
Why the hell don't they just define "arms" and solve 90% of the debates once and for all? It wouldn't be an infringment, it would simply be a clarification. You would still have the right to bear arms, except we would know what that actually means.
-
In 1791 Afro-americans were enslaved and women had no right to vote. Things change.
-
And amendments were made to the constitution because enough people agreed that those things should change.
-
I don't own a gun, but i do plan on owning at least one, and if I have children, i plan on teaching them how to shoot, and proper respect for the weapon. It is my belief that any piece of weaponry that does not run the risk of excessive personal or property damage through indiscriminate means (hand grenades, mines, or any other kind of explosive/incendiary device not used for construction/demolitions purposes, civilian or otherwise, including, but not limited to napalm, thermite anti-material charges, and nuclear weapons), should be legal to own by people who have not been charged with a felony. The second amendment was established as a means to protect our first amendment rights, as well as keep another check or balance (depending on how you look at it) for our government. Those who drafted the bill of rights and the constitution did so with the knowledge, or hopes, that americans, both then and now, would rise up against an opressive or even tyrannical government. An armed society is a polite society, that's a fact.
Before anyone starts questioning me on the automatic weapons front, let me put it this way:
you're some hooligan looking to rob somebody's house, what would deter you more, the police and jail time, or the thought that there might be someone with a 12 gauge semiautomatic or automatic shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or self-rifiling slugs, Or perhaps a larger-calibur, high capacity assault weapon?
Sorry, but the whole big-gun-in-your-face thing would scare me a hell of a lot more than the cops.
-
Sorry, but the whole big-gun-in-your-face thing would scare me a hell of a lot more than the cops.
Especially since the cops aren't as likely to shoot you.
Of course, you could be arrested here for defending property with lethal force. It only works if you are defending your own or someone else. (And the use of force is appropriate.)
Doh!
-
"Afro-americans"... I don't think you can say that without getting your ass kicked any more. I don't think I've heard that since the 80s.
-
Let’s put things into context for a minute. Let's just pretend, for the sakes of arguments, that I live in a state and that I am an American. Let's say that on the day following the Bush - Gore election fiasco, I decide that the government has gone too far and has not acted transparently or in the interest of the population it is supposed to represent.
So I call up my gun buddies and we all start training a militia which is comprised of individuals from all over my state, and who all share similar views that the government has gone to far and must be stopped. Let's arm the citizens!
Let's say that a year later, we are fully trained and ready to take action. How would that work exactly? Do 5000 of us just show up at the White House with guns and demand that Bush be removed from power and that Gore be put in? Do we try negotiating? Do we kidnap Gore first, then show up to the white house and waste all "the corrupted traitors", take control of the White House by force and then chuck Gore in the oval office?
How would it work exactly? Honestly, do you think the second amendment serves any practical purpose? Any group who rises against the government claiming they are acting in accordance with the second amendment will be branded as terrorists by the government in power, and they will be treated as such. The government's military will kick any militia's ass. Seriously, can anyone explain to me how it would work?
The second amendment is just there for show. It's completely worthless in practice and anyone who stirs the pot to much under the pretext of the second amendment will end up being treated as a criminal. That's how things work in the real world. Justice and equity for all. :roll:
-
"Afro-americans"... I don't think you can say that without getting your ass kicked any more. I don't think I've heard that since the 80s.
Afro-americans are americans with afros.
I'm a Mullet-american.
-
Judge, unless you represent your state, you have no right to form a militia. Your governor, however, would have the right to call all armed citizens into action to defend the state against the tirany of an abusive federal government or even another state govt.
-
OK so lets pretend I was the governor then. I'm calling all armed citizens to fight the oppressive Bush regime (talk about a career limiting move).
So... We just show up and start shooting public servants? No seriously> What is it that we are suppose to do exactly? And then, once we're all under arrest because the US army kicked our asses, are we to expect to be excused because we all beleived that we acted in the spirit of the second ammendment? I don't thikn that's going to work out. So I still don't get how it works, and therefore I maintain its irrelevent until someone can explain to me otherwise.
If it comes the the point where people need to rise against their governement and tip the scale through force, that will only be acheived through civil war, and if it comes to that, you won't care about having it in writing. It won't matter. You'll do what you have to do when the time comes.
-
If it comes the the point where people need to rise against their governement and tip the scale through force, that will only be acheived through civil war, and if it comes to that, you won't care about having it in writing. It won't matter. You'll do what you have to do when the time comes.
But, how is civil war possible with an unarmed population?
If you want to know the purpose of the 2nd, go rent the movie Red Dawn.
Wolverines!
For many years, the 2 oceans on our east/west served as good barriers to invasion. In today's world, they're little more than an inconvenience. The belief that every American is packing and has already killed someone is a better deterrent to invasion, today.
-
But, how is civil war possible with an unarmed population?
Axes and pitch forks man!
I understand what the purpose of the ammendment is on paper. It is to enable certain persons with certain authorities within a state to form an militia that could be used to fight an oppressive governments (iether the federal government or the government of another state). That's what you said. I understand. I'm just saying it wouldn't work in practice. I don't think I'll see the day when I turn on the news and get my daily update on the Minnesota/Wisconsin armed conflict. Besides, we all know Catwritr would kick Demo's ass.
*runs*
-
...The belief that every American is packing and has already killed someone is a better deterrent to invasion, today.
I'm packing and have killed many. Get off of my grass.
-
While on the topic of gun control, this page (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm) has interesting numbers. Draw your own conclusions of course. These are just figures.
-
Fact: Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
The day you can guarantee that the bad guy I encounter won't be packing is the day I'll change my view.
-
Fact: Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
That is not a fact. I'll make a parallel with tabacco smuggling. When I was in highschool, the government decided to go crazzy with tabacoe tax rates. The result was that a pack of smokes went from $.50 to $8.00 in a very short period of time, and for a student with no money, well that's about enough to call in the militia! hehe.
So what happened then? Smuggling from the states just took off. It was always there before, but not as widespread, as beneficial or as accessible. This increase in tax made me deal with illicit sources for tabacoe because let's face it, $4.00 for US smuggled cigarettes was better than $8.00 for the exact same product after to government interfered. So at this point, I'm not a law abiding citizen right? So based on your statement, changes in regulations on the tabacoe products wouldn't affect me.
Well, after a while, the governemnt noted the suden increase in smuggling and prices were dropped again and went down to about $5.00. It was still higher than the inital $4.50, but at least it was more resonable and most people like me who dealth with smugglers started to go back to the canadian stores to get our products. Smuggling went down because there was just not enough money in it to warrant the risk. And if I wanted to keep dealing with them, they were getting a lot harder to come by.
The morale: Government actions, wheter through legislation, taxation or policy, can have an influence on anyone living in the country, and even beyond it's borders.
As a side note, I found it interesting that since 9/11 which resulted in massive security increase at the borders, the canadian government took advantage of the situation and taxed the hell out of the tabacoe products. I think a pack runs around $10 now.
-
The gun argument starts where you picked up smoking. At first you were a law abiding smoker (assuming you were of age.) Then, government put restrictions (they restricted the availablility of cheap legal cigs) in place. This cuased you to take criminal actions to support your habit.
Now, if they were to give away free guns to anyone who wanted them instead of restricting access, you would reduce the number of criminals because at present it is illegal for a convicted felon to own a firearm.
-
The gun argument starts where you picked up smoking. At first you were a law abiding smoker (assuming you were of age.) Then, government put restrictions (they restricted the availablility of cheap legal cigs) in place. This cuased you to take criminal actions to support your habit.
Are you saying guns have some addictive substance in them like cigarettes do? :?
I get what you're saying, but I don't think cigs were a great example. Let's say chewing gum instead. :lol:
-
I say that guns are addictive.
-
I'm staying the hell away from guns, with my addictive personallity. Sure, it might start out as an occassional social shootout, maybe a couple of shotgun rounds over brandy, but before you know it, I'll be toting Uzis and AK-47s, chain-strafing like a maniac.
It was hard enough quitting smoking.
-
Don't be a nanzy panzy.
Denny Crane.
-
Fact: Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
That is not a fact. I'll make a parallel with tabacco smuggling. When I was in highschool, the government decided to go crazzy with tabacoe tax rates. The result was that a pack of smokes went from $.50 to $8.00 in a very short period of time, and for a student with no money, well that's about enough to call in the militia! hehe.
So what happened then? Smuggling from the states just took off. It was always there before, but not as widespread, as beneficial or as accessible. This increase in tax made me deal with illicit sources for tabacoe because let's face it, $4.00 for US smuggled cigarettes was better than $8.00 for the exact same product after to government interfered. So at this point, I'm not a law abiding citizen right? So based on your statement, changes in regulations on the tabacoe products wouldn't affect me.
Well, after a while, the governemnt noted the suden increase in smuggling and prices were dropped again and went down to about $5.00. It was still higher than the inital $4.50, but at least it was more resonable and most people like me who dealth with smugglers started to go back to the canadian stores to get our products. Smuggling went down because there was just not enough money in it to warrant the risk. And if I wanted to keep dealing with them, they were getting a lot harder to come by.
The morale: Government actions, wheter through legislation, taxation or policy, can have an influence on anyone living in the country, and even beyond it's borders.
As a side note, I found it interesting that since 9/11 which resulted in massive security increase at the borders, the canadian government took advantage of the situation and taxed the hell out of the tabacoe products. I think a pack runs around $10 now.
Judge, I think Biz was trying to say that laws pertaining to gun purchases and ownership (e.g. background check, waiting period, etc.) only have an effect on people who are purchasing or owning guns legally. The crackhead that breaks into someone's house isn't going to wait 3 days and then go back for the gun, but me walking into a store will have to wait 3 days (and clear a background check) before I can complete the purchase.
-
Fact: Gun laws only affect the law abiding.
That is not a fact. I'll make a parallel with tabacco smuggling. When I was in highschool, the government decided to go crazzy with tabacoe tax rates. The result was that a pack of smokes went from $.50 to $8.00 in a very short period of time, and for a student with no money, well that's about enough to call in the militia! hehe.
So what happened then? Smuggling from the states just took off. It was always there before, but not as widespread, as beneficial or as accessible. This increase in tax made me deal with illicit sources for tabacoe because let's face it, $4.00 for US smuggled cigarettes was better than $8.00 for the exact same product after to government interfered. So at this point, I'm not a law abiding citizen right? So based on your statement, changes in regulations on the tabacoe products wouldn't affect me.
Well, after a while, the governemnt noted the suden increase in smuggling and prices were dropped again and went down to about $5.00. It was still higher than the inital $4.50, but at least it was more resonable and most people like me who dealth with smugglers started to go back to the canadian stores to get our products. Smuggling went down because there was just not enough money in it to warrant the risk. And if I wanted to keep dealing with them, they were getting a lot harder to come by.
The morale: Government actions, wheter through legislation, taxation or policy, can have an influence on anyone living in the country, and even beyond it's borders.
As a side note, I found it interesting that since 9/11 which resulted in massive security increase at the borders, the canadian government took advantage of the situation and taxed the hell out of the tabacoe products. I think a pack runs around $10 now.
Judge, I think Biz was trying to say that laws pertaining to gun purchases and ownership (e.g. background check, waiting period, etc.) only have an effect on people who are purchasing or owning guns legally. The crackhead that breaks into someone's house isn't going to wait 3 days and then go back for the gun, but me walking into a store will have to wait 3 days (and clear a background check) before I can complete the purchase.
Precisely. No properly disrespectful Criminal would dare use his own, legally registered firearm in the commission of a crime; that would endanger his concealed-carry permit.
-
Judge, I think Biz was trying to say that laws pertaining to gun purchases and ownership (e.g. background check, waiting period, etc.) only have an effect on people who are purchasing or owning guns legally. The crackhead that breaks into someone's house isn't going to wait 3 days and then go back for the gun, but me walking into a store will have to wait 3 days (and clear a background check) before I can complete the purchase.
Precisely. No properly disrespectful Criminal would dare use his own, legally registered firearm in the commission of a crime; that would endanger his concealed-carry permit.
If both your statements above are true, then how can the statement below be true?
Now, if they were to give away free guns to anyone who wanted them instead of restricting access, you would reduce the number of criminals because at present it is illegal for a convicted felon to own a firearm.
Sure, give free guns to everyone and there would be zero criminals at the time the guns are freely given to everyone, but then it's just a matter of time for crime rate to go up. And in fact, it will even be easier for crack heads because now, there's at least one gun in every home. The reality is that the more accessible the guns are, there is a higher chance of someone being hurt by them regardless of the intent (homicide, suicide, accident, etc). Imagine if the government legalized pot. You could go to any corner store and get your pot. You could grow your own if you wanted to. Don't you think that overall, something that becomes visible, accessible and normalized will also end up being used by more people? I think that's the fundamental problem with guns and the American culture. They have been normalized and we clearly see the results of such a culture when we look at actual stats of gun related deaths and injuries.
Now for the record, when I'm thinking gun laws, I'm not necessarily thinking gun registration. I think there are other more efficient ways to address the problem. In fact, the Canadian government announced yesterday that they are scrapping our program. Finally!
Gun laws I support relate to the type of guns individuals can own, and the handling of these guns. If you want to shoot a fully automatic gun, then join the army. If you want to have a hand gun, I think the army uses those too. "But what about the collectors Judge?" Screw them I say. Collect stamps instead. If certain guns are made illegal, then you'll have to collect something else. I'd love to collect people's fingers but I can't do so legitimately. It's the same idea. It doesn't matter if I'm going to be responsible about it and just cut off fingers of people who are already dead, and keep everything in a nice display case with tiny lights and mirrors, locked and away from children. I still can't do it and no one's complaining about it.
Gun available on the market should be limited to hunting type of weapons like a 12 gauge or certain riffles. Why those? Aren't they capable of killing someone, just like a hand gun or a machine gun? Yes they can, but unlike an automatic, you have limited shots before you need to reload. If you decided to go crazy and kill people, well at least you won't have the opportunity to shoot 20 of them in just seconds. Secondly, the guns that I would allow on the market are not as easy to conceal as handguns. They are not as portable. Additionally, anyone who owns a gun should be required by law to store it properly and that means having a trigger lock on the gun, and having the gun stored in a gun safe and having the safe locked.
I also don't think everyone is entitled to own guns. I compare it to driving. It's a privilege, not a right. If you abuse the privilege, than it can be taken away from you temporarily or permanently. I think gun safety courses should be mandatory because there is no such thing as too much education.
I think these kinds of measures would benefit society overall and that there would be less deaths caused by guns under this environment vs. a place where anyone can have any gun and where there are zero gun laws. I'm not saying it is a fool proof system and I'm not stupid to the point that I think these measures would prevent anyone from accessing a gun with the intent of harming someone else. It's still possible. But I prefer to make it more difficult for them if I can help it. A lot of people are impulsive and some act without thinking. If you have measures in place that prevent them from walking into a store and start shooting people on the street 2 minutes later, if you can increase the delay between the moment they decide to do something impulsive and the moment they actually get the opportunity to act, some of them will manage to calm down and change their minds. Measures such as these can prevent someone from being hurt and in my book, that's a good thing.
-
Some guy is mowing the lawn outside of my window and I wish I had a gun RIGHT NOW.
Stupid building employees keeping up stupid appearances.
-
I love the term brandishing a weapon. It has a nice ring to it.
-
I love the term brandishing a weapon. It has a nice ring to it.
(http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/self_defence.jpg)
"Brandish that raspberry!"
-
(http://www.stephane.info/res/article/modeling_tools_1/623s421.jpg)
-
While on the topic of gun control, this page (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm) has interesting numbers. Draw your own conclusions of course. These are just figures.
FACT:In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:
* 16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2006.
-In the U.S., about 440,000 people die a tobacco-related death every year.
-Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the number one cause of fire deaths in the U.S.
-Every year, cigarettes leave about 12,000 kids motherless.
-In the U.S., about 50,000 people die each year from secondhand-smoke-related disease.
-Today, in the U.S., tobacco products will kill about 1,200 people.
In 2004 there were 38,253 fatal car crashes.
In 2003, there were 3,306 unintentional fatal drownings in the United States, averaging nine people per day. This figure does not include drownings in boating-related incidents (CDC 2005).
Children: In 2003, 782 children ages 0 to 14 years died from drowning (CDC 2005). Although drowning rates have slowly declined (Branche 1999), drowning remains the second-leading cause of injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years (CDC 2005).
For every child 14 years and younger who dies from drowning, five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries. More than half of these children require hospitalization (CDC 2005). Nonfatal drownings can cause brain damage that result in long-term disabilities ranging from memory problems and learning disabilities to the permanent loss of basic functioning (i.e., permanent vegetative state).
Just some statistics. Draw your own conclusions of course.
-
I guess perhaps I am from a different era. No I am sure of it.
Where I grew up was a small town in Kentucky. The doors to the house were never locked, day or night. There were always several guns in the house. All were loaded. All were accessible. I once heard that an empty gun kills. My father was of the mind that if all were loaded then nobody was going to get killed, for the simple fact if it was loaded you didn't mess with it. Unless it was necessary to kill something.
In fact I don't believe anyone that I knew ever locked their doors way back then. But nobody was ever robbed. Nobody was ever killed. Nobody was ever held for ransom. And as far as I can remember nobody ever shot anybody.
$.02
-
And Judgie, I don't think you realize just how easy it is to get a gun here. If I wanted to, I know I can get my hands on a gun.
Second, you still haven't addressed the idea that the only people who are affected by gun laws are those that abide by the laws. The very definition of a criminal is someone who violates the law, and while you said that it would make it tougher for a criminal to get a gun, I disagree. It's very hard to limit the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals, especially because state law varies.
Third, we have a right to own firearms here in the US, for many reasons. One is to defend ourselves from a tyrranical government, debatable given the technology that the army possess though gurrilla fighters seem to pull it off in other countries, but another is to defend ourselves from other people. If you deny someone the ability to defend themselves, you deny them the right to defend themselves.
The reality is that the more accessible the guns are, there is a higher chance of someone being hurt by them regardless of the intent (homicide, suicide, accident, etc)....I think these kinds of measures would benefit society overall and that there would be less deaths caused by guns under this environment vs. a place where anyone can have any gun and where there are zero gun laws...A lot of people are impulsive and some act without thinking.
A knife, a tableleg, a fist, a baseball bat, a car, a bomb, etc... are all things that can be used to kill someone, easily in some cases, and in the heat of the moment are easier to get. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. I have yet to see a gun start running around shooting people screaming, "I hate you all!"
I also don't think everyone is entitled to own guns. I compare it to driving. It's a privilege, not a right.
It is in America, and I'll be damned before I support someone violating my rights, whether I exercise them or not.
Additionally, anyone who owns a gun should be required by law to store it properly and that means having a trigger lock on the gun, and having the gun stored in a gun safe and having the safe locked.
Agreed.
...the guns that I would allow on the market are not as easy to conceal as handguns. They are not as portable.
There is a video on google that disproves this, and when I get the link I'll post it.
Edit: http://www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/data/561/513demohi.wmv
Use "concealed weapons baggy video" if you want to try and find other sources. I don't know the site, but I linked it from a random forum I found.
I'd love to collect people's fingers but I can't do so legitimately. It's the same idea.
If the only reason you think collecting fingers is immoral is because it is against the law, you have some series problems. The law shouldn't dictate morality. Here, the goal is SUPPOSED to be in protecting our rights, at least according to the Declaration of Independence.
"But what about the collectors Judge?" Screw them I say. Collect stamps instead. If certain guns are made illegal, then you'll have to collect something else.
Why should they collect stamps instead? Their point is about people who use guns in ways contrary to the argument for gun laws, (I.E. to kill people or shoot things) while yours seems to ignore that.
Imagine if the government legalized pot. You could go to any corner store and get your pot. You could grow your own if you wanted to. Don't you think that overall, something that becomes visible, accessible and normalized will also end up being used by more people?
I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this. This sounds like a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief", where because the consequence of accepting this are negative, you shouldn't believe it. It doesn't actually address the points made, it simply shows that "If you believe this, bad things will result!"
Eg: "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"
This may seem disjointed, but I was trying to break it up to answer each piece as I thought over it.
-
This may seem disjointed, but I was trying to break it up to answer each piece as I thought over it.
I think you did an excellent job. It's not easy to try and "rejoint" my long posts! Anyway, you bring up some good points and I'd like to clarify some of mine if I may.
First, you point out that it's easy for you to get a gun. From what I understand, it's like that most of the places in the US. I personally don't think it should be that easy to get a weapon. Note that I also don't think it should be impossible. There are legitimate reasons why people want guns. I'm just saying it would be nice to have a process in place, to minimize as much as possible, giving guns to people who don't use them responsibly.
You still haven't addressed the idea that the only people who are affected by gun laws are those that abide by the laws
I tried too, and I just confused you in the process. I tend to do that some times! Let me try again.
Suppose there is a law in place today that all handguns are banned, except for when they are used by military personnel and the police while they are on duty. Let’s just pretend this new law came into effect this morning. Anyone who currently owns a handgun is required to dispose of it by bringing it over to their local police station, and they have 30 days to do it. Let's just say this is the situation, and let's not talk about whether it's wrong or wrong, or if you agree or disagree. It's just a scenario. Now, what do you think will happen over time of this is to stay in effect? sure, in the short term, some would comply and some would resist. Not all hand guns will be disposed off and not everyone will declare that they even have a gun. But still, a lot of handguns will have been removed from circulation. In the longer term, what would happen is that the government would start making an example of those who resisted and didn't turn in their handguns. Eventually, handguns would be much more difficult to obtain and anyone who has one would be sent to jail. It wouldn’t' be impossible to get a handgun, but it would be much more difficult. The legislation would therefore have a direct impact on EVERYONE, not just those who abide by gun laws. I'm not saying that the ones who want to get their hands on handguns will suddenly have a change of hearth because of legislation, I'm saying it will make it much harder for them, and it will even discourage some of them.
I tried to illustrate this with the legalization of pot but you go a completely different message that what I tried to convey. In fact, I was even more confused by your reply "God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"
because that wasn't the logic I was going for at all.
What I mean with the pot thing is that if tomorrow we make it legal, and it's available anywhere, and over time there will be more users than there are today because it's acceptable, normalized, and available. It has nothing to do with beleifs. I think it's the same idea with guns and my opinion is that the exact opposite effect can take place with the implementation of gun laws. I'm not saying this shift in mentality will occur over night. It's a long term thing.
The video you posted actually supports my point that handguns are easier to conceal. Note that out of 13 weapons laid on the table, 11 of them are handguns. Also note that while this boy was able to stick a full length shotgun in his pants, it's not like he was mobile. You couldn't really just walk around town with something that huge in your pants and... wait. That's funny! But seriously, I think the video, which I had seen before, only adds weight to my point. Thanks for posting it!
The last point I want to make is in regards to the death stats you have posted. First off, I have never claimed that gun death numbers are more significant than what you posted. You are correct, there are dangerous products out there that result in deaths. And what are we constantly trying to do about those? Reduce them. 20 years ago, you didn't see ads on TV that were trying to encourage you to quite smoking. Things change. Because people want to make a difference, because they are more educated, because they evolve.
When I was young, using seatbelts was optional. Now, if someone in my car refuses to wear the seatbelt, I ask them to walk. We invented airbags to help reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and vehicles constantly go through extensive safety tests. Look at who won the American Inventor show! A guy who wanted to prevent children deaths in car crashes with his revolutionary concept. The point is that in all the cases you listed where deaths and injuries are numerous, we constantly try to make changes to reduce those numbers. And we not only do things through product improvements, but through legislation as well. There is a reason why we have speed limits. There are certain vehicles that you cannot drive on the road. There are all kinds of restrictions out there that were put in with the intent of protecting people. Why can't we use legislation in the same way when it comes to guns?
-
There are all kinds of restrictions out there that were put in with the intent of protecting people. Why can't we use legislation in the same way when it comes to guns?
We already do. What you are advocating is banning them (except "certain" cases).
And actually, if we "use it the same way", you will have to ban those cars, swimming pools, etc, too. (except in "certain" cases.) : )
-
Judge, do you realize what one has to do to aquire a gun legally here? First; yes- it's true that ALMOST "anyone" can own a gun. IF you are not a felon (or ever have been), have ever been admitted for pyschiatric evaluation, or ever had any drug-related charges. But to carry that gun anywhere off your property, you must have a permit. To aquire this permit, you must apply for the license; requiring you to submit fingerprints for the background check; and review of you case by a judge; who will determine whether or not to grant your permit. The above rules apply as well; in a more stringent application (no felons, mentals, drugs, etc).
Then; with the permit, at the sporting goods store when you purchase a firearm; you must fill out an ATF form , and the store calls the federal NICS background check to see if you clear.
All of this is to purchase and own/operate a firearm under the existing gun laws.
by comparison:
Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.
-
No no no... I am not advocating for banning all guns. You say "certain" cases as if I'm being real harsh here and I'm not. What I proposed leaves room for all kinds of guns out there. I'm just taking away the fully automatics and handguns. There is a big difference. So again, I don't advocate for banning all guns.
Now, lets look at if we "use it the same way". Lets take the car example where you apperently think that applying my logic would mean banning all cars. It's not the case. Today, certain vehicles are banned from the road for various reasons. Some are in such a bad shape that they can't pass the inspection, others are just too big while some have too much horsepower. The restriction are specific and targeted. I don't see why guns can't be restricted in the same way, and doing so doesn't go against the current laws. You'll still have the right to bear arms. But instead of taking your pick from this huge pile of guns, you can exercice you right from this smaller pile. That's all.
The distinction you fail to make between guns, cars and pools is their purpose. Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill. They are a weapon. Swiming pools were not created with the intent of drowning people, altough that sometimes happens. Cars were not made to kill people, but accidents happen. When someone takes a gun, points it at someone else or at himself and pulls the trigger, that's not an accident, that's using the product for what it was designed to do. Based on that alone, I think they have to be treated differently. You can't just compare them to one another.
-
Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.
I understand that. There would be a black market as a result of restricting guns. But it's not a good reason not to do it anyway. Generally speaking, people prefer not to have cocaine on their streets, which is why they made it illegal. But there is still cocaine on the streets regardless. There is a black market, there is money to be made, but the individuals who participate in those activities represent a minority of the population. Most people don't want drugs. Some do but most don't. Shoudl we legalize prostitution just because it's going to happen anyway? I don't think so. Should we legalize explosive just because people can get them anyway? I don't think so. There are moral motives behind it all.
It would be interesting to find out the next time you have an election how people feel about handguns. When they go out to vote, if they were given the opportunity to answer the simple question about if they want handguns banned or not, it would be interesting. I think the majority would vote for banning them, but until the question is asked, that's just an opinion of mine.
-
Out from under the gun laws, I know bunches of people I can go and purchase just about whatever firearm/explosive/weapon/drug/pussy/etc I want - SANS any "permit" or registration process. So gun laws severely impact the law-abiding gun owners, with minimal- if any- effect on a non-law-abiding person (criminal). If there were no guns here on the shelves or legally owned (to be stolen by criminals); they would be smuggled in. And yep; I'd be just as inclined to get one then as I am now.
<snip>
It would be interesting to find out the next time you have an election how people feel about handguns. When they go out to vote, if they were given the opportunity to answer the simple question about if they want handguns banned or not, it would be interesting. I think the majority would vote for banning them, but until the question is asked, that's just an opinion of mine.
Judge, I think you'd be surprised and disappointed in those poll results. I realize that it's your opinion, and all I'm offering is a counter-opinion, but when it comes down to eliminating a constitutionally protected right, I think you'll find that most Americans will balk at that.
-
Judge, I think you'd be surprised and disappointed in those poll results. I realize that it's your opinion, and all I'm offering is a counter-opinion, but when it comes down to eliminating a constitutionally protected right, I think you'll find that most Americans will balk at that.
I agree entirely but I'm really not trying to eliminate a constitutionally protected right. I'm trying to limit what type of "arms" you have access to, but not preventing you entirely on your right to bear arms as a whole. It was never the intention. The question would have to be formulated accordingly.
-
No no no... I am not advocating for banning all guns. You say "certain" cases as if I'm being real harsh here and I'm not. What I proposed leaves room for all kinds of guns out there. I'm just taking away the fully automatics and handguns. There is a big difference. So again, I don't advocate for banning all guns.
Now, lets look at if we "use it the same way". Lets take the car example where you apperently think that applying my logic would mean banning all cars. It's not the case. Today, certain vehicles are banned from the road for various reasons. Some are in such a bad shape that they can't pass the inspection, others are just too big while some have too much horsepower. The restriction are specific and targeted. I don't see why guns can't be restricted in the same way, and doing so doesn't go against the current laws. You'll still have the right to bear arms. But instead of taking your pick from this huge pile of guns, you can exercice you right from this smaller pile. That's all.
The distinction you fail to make between guns, cars and pools is their purpose. Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill. They are a weapon. Swiming pools were not created with the intent of drowning people, altough that sometimes happens. Cars were not made to kill people, but accidents happen. When someone takes a gun, points it at someone else or at himself and pulls the trigger, that's not an accident, that's using the product for what it was designed to do. Based on that alone, I think they have to be treated differently. You can't just compare them to one another.
Judge, I don't quite understand why you're lumping handguns in with assault rifles.
Aside from that question, here's my other comment. You are absolutely correct, guns exist so that people can shoot at things. The men who thought to include this right in the Bill of Rights had a very valid reason. They had just finished fighting for their freedom against what they considered to be a tyrranical government. They wanted to ensure that protections were in place so that the populace could do this again if need be. As for my own protection, second amendment or no second amendment, I feel that I have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary if someone is in my house and attemping to bring harm to me. For me, that means owning a gun and knowing how to use it.
-
As for my own protection, second amendment or no second amendment, I feel that I have a right to protect myself by whatever means necessary if someone is in my house and attemping to bring harm to me. For me, that means owning a gun and knowing how to use it.
As I said, denying someone the ability to defend himself or herself is to deny them the right to defend himself or herself.
-
Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill.
Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
There is also an entire indutry in collectibles. (True; the guns weren't created for this purpose, but the vast majority of collectibles actually DO only exist to be collected now.)
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, btw. I have found that there seems to be a profound difference in how Americans view certain things and how others view them. This is one example; guns. Almost NO ONE who is other than American sees ownership as a right (constitutional or otherwise). Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that. So I fully expect us to mainly disagree on this subject, with neither of us giving up. Aint that cool, though? :D
-
Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
Surely, to a great extent, this has to do with the fact that guns are available. In the UK, sans right to ownership, there is not a recreational shooting industry at all, as far as I'm aware...
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, btw. I have found that there seems to be a profound difference in how Americans view certain things and how others view them. This is one example; guns. Almost NO ONE who is other than American sees ownership as a right (constitutional or otherwise).
As someone outside the US, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on this, but I am largely channelling Michael Moore's spirit. Canada, for example, has many, many fewer deaths caused by firearms and yet has a much higher level of ownership (they are a hunting nation, eh). IMHO, the only thing that can explain this is that (some) Americans view guns in a different way. Obviously it's impossible to comment on what causes this difference, but that's not going to stop me. Possibly the fact that ownership is a constitutional right convinces some 'red-blooded' Americans that they need to own a gun in order to be American. After all, the constitution says so... It is an unhappy coincidence that these people are often also the people you least want to own a potentially lethal weapon...
Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that.
As a Brit(isher), I have to disagree with you. We have a binge drinking culture like no other. I can't pull up any ready statistics, but we're worse, I assure you. Any Saturday night in any even slightly major population area is a reminiscent of Spring Break (though less good natured).
So I fully expect us to mainly disagree on this subject, with neither of us giving up. Aint that cool, though? :D
To quote Family Guy (and maybe someone else): Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. :P
Yours,
Dan
-
... Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that...
Yeah tell that to the Irish :lol:
-
Generally speaking, people prefer not to have cocaine on their streets, which is why they made it illegal.
But again, that isn't a reason to make something illegal. The basis of our government is on defending our rights, and one of the ways it is supposed to do that is by breaking up factions.
A faction, according to Madison, can be made up of a minority OR a MAJORITY, and just because people don't like cocaine, or swearing, or whatever example you want to use, it doesn't give you a justification for making something illegal.
So even if everyone loves it, the above applies.
-
Nice zinger, bringing up Madison like that :lol:
-
From a purely economic standpoint, it is the job of the government to limit consumption of demerit goods*. Cocaine is obviously a demerit good and, it would appear, so are guns. Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns†, as they reduce, through deaths, the size of the workforce. This reduced workforce leads to less competitive domestic industries, which leads to an increase in prices for consumers, as well as a reduction in quality of living. In addition, the US will become a less powerful global entity.
Honestly just looking for an excuse to use footnotes,
Dan
* A demerit good is one which reduces the effectiveness of the workforce through it's consumption. A classic example is smoking.
† That is to say, the purchase/use of guns.
-
... Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that...
Yeah tell that to the Irish :lol:
But I didnt say "indulge"... I said "post about it"... shewt; teh Irish would drink us under the table, lol. But they dont crow about it constantly. At least; I havent seen that.
-
Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
Surely, to a great extent, this has to do with the fact that guns are available. In the UK, sans right to ownership, there is not a recreational shooting industry at all, as far as I'm aware...
What does that have to do with their purpose? The recreational shooting point was made to illustrate that killing and or blowing stuff up are not the only reason guns exist; it wasn't commentary on their availabilty.
As someone outside the US, I'm not sure I have the right to comment on this
You have the right as a HUMAN BEING to comment on any damn thing you please! :)
Canada, for example, has many, many fewer deaths caused by firearms and yet has a much higher level of ownership (they are a hunting nation, eh).
You have some factual stats to back these statements up? How do you know their ownership is higher? How do you know they have fewer deaths?
Another is, oddly enough, alcohol. I am always reading the Americans posting about their great love for BEER! and how many beers, and COLD BEER! and SEQUILA!! and so on and so forth... I almost NEVER hear another nationality praising and worshipping alcohol like that.
As a Brit(isher), I have to disagree with you. We have a binge drinking culture like no other. I can't pull up any ready statistics, but we're worse, I assure you. Any Saturday night in any even slightly major population area is a reminiscent of Spring Break (though less good natured).
I'll take your word for it, because I dont know anything about your binge-drinking over there; but I DO know - as I posted - that I dont see nearly anybody else other than Americans POSTING PRAISES about it. You know - "WoooHooo BEER!!! I got sooooo drunk last night..", etc..
Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns
Again - THEY ALREADY DO.
For anyone not familiar with what the current gun laws and practical application of such, I HIGHLY suggest reading about it. Here's a good reference:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60
-
What does that have to do with their purpose? The recreational shooting point was made to illustrate that killing and or blowing stuff up are not the only reason guns exist; it wasn't commentary on their availabilty.
Point taken. However, I'd be interested to see how many people who shoot recreationally would also be willing to defend themselves (i.e. killing/blowing stuff up) with firearms, even if not needed. Or perhaps, even more specifically, how many of those shooting recreationally do so in order to increase their effectiveness should they need to use a gun in anger.
You have some factual stats to back these statements up? How do you know their ownership is higher? How do you know they have fewer deaths?
Turns out I was incorrect about the level of ownership, but the table half-way down http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/international.html seems to support my point. Also:
The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.
I'll take your word for it, because I dont know anything about your binge-drinking over there; but I DO know - as I posted - that I dont see nearly anybody else other than Americans POSTING PRAISES about it. You know - "WoooHooo BEER!!! I got sooooo drunk last night..", etc..
I think this is probably a level of exposure thing. More Americans have the chance to post this sort of thing (which they take advantage of). In addition, most Brits who get that wasted on a regular basis are incapable of spelling their own name, let alone typing it...
Thusly, the government should be trying to limit the consumption of guns
Again - THEY ALREADY DO.
When I say limit, I really mean ban. In the UK (at least), smoking would've been banned long ago (we've thankfully now got legislation banning smoking in public places coming into effect soon) if it didn't make so much money for the government and if it wouldn't almost certainly mean defeat for the incumbent government at the next election. There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.
Dan
-
When I say limit, I really mean ban. In the UK (at least), smoking would've been banned long ago (we've thankfully now got legislation banning smoking in public places coming into effect soon) if it didn't make so much money for the government and if it wouldn't almost certainly mean defeat for the incumbent government at the next election. There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.
Sounds to me like intolerance. You dont smoke, apparently, so you feel smoking should be banned. You dont own a gun, (or have the right to own one) so you apparently feel no one else should, either. People with this mindset are more dangerous than the criminals here with guns.
-
<snip>
There is no point in allowing people to own guns whatsoever, other than the fact they (and, misguidedly, the Founding Fathers) seem to think they should be allowed.
If you'll reference my earlier post, you'll see the explanation about why the founding fathers included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. How on earth can you call the founding fathers misguided for wanting to ensure that the people of the nation they created had the ability to stand up to yet another tyrranical government?
-
By the way, I am glad we are all enjoying this conversation. It seems it's been a while since we've had a good debate around here.
Guns exist for one reason only: to blow shit up. To kill.
Wrong. There is also an entire industry out there for recreational target shooting. Chuckle if you must, but to completely ignore that is to be false about the entire issue.
That falls into the blowing shit up category. My brother in law is into clay shooting big time. I know there are sports out there and I don't ignore them. They usually use shotguns for these type of games. I have been hunting for over 15 years.
I think when it comes down to it, the real issue I have is with the gun culture Americans appear to share. You seem to think that having a hand gun in your house will provide you with protection. That seems to be a general consensus in the states. I don't think like that. I value all human life and I don't think I would be able to shoot someone who was robbing my house. You seem to think you can resolve anything with guns. I prefer to let the guy rob me because I don't want his blood on my conscience for the rest of my life. I pity the individual and I feel that if someone has to sink that low to survive, it's because of another problem which society can work on, like poverty and education.
I don't want to have to go through the whole legal process to prove that I acted in self defense. I don't want to risk having a dickweed judge who'll charge me for 3rd degree murder. What if the person you shot was someone you knew well? Do you want to live that experience? I'd rather just let the robber go on with his business, call the police, and deal with my insurance company later. That's why I have insurance. Americans on the other hand, and I'm generalizing here, seem to think it's better to shoot the guy if given the opportunity. That's the culture difference.
The men who thought to include this right in the Bill of Rights had a very valid reason. They had just finished fighting for their freedom against what they considered to be a tyrranical government. They wanted to ensure that protections were in place so that the populace could do this again if need be.
If that was the primary reason they include this right in the Bill of Rights, then the bill of rights is obsolete. It no longer is a valid reason because it no longer represents the context in which it was written. I've said it before, the context has changed. Stop hiding behind a law that was created based on things that are no longer valid to maintain your gun culture. It wasn't intended for that.
Judge, I don't quite understand why you're lumping handguns in with assault rifles.
Because, my dear, I view them as being more dangerous than other types of guns. Assault riffles for the number of rounds per minute they shoot out, and handguns for how easy they are to conceal and transport. These are the weapons criminals use the most. It is also because I don't agree that guns make people safer, and the statistic of gun related injuries and deaths in America prove it.
-
Sounds to me like intolerance. You dont smoke, apparently, so you feel smoking should be banned. You dont own a gun, (or have the right to own one) so you apparently feel no one else should, either. People with this mindset are more dangerous than the criminals here with guns.
I did mean that from a purely economic standpoint (and people with purely economic standpoints are exceedingly dangerous :P) rather than from a humanitarian/rights PoV. Personally, I think smoking should be banned in all public places, as I suffer from (admittedly mild) asthma. Guns I'm less clear as to my actual opinion on. :D
How on earth can you call the founding fathers misguided for wanting to ensure that the people of the nation they created had the ability to stand up to yet another tyrranical government?
OK, perhaps I overstated the point. When the Constitution was drawn up, if people were armed, they could defend themselves from the government's army. After all, they were on an even keel barring cannon (which most people could not afford/would not want but the government would have). However, this is now less relevant. Unless you intend to sell cruise missiles and helicopter gunships to Americans in general, the government's army will be able to beat them, regardless of how many modified AK47s they may own. Surely this means that this article of the Constitution is antiquated?
Cheers,
Dan
-
Personally, I think smoking should be banned in all public places
It is over here, and altough there was resistence at first, people wouldn't wat to go back to the way it was now.
-
However, this is now less relevant. Unless you intend to sell cruise missiles and helicopter gunships to Americans in general, the government's army will be able to beat them, regardless of how many modified AK47s they may own. Surely this means that this article of the Constitution is antiquated?
Cheers,
Dan
How is this less relevant today? The insurgents in Iraq with their McGuyvered explosives are doing quite well against the "Coalition of the Willing's" modern weaponry. The Guerrillas in Vietnam had similar success.
For me gun control is a pretty much non-issue. I don't own one, never have, nor ever intend to. This is my personal choice. When it comes to others, I have no problem with them owning or not owning guns. It is their personal choice. Statistically my odds of being a victim of gun violence are still very low.
-
How is this less relevant today? The insurgents in Iraq with their McGuyvered explosives are doing quite well against the "Coalition of the Willing's" modern weaponry. The Guerrillas in Vietnam had similar success.
But the US Army is an invading, peace-keeping force. If a 'tyrannical government' turns on the US, then they'll be much more likely to use a lot more force, as they don't need to worry about offending the rest of the world (they're bigger and, if the world isn't pissed off by them turning on their own citizens, nothing is going to get them pissed).
For me gun control is a pretty much non-issue. I don't own one, never have, nor ever intend to. This is my personal choice. When it comes to others, I have no problem with them owning or not owning guns. It is their personal choice. Statistically my odds of being a victim of gun violence are still very low.
Stop making excuses and argue!!! ;)
Dan, hoping to express himself better next time
-
That falls into the blowing shit up category. My brother in law is into clay shooting big time. I know there are sports out there and I don't ignore them. They usually use shotguns for these type of games. I have been hunting for over 15 years.
Yes, that sport, too. (Skeet shooting); but what I was referring to is competition target shooting. Paper targets with bullseyes on em. Nothing blows up, lol. Usually, a rifle is used; not a shotgun.
I think when it comes down to it, the real issue I have is with the gun culture Americans appear to share.
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, btw. I have found that there seems to be a profound difference in how Americans view certain things and how others view them. This is one example; guns. Almost NO ONE who is other than American sees ownership as a right (constitutional or otherwise).
And yes; definately. I would much rather kill an intruder than stand by let him assault my family; wait for him to finish his business with my wife/girlfriend/daughter and leave THEN call the police.
-
gun control means using both hands :evil: :evil: :evil:
-
(http://www.gotthegeek.com/hn/orly.jpg)
This could get real ugly real quick...
-
(http://img0622.paintedover.com/uploads/thumbs/0622/hotstuff.gif) (http://paintedover.com/uploads/show.php?loc=0622&f=hotstuff.gif)
-
This non-flaming rule.... is... giving me... a... tension headache....
-
This non-flaming rule.... is... giving me... a... tension headache....
Man, fuck that rule. You can't just pop into a 9-page-long thread about a serious topic and post some stupid shit.
-
This non-flaming rule.... is... giving me... a... tension headache....
Man, fuck that rule. You can't just pop into a 9-page-long thread about a serious topic and post some stupid shit.
Permission from The Boss!
-
I think when it comes down to it, the real issue I have is with the gun culture Americans appear to share. -the judge
Guns are one of the reasons that America came into being, if the revolutionaries hadn't had guns, then they would either have continued to pay their taxes to Britain, or they would have been crushed before the Revolutionary War ever started.
-
Guns are one of the reasons that America came into being, if the revolutionaries hadn't had guns, then they would either have continued to pay their taxes to Britain, or they would have been crushed before the Revolutionary War ever started.
Right now, I really want to run head-first into a brick wall. It might be less painful...
But, if the British hadn't had guns, then it wouldn't have mattered in the first place. And the British wouldn't have had guns if they hadn't been invented. So we need to look to the inventor of the gun to take responsibilty... Come on! Own up!
-
If you want to punish the dead, I think you should contact that spyyder dude, He seems to hang out in plenty of graveyards. :evil: :evil:
-
<snip>
I think when it comes down to it, the real issue I have is with the gun culture Americans appear to share. You seem to think that having a hand gun in your house will provide you with protection. That seems to be a general consensus in the states. I don't think like that. I value all human life and I don't think I would be able to shoot someone who was robbing my house. You seem to think you can resolve anything with guns. I prefer to let the guy rob me because I don't want his blood on my conscience for the rest of my life. I pity the individual and I feel that if someone has to sink that low to survive, it's because of another problem which society can work on, like poverty and education.
I don't want to have to go through the whole legal process to prove that I acted in self defense. I don't want to risk having a dickweed judge who'll charge me for 3rd degree murder. What if the person you shot was someone you knew well? Do you want to live that experience? I'd rather just let the robber go on with his business, call the police, and deal with my insurance company later. That's why I have insurance. Americans on the other hand, and I'm generalizing here, seem to think it's better to shoot the guy if given the opportunity. That's the culture difference.
<snip>
Judge, I think you misrepresent the feeling that most gun owners have about someone "in their house". If someone wants to come in my house, take everything I own, and not harm a single hair on my head, I would never think about defending myself in this way. However, someone who is in my home for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm on me is another story entirely. I have long said that someone who plans on raping me will only succeed because I am dead or out cold. And I can guarantee you that I will do my best to take them with me. I (nor the police) would have any problems shooting (or otherwise incapacitating) someone who was in my house for that purpose. After all, in this day and age, rape can be a death sentence. Overall, I think that most people who own guns for protection would not shoot a mere robber, but would kill, in a heartbeat, someone who was there to do harm.
-
I'm glad you cleared that up. Now I have to rethink my whole plan seducing you in your sleep. :-D
OK, I'll agree with you on this one and say that this is a valid a legitimate reason to own and use a gun. Nowanswer this: Out of all the guns that were acquired specifically for the reason you just mentionned, how many guns have been used for something else? (like suicide for example)
-
...how many guns have been used for something else? (like suicide for example)
This could lead into a discussion about suicide....
Also, what do you define as legitimate uses of a gun, and what gives you the right? (consitutional or otherwise)
-
And what is wrong with suicide? To me that is a natural right and the government has overstepped it's bounds by outlawing it.
-
And what is wrong with suicide? To me that is a natural right and the government has overstepped it's bounds by outlawing it.
As I said, a discussion about suicide.
-
*poof*
Now it's a discussion about tasty tartletts. I'm definitely in the pro camp when it comes to those.
-
Lemon or pecan? That's the real debate!
-
definitely pecan!
-
I think it would be a tie. I mean, they're both 5 letter words and both have 2 vowels. That's a tie.
-
*poof*
Now it's a discussion about tasty tartletts. I'm definitely in the pro camp when it comes to those.
:-D :-D I SO love you!
I mean um... you're cool, man. Real cool. :mrgreen:
-
I think it would be a tie. I mean, they're both 5 letter words and both have 2 vowels. That's a tie.
Sure tie has two vowels but it's only a three letter word.
-
I just read that in England one can get a 4-year jail term for carrying a pocket knife.
So I think things in the U.S. are pretty good in comparison.