People who want to kill will use any weapon. Blaming guns is wrong.
We don’t have gun nuts in Texas. We have - just like every other state - criminals who use guns, yes. We also have responsible, law-abiding citizens who take the time and effort to get training in the proper use of firearms. And we need more of them to do so; it makes our society safer in the long run.
Yep. No gays in Iran, either. Just ask Ahmedinejad.
Good idea, maybe the less populated states could have weaker gun laws and those with the large urban areas could really clamp down and make private ownership in the large cities next to impossible. Surely that will take care of the problem.
Updated report from NYTimes.
And the same arguments will be made over and over again, to be rebutted the same over and over again: sure, but guns will make their hobby a heck of a lot easier. Pretty hard assaulting a movie theatre with a crowbar and a handful of (illegal) ninja stars, or a train station with a switchblade and a pair of (illegal) brass knuckles. Good luck setting up a frying pan-by, too.
It can be done (see: that Belgian nutcase who attacked a maternity ward with a butcher’s knife ; oh, if only them babies had been armed), but it takes some doing.
[QUOTE=Projammer]
If only there were some other purpose for booze and tobacco besides killing people.
[/QUOTE]
Um, there is : feeling goooood. Also getting inside the pants of the redhead from Accounts Receivables.
First I’ll issue a mea culpa for assuming you would not respond to my question, and I’ll apologize for not getting back to you for a few days.
Yes, there is a difference between intentionally killing another person and another person doing something extremely unhealthy or dangerous that leads to their own death. However we already have laws to deal with people that intentionally (or even unintentionally but through negligence) kill other people, and those are generally enforced.
My whole point is, from a matter of public policy please explain to me why we should be more concerned about 12,600 people who are killed by firearms “intentionally” versus 75,000 people being killed by alcohol “unintentionally.” Note that not all of those 75,000 (as I’ve already explained) were people drinking themselves to death, some people chose to drive a car drunk, and because of reduced motor skills end up killing people who did not choose to share the road with a drunk.
Yes, on an individual level there is a different moral and legal element to “intentional homicides” and “other types of death”, but if you’re talking about taking away people’s extant rights you’re talking about a society level response and at a society level no one has made a compelling argument as to why intentional homicides and tools sometimes used to commit them should result in loss of rights but we should still be allowed to sell and own other very dangerous things that kill more people in total.
I’m all for criminalizing what people do with guns, but if you want to criminalize the ownership of an inanimate object then you’re no longer talking about criminalizing what people are doing (which is where the distinction of intentional versus unintentional acts come in) but are instead criminalizing ownership of inanimate objects because they pose a risk to society. In that regard various other inanimate objects are just as dangerous (and some more) than firearms.
But we still sell alcohol, in most stores all you need is a photo I.D., and that is only intermittently enforced. We still have bartenders routinely serving people until they are simply dangerous intoxicated. It is apparent from the numbers that the alcohol laws simply aren’t working. Why not try a ban?
I have no idea, and I honestly don’t know if that number can be researched. I was never making claims about murders. Obviously some number of people greater than zero are murdered by those things, I can imagine rare scenarios in which someone intentionally drowns a person in a pool, runs someone over with an ATV…and “something” with alcohol (I draw a blank at how you could commit a murder with just alcohol…I guess maybe funneling some down a passed out drunk’s throat.)
However what I will note in all of those rare instances, people are not being killed because the inanimate object that killed them was legal they are being killed because someone is murdering them.
I believe intentional, unlawful homicides is around 12.6k per year, much higher than “murders” with those other inanimate objects. But I’ve already explained that for the purposes of banning inanimate objects the motivation of the actor shouldn’t be the compelling concern. Namely because the inanimate object isn’t motivating the murder, so instead you’re just saying “this inanimate object is dangerous because this many people die in incidents with that object” and under that logic it opens the doors to all kinds of inanimate objects.
Explained above.
Mea culpa.
Answered above.
Some guns are actually specially made for killing certain types of game and some are designed specifically for target shooting, these guns can kill humans fine but are not considered the ideal weapon for the task. Same goes for certain types of ammunition as well (you aren’t taking a 20 gauge loaded with bird shot to a gun fight if you can avoid it.)
But a key point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with something that is designed to kill people. There are lawful, just, and reasonable times when a citizen should kill another person.
Do you suppose we could find some way to support the 2nd Amendment without also giving the Kremlin a handout? Is the NRA, or any other gun rights group for that matter, actively telling its supporters to “Buy American”?
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde;15388233
My whole point is, from a matter of public policy please explain to me why we should be more concerned about 12,600 people who are killed by firearms “intentionally” versus 75,000 people being killed by alcohol “unintentionally.” [/QUOTE]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that I can sell alcohol without a license, can I? But I can sell a gun to an 18 year old out of my house
Reading that, this bit jumped out at me:
I’m all for responsible private firearms ownership (I hunt & target shoot myself) but if anyone I knew, let alone a relative, who I regarded as a “disturbed young man who had mental problems” got themselves a firearm, I’d sure-as-shit be trying to intervene or letting the police know what was going on.
I’m not really sure what your point was in quoting my post. There was nothing in it saying there aren’t times where it is reasonable for a citizen to use a gun to kill another person. As for target shooting, you are correct but that is a very small percentage of guns manufactured and sold in the U.S.
My point was that guns are a tool made for the express purpose of killing. Whether humans or game is irrelevant - the reason they exist is to kill (other than that small portion used for target practice).
Not that I know of. Many of the highest quality firearms are made by companies outside of the US.
And a hammer is made with an express purpose as well. What point are you trying to make by identifying why firearms were invented? Everyone knows what guns were created for and their uses in the modern world.
I genuinely have no idea what the law is on alcohol. I’m sure you can’t set up an “open to the public” shop in your house, and sell alcohol, without any sort of license. However I’m also sure if you have a case of beer in your fridge you aren’t going to drink and a buddy is over at your house and you offer to sell it to him for $10 and he buys it…no way in the world you’ll ever be arrested or prosecuted for that.
I don’t believe there is anything inherently unconstitutional about regulating or limiting second-party / private firearms trading; there are some practical concerns (just as there would be in preventing instances like I mentioned in which I sell a case of beer to a friend.)
But practically speaking, firearms last a long time, longer than humans if cared for properly. For that reason many firearms will have to change hands over time in the natural course of things, so from a practical perspective it makes sense to allowed transfers and such between persons who aren’t gun dealers. I think regulating them onerously would just basically be a boon to gun dealers who would be able to charge fees for acting as transfer agents while doing little to deter criminals from engaging in private sales.
So just to get this straight, you are OK with having less regulation of firearm sales than you are of alcohol? Hell, if I sell a car I need to transfer title, but I can sell a rifle and high capacity magazine to an 18 year old kid with no restrictions or record keeping at all.
In fairness, have you ever tried resisting tyranny with a high gravity pale ale?
Well I have, and let me tell you, it’s hard to even focus on jackbooted thugs and the New World Order when you’re loaded with that kind of weaponry.
I’m perfectly okay with no record keeping of firearms, because no one has demonstrated a compelling state interest in requiring a title transfer process akin to what you have for automobiles.
The compelling State interest for car title transfers is primarily so States can tax the car and any transfers of the car. Otherwise you could easily avoid sales or income tax on car transfers.
And like I said, there are issues of practicality. If you sell someone a car but never legally transfer the title that could come up if the new owner ever gets pulled over. Further, if you didn’t require some sort of proof of ownership and formal transfer of that proof of ownership then you’d have a lot of legal disputes arise about the legal owner of the vehicle.
For moving State to State, if you don’t get a new title in the new State you can’t get license plates in the new State, which will eventually make you likely to get pulled over and caught. So car title law makes a lot more sense because it makes it easier to settle ownership disputes and it can be enforced much easier. Further, since cars are generally a lot more expensive than firearms, I think society in general would be more likely to get involved in ownership disputes and things of that nature with cars than they would firearms. If there was a deluge of legal cases in which people involved in private gun sales were suing each other to try and prove ownership, or etc., then I’d say there would be a compelling state interest.
But even then, it’d be akin to the alcohol example. I would not be surprised if my selling a case of beer to a friend for $10 is illegal, but that’s essentially “meaningless law.” Meaningless because it is unenforceable and violations are undetectable. Laws on the transfer of firearms aren’t quite as unenforceable or undetectable, but for the 99% of gun owners who never have their firearm inspected by police and just keep it in their home or go to a gun range it’s unlikely anyone would ever be able to find out they were buying and selling guns privately.
I’ll tell Oregon I don’t need to transfer title then, as we have no sales or excise tax on cars.
No registration fees either? Free license plates for anyone who asks?
I also said “that is one of the compelling reasons” another compelling reason to title a car is that it is a large, valuable asset and without a good proof of ownership things get really troublesome legally. Especially since they are typically purchased by taking out a loan from a bank, if they didn’t title cars it’d make things a bit more annoying for the bank to repossess the vehicle. As it is now they get to hold the title until the loan is paid off and basically have nice, state-issued proof of legal claim right there from that process.