[Moderator Hat ON]
Alrighty then. There’s been a fair amount of namecalling and insults on both sides here, and I’m not going to quote specifics or point fingers at individuals because there’s too effin’ many of them. Everybody chill out a bit; even if you think anyone who doesn’t believe as you do is a mouthbreathing moron, you don’t say that in GD. I don’t wish to see any further direct insults in this thread.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
stuffinb, the risks of having a gun in the home are controllable by the owner. If you keep your gun in a locked safe that only you know the combination to, and ensure that if you do take it out and point it you know exactly what you are pointing at, those risks disappear. Of course if you own a gun, you need to be responsible about how it is kept, which is the same with many household items.
PeeQueue
Jumblemind, I would phrase it a bit differently: Gun control advocates do not trust the people with a means to defend themselves, preferring instead to rely on the government. Gun proponents see the downside of gun ownership as being an acceptable price to pay for the right to protect oneself.
WE have heard “if it saves one life, it is worth it.” Proponents of gun ownership do not buy this.
[[First off, can a moderator PLEASE take out the ====== signs on TheVoiceOfReason’s post on the previous page? It screwed up the formatting. Gaudere, thanks for fixing my link, also.]]
So basically, in english with all the window dressing removed, what you’re saying is that handguns should be banned. The only difference is that you want them to be banned as a gradual process wherein you just can’t get a new one, and as they wear out or sustain damage, too bad. Is that about right? Kudos on the deception. It would sound geniuine to somebody who wasn’t used to spotting it.
Once again, you’re not using common sense. With the full force of the United States government and its law enforcement agencies turned against it, there hasn’t even been a dent in the drug import trade. What you propose is that we divert effort from fighting drugs, which hasn’t worked worth a damn so far anyway, and focus just a portion of that futile effort and wasted money on fighting guns. Fighting against something about which many more Americans feel much more strongly than whether they can get high today, and against something which is specifically protected as vital in the Constitution. Do you honestly believe prohibition will work with guns?
Something else to consider is this: It’s easy to control chemicals that are used to make drugs, and yet they still get made in huge quantities. Do you propose that we licence and register lathes, sheet metal working tools, metal itself, etc to stop people from making their own guns? I’m sorry, but this idea is just nonsense.
If I use a really nice, high quality hammer to build a house, who gets credit for building it? Me or the hammer? If I use the same hammer to beat a man to death, who goes to prison? Me or the hammer? A gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don’t like the use it’s designed for, too bad. Don’t use it.
I don’t like weed-whackers. Does that mean they should be outlawed? Of course not. They’re designed to do nothing but kill, kill, kill. Sure, they normally just kill weeds, but why stop there? You can fillet a squirrel, a cat, even a person in just seconds with a weed-whacker. How much would you pay? But wait, you also…uh, sorry. Where was I? Oh yeah. Applying your reasoning to another common tool to demonstrate how ridiculous it is.
Guns and their possession have inherent value. Value that was recognized and protected in the highest Law of the Land. Who are you to decide that it is wrong and persecute me for exercising my rights?
It’s even easier to drive a car through the crowd. You can kill many more people in a fraction of the time, and you don’t even need to worry about ammunition. Many times more people are killed accidentally by motor vehicles than by guns every year. So maybe we should ban those too. What? You say it’s not the same thing? Wrong. You don’t like guns because
[ul]
[li]they’re readily available.[/li]I can go out and buy a 4000 pound death machine for only a couple hundred dollars.
[li]they make killing easier and less personal.[/li]How is aiming and firing a gun at a target easier than driving over them?
[li]hundreds of accidental deaths would be prevented every year by banning firearms.[/li]THOUSANDS of accidental deaths would be prevented every year by banning automobiles.
[li]there are irresponsible gun owners.[/li]there are many more irresponsible car owners and drivers.
[li]guns are made for one reason: Killing.[/li]guns are also useful for preventing tyranny, overthrowing an oppressive government, defending your family, and putting food on the table. They are also good for gaining a steady hand, improving concentration, and bettering eye-hand coordination.
They are also a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
[/ul]
sigh There is nothing I hate more than arguing from ignorance. Do you even know what a “dum dum round” is, or are you just saying that because you read it in a gun control pamphlet?
The Dum Dum bullet is more properly called the .303 British round, produced by the Dum Dum Armory in India, hence the name. It is a high-velocity 215 grain half-jacket lead-core bullet used primarily for hunting elephants (There was at one time an explosive tip version made, but since it was banned by the Geneva Convention, it is no longer in production, even for military use. In other words, it’s a moot point because you can’t get them). I promise you that if you get hit in the arm or leg with one, it will not kill you. It’s basically just a big fast bullet, nothing special about it other than the fact that gun control people have latched onto it because it has a name that lends itself easily to a sound bite.
Or were you under the impression that it’s one of the “magic” bullets that killed JFK? FYI, James Brady was hit squarely in the center of the forehead with a bullet and survived. So much for your one shot kill.
How much shooting have you done? How much combat shooting? How many one-shot kills have you made in combat? Snipers strive for one-shot kills, but they are willing to spend days, weeks, or months waiting for the perfect shot, then they are able to take as much time as they like preparing and aiming the shot. In a combat or self-defense situation you don’t have that luxury. So yes, for all practical purposes, the one-shot kill is largely a myth in the real world.
Everybody has that power and makes those decisions hundreds of times every single day. Every time you drive your car. Every time you pick up a knife. Every time you walk by somebody without reaching out and snapping their neck (Yes, it could be just that easy). But how often have you chosen to run somebody down because you’ve been having a bad day? It doesn’t happen. Somebody who is not inclined to kill will not kill because they get angry and have a gun handy. Somebody who is inclined to kill will do so whether there is a gun or not. As I said before, murder didn’t miraculously appear out of nowhere upon the invention of gunpowder. If you are prone to that kind of rage, such that you would kill somebody if only [some condition were true], then get yourself into therapy or check yourself into a mental hospital as soon as possible.
It’s really easy to think up a scary worst-case scenario story and present it as an argument for or against guns, but that’s a really crappy and useless tactic with no benefit whatsoever. If you like I could make up a story where “5 men armed with knives break in and rape your wife and daughter while they play piñata with your son and gut your dog, and oh boy, don’t you wish you hadn’t given up your gun?” But what would it accomplish? Are you aware of actual occurrences of the scenario you presented (a sane, stable person loses his temper and kills, SOLELY because there was a gun nearby)? I’m not. And I have no doubt that somebody who would kill the milkman with a gun would not hesitate to do so with a bat or knife, were the gun not available.
Not to mention the fact that prior restraint of rights is prohibited in our form of government. IOW, you are not allowed to proactively restrict my rights or punish me because of what you fear I might do. I can only be punished for what I have done.
I have been in many fights. I have shouted, lost my temper, etc numerous times. I have spent nearly 15 years learning how to fight, and consider myself to be reasonably high skilled at causing damage to a human body using my own body. I have also spent 26 years learning how to shoot quickly and accurately, and to hit my targets efficiently. Q. How many people have I killed?
A. ZERO.
"But, " you might ask yourself, “How can this be? He freely admits to fighting and losing his temper, and acknowledges that he is capable of killing, but claims that he has not!” The answer, young grasshopper, is that your reasoning is flawed. Opportunity does not equal probability.
No, I know such powers are my right. Read the Constitution. I believe that the right to defend yourself is intrinsic to all people, and anybody who has only honorable intentions towards me has no reason to fear the fact that I will defend myself if required.
And as a matter of fact, a similar weapon had been invented, and in wide use for centuries. The sling. Maybe you’ve heard of it. In fact, I think (pre-)King David made a one-shot kill against Philistia’s champion warrior. His name was Goliath. At any rate, the Bible does not make any statements to indicate that weapons should not be readily available. The builders of the Jerusalem wall wore their hammers on one side and sword on the other side of their belts. Cain committed the first murder (most likely with a knife), and God banished the murderer rather than forbidding the weapon. It’s interesting that the type of weapon isn’t even mentioned. In the law where specific crimes and punishments are dictated, there is no mention of type of weaponry. The reason is that the killer is at fault and bears full responsibility for his actions. The weapon is only a tool, and has no will of its own. Therefore the type of weapon used is of no consequence.
Those are the key words, now, aren’t they?
This is both the dominant clause of your sentence, and the only meaningful part of your final paragraph. the rest can safely be discarded.
Well, Im glad that your are a reasoned individual, how about everyone else. Ask for mandantory trigger locks Hey that’s just a baby step to confiscating my guns Ask for mandantory training Hey that’s just a baby step to confiscating my guns Those are more typical responses.
You are right, Stuff, it’s not very likely. But I can take measures just in case, and the likelihood of an accident has been minimized to the best of my ability. It’s my choice (and right) to defend myself and my family in this manner.
I also don’t swim in the pool (nor allow my family to) when there’s a lightning storm, nor go out on a boat without a lifejacket on board. And if I hike where a bear attack is possible, I carry a large knife. (But this is silliness).
I truly believe that people who wish to make guns unavailable to the general public are afraid of the public being armed, and afraid of the guns themselves. Not controls, mind you; I do believe in a fair amount of control, like instant background checks, and licensing. And I believe we are at a fair balance of freedom and control at this present time.
My understanding is that the practice I presume you are trying to refer to (without going over the whole thread – sorry) was still current up to and through at least 100 years ago if not still.
Someone who is “striking you on your right cheek” is (presuming right-handedness) backhanding you as we’d say in the modern parlance. That is the root of the insult.
“Sir, I challenge you to a duel” – Homer Simpson
And my damn server is slow, but anyway…
I can’t remember if I made this point earlier in the thread so I’ll do it again; forgive me for being a broken record if so.
The only reason to ban anything is because one does not trust people to be responsible. It is never a question of what is banned, only that anything at all be banned.
It is not even a matter that it is our constitutional right (though that is important). It is a matter of owning anything for any reason is no one else’s business. Do you feel happy when America jumps all over the world nosing in everyone’s business? Is it your priority to read a diary when you see one? Privacy, personal responsibility…those are prerequesites to liberty. If those two are violated, the third is impossible.
Restricted liberty is almost an oxymoron, but it is understandable and I won’t be arguing anarcho-capitalism today. Restricted liberty is what we have now, I feel to an excessive degree, but still you can never satisfy some.
Gun lovers, please see, it is not a compromise when only one side backs down. We have conceded our position time and time again, from outright banning of certain types of guns to limiting the number of bullets in a clip. We have to wait for handgun purchases and have already beaten our own arguments for self defense (since you can’t carry them loaded in most states, or even with ammo close by). What we need to do is not say “The controls we have now are fine,” but, “Quit pretending you are better than me that you can regulate my life, spend my money, and control my possessions. Until I commit a crime and have been tried in a court of law, I am innocent and will no longer stand for your treatment of me as an irresponsible criminal.”
God, say it loud.
I have no problem with trigger locks per se, but think about what exactly would be accomplished by a law requiring trigger locks on all guns in the home.
First, how would this new law be enforced? Answer: it wouldn’t. The police can’t simply rush into a private home and rummage around for your guns to see if you’ve locked 'em up. The only persons who would obey such a law would be individuals who feel guilty about driving 2 miles over the speed limit. Such people aren’t dangerous anyway, so why do their guns need to be locked up?
I know what you’ll answer, and that’s the supposed aim of the trigger lock law: limiting accidental firearm deaths of children in the home. Heck, no one wants kids to die, so that’s a solid goal. But, wait a tic: handguns rank extremely low on the accidental death scale (last time I looked, dead last on a list of 10 causes). Annually, more children die from accidental poisonings, drownings, and even falls than from firearm accidents. So why single out guns, rather than going after the more serious causes of child mortality? I can think of no reason to go after guns first, other than that your hatred of guns exceeds your love of children.
Perhaps you believe that mandating locks will reduce impulse killings and suicides. Somehow, I doubt an individual intent on murder will be greatly deterred by having to undo his own gun lock, but as far as I know, it’s never been studied. Suicide tends not to be an impulsive process, but, once again, I know of no studies showing one way or another that trigger locks will prevent any deaths. I’d rather not pass new laws without some rational reason behind 'em.
Incidentally, every new handgun I’ve seen lately ships with a trigger lock, right from the manufacturer (I know my Sig Pro did). If the gun owner wants to use the lock, one is available; why mandate it?
Which brings us to the reasons why a gun owner might oppose a trigger-lock law (besides the above, I mean). If you bought the gun for home defense, in a clutch situation, every second counts. You do NOT want to be fumbling around with keys in the dark when someone’s coming in through the window.
As far as the “slippery slope” argument you believe gun owners will respond with: yeah, it is the first step on a slippery slope. Today, trigger locks are made mandatory. Tomorrow, the law mandates storing the ammunition in a separate locked container (because, even with that trigger lock on, you can still thumb the hammer, right?). Next week, a new law passes, and you have to store the bolt/slide/whatever separate from the frame of the gun. By this point, the gun has been rendered completely useless for home defense, requiring minutes of room-to-room dashing, assembling, and loading. So people will give up on owning firearms. And the right slips quietly away…
Sadly, I have to go to class, but if you like I’ll address “training” tomorrow. I’ve been awake for 32 hours and I needs me some sleep.
I’m new to this forum, and there sure are some well expressed opinions here. I would like to have the whole lot of you over to my house for a pint of Guinness and a game of darts some day.
I grew up in St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, a place with strict gun control. I feel that I had more personal liberty there because of gun control than I do now living in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Many native Louisiana friends of my wife and I traveled to Newfoundland this summer to attend our wedding. The first thing they noticed was all the people walking in the streets, during all hours of the day, in all neighborhoods rich and poor. They didn’t know what to make of it. And they kept saying “people are so friendly”. I pointed out that people are friendly in Baton Rouge too. They just are a little wary of engaging strangers, and rightfully so.
They were most impressed with the nightlife we enjoyed. Bars open late. Completely safe and relaxing atmosphere. Folks wandering the streets with a buzz on. And when the time came to go home… taxis lined up… many of them with female drivers… at 3AM… driving strangers into any neighborhood without a care in the world. And for those of you who don’t drink consider this… there are very few drunk drivers on the road in areas where it’s safe to operate a taxi at night.
Wouldn’t you like raise your kids in such a place? Let them play outside, ride their bicycles around. Attend a public school where gun violence is non-existent. Send them to the corner store for a Pepsi after dark. Go camping in the middle of nowhere.
And if you worked as a police officer, cab driver, security guard, bank teller, pizza deliverer, postal worker, or convenience store / gas station / liquor store clerk where would you rather be? Where would you rather get a flat tire? Or get lost in a strange nieghborhood?
Does St. John’s otherwise enjoy some utopian society that differs from your typical American city? Hardly. In fact, it is one of the poorest areas in North America, with high unemployment and widespread drug use. They have crimes of property, domestic violence, mental illness, and criminally inclined riff raff on par with any other city with a population over 200,000. The difference is that they don’t have guns added to the mix. When I caught some kids robbing my car stereo, I chased one of them down the street and detained him while my sister summoned the police (who responded quickly). I wouldn’t dream of doing that here in Baton Rouge for fear he may be carrying a gun, and shoot me because he thinks that I’m carrying a gun. I’ve also been in and witnessed a few altercations while growing up, with some pretty malevolent characters involved, but at most suffered a black eye and a bruised ego. Nobody carried a gun. Not even the police (at the time).
Incidentally, both my brother and my father are avid gun collectors. We have somewhere in the order of 30 rifles (non fully automatic) and 15 or 20 handguns in our home in St. John’s. All registered and perfectly legal. They have to transport them dismantled in the trunk of their car but I can remember many a day blasting cans and bottles off of fence posts in rural areas and skeet shooting at the gun club. No Gestapo showed up to confiscate our weapons. And just about every male in the province enjoys hunting for moose, caribou, partridge, turrs, ducks etc. The annual moose hunt is deeply entrenched in the Newfoundland culture. But the carrying of handguns for “personal protection” is a bizarre and scary concept to most of us, let alone the most serious of crimes, strictly enforced with stiff penalties.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to the arguments of those that oppose gun legislation here in the US. I believe that law abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns, and that we need to better enforce existing gun laws. But I do believe that gun registration will help towards this end, and I see no logical reason for anybody to possess automatic rifles, or to carry concealed weapons, or even to carry weapons at all. Do you honestly believe that possessing a handgun will protect you from criminals with handguns? You could walk around all day with a cocked handgun in your right hand, finger on the trigger, and I could come up behind you and place the barrel of my gun in the nape of your neck and take your money, your gun, and your life.
And the belief that an armed citizenry is necessary to prevent the government from turning against it’s people is, to me, quite ridiculous. The US army is equipped to fight highly trained, well armed, and organized soldiers. They would have no difficulty suppressing a domestic uprising. To say nothing of the paranoid underpinnings of this argument in the first place. And I find it interesting that those making this argument (republicans) are also those in favor of strengthening the military.
Forget about the cold war with the communists. By allowing the proliferation of handguns, America has created a cold war amongst its citizens. Gun control laws aim to do one thing only… take the guns out of the hands of criminals and relieve this unease we all feel. And, yes, this can be achieved but it would necessitate stricter control of all guns, even yours. But I believe that your life will have more freedoms, not less. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, and felt it in the collective consciousnss of a people not living in fear of gun violence, real or imagined. It’s also interesting to note that Canadians are not as divided on this issue. They have gun control and they like it.
Cheers
Joe:
(applause)
Everyone else:
Folks, like it or not, guns are just not going to go away. So I have one. One. It the best I could get for the anticipated purpose of foiling an attack on those for whom I bear the responsibility for their safety (a Glock 21).
I’m trained in it’s use in combat situations, and have the permission of the State of Arizona to carry it hidden.
I did this because I felt it was a responsibility, not just a right. Loading the responsibility of your safety and that of your loved ones onto the police is not only a cowardly default upon your personal dues, it is unsupported by law. The police are not required to protect you. You cannot sue them if they don’t.
It follows, then, that the responsility for self-defense lies with the individual citizen. I’m sorry if the support of this responsiblity requires you to handle things which you find distasteful. This is nothing new.
Quit whining, rely on yourself, keep your gun away from children and criminals, and expect to be punshished if you screw this up.
I don’t remember which bullet was specifically marketed for the purpose of piercing a bullet proof vest. I’m not anal about cites but I’d really like you to provide me with one. Most common hunting rifles will pierce a bullet proof vest with very little difficulty. When was the last time a police officer was killed because his vest failed to withstand the force of a bullet?
Marc
At the risk of giving you the impression that I’m not a reasonable individual…
Actually mandatory locks are pointless regulation with no clear benefit. To paraphrase what seems like David B’s favorite saying: Extraordinary actions demand extraordinary proof. If you want to take away my Liberty, then you had damned well better show me a damned good reason for doing it. Trigger locks make a weapon inoperable, thereby turning the gun purchased for self-defense into an utterly useless paper weight. You try putting a key into a slot, removing the two halves, and getting into action, all while being afraid, nervous, pumped full of adrenaline, and quite possibly in the dark. The people who seek to enact this legislation are ignorant men whose only interests are a) to appear to be doing something without actually having to do anything, and b) negate any possible benefit of having a gun in your home. Then it will be easy to say “well, if it’s no good to you, why do you need it? Might as well get rid of it.”
As for mandatory trainig, I would be 100% in favor of it IF I trusted the government not to use that as a method for restricting “undesirables” from owning weapons. Allow me to elaborate.
The so-called “Saturday Night Special” ban was not a safety measure. It was economic discrimination, pure and simple. The weapons banned were made out of a lower cost alloy, and therefore available at far lower cost. Bear in mind that low cost weapons were affected EXCLUSIVELY by this ban. That way, the lower class which consisted of all races were restrained from owning a weapon. Ironically, these people are the ones who most need a firearm for protection given the areas where they are forced to live for financial reasons.
I believe the true division of power in this country is drawn along economic lines, not racial ones. And I believe that mandatory training and certification for gun owners would result in administrative fees, testing fees, taxes, certification fees, processing fees, application fees, course fees, etc and the cost would become prohibitive almost immediately except to people of means.
Legislative gun bans have failed, and (we hope) will continue to fail because of the Constitution. So they went on to Litigous bans (repeatedly filing frivilous civil suits against gun manufacturers, making it too expensive for manufacturers to operate) are now beginning to fail because clearer heads are finally prevailing (example: Texas) and these suits are starting to be thrown out.
So the next step is a regulatory economic ban. You mandate training classes and certification. You then charge for everything, after all the money has to come from somewhere, right? (incidentally, we can find the money to hand out condoms in school, to hand out syringes to drug addicts, but constitutionally protected gun owners would need to pay for their own classes)
“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.” Makes you wonder which part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” they don’t understand.
That is precisely what I was trying to describe. I knew I’d probably remembered something wrong.
Thanks much for the correction.
You can’t walk around all day with your finger on the trigger of a cocked handgun, because the gun would go off with less than a pound of pressure, but this is hardly the point. But allow this: you see a man put a pistol to the neck of the guy with his finger on the trigger of his gun and you draw your gun and kill the mugger. Yeah, just as silly and unlikely an event in real life.
This idea is not rediculous to many Americans. Reread the posts regarding “4 dead in Ohio.”
Jackytar:
Interesting post, and Welcome to the board. But, you have a couple small but important misconceptions. First is your assumption that Louisiana’s social structure should be parallel with that in Newfoundland. It’s a different culture with different political and social climates in a significantly different region.
We in the U.S. do not have a gun problem. We have a crime problem. We have a personal responsibility problem (exacerbated by the actions of our esteemed leaders). We have a violence problem. Guns are not the problem. I know this because the problem is recent-it has shown up in the last 20-40 years. I’ve seen it change in my short lifetime. The gun is ancient. Much older than this country. So if the problem is recent and is changing, how is the one constant factor the cause?
As I’m sure He knows, for the rest of you, the answer to MGibson’s question here is “NEVER”. No officer has died of a bullet wound inflicted by “armor-piercing” bullets penetrating his vest. And yes, as he said, almost any high-power rifle round will penetrate kevlar quite nicely. They aren’t designed to penetrate kevlar, they’re designed to penetrate. Period. That’s why they exist.
But, there is one thing that is produced in huge quantities, widely available everywhere, even to children, that is fully capable of penetrating a kevlar vest, and has almost no legal restrictions AT ALL!
It’s called a knife.
Kevlar isn’t a miracle substance. It’s just one more in a long list of protective measures that police take in a very well-placed effort to preserve their lives. If people would pay attention to facts and think things through without acting just on emotion, things would be a lot easier.
Right on!
THey instituted mandatory training for hunters in New York. As soon as they got this through, they fired most of the instructors and increased the total hours from 4 to about 20 (for bow and gun together). As a result, the number of hunters obtaining licenses plummeted. THe problem with mandatory registration and training is that the permits and classes can be made scarce or insanely difficult and long.
The government could then make guns illegal *de facto *through the registration or training process.
And it will still be just as easy to commit a crime regardless of the classes. Only law abiding saps like me would go through all of this. Joe Junkie would not.
perhaps everyone should have to register their religion and have a free speech license.
Mr. Zambezi, gun proponents do seem to follow the “if it saves one life, it’s worth it” line. If you can defend yourself one time, it’s worth others dying from gun violence, yes?
I meant for the admittedly ignorant Kevlar-piercing bit as a random example of the industry. I’m not trying to demonize anything, just expressing my opinion that free enterprise and firearms aren’t necessarily completely positive mix. We’ve reigned in other industries of potentially death-causing products before. Not a call for gun control, once again, just an observation.
I don’t fear guns, but I do fear people, which I believe to be a rather strong argument put forth by puffinb that has been missed my many in this thread. I don’t want the government telling me what to do, either, but I often have to accept it because I recognize we live in a society. I abhor traffic lights at times, but recognize that, while they are pointless sometimes, they are necessary at others. I know this is a bizarre analogy, but the principle is in tact, I feel. (If you must attack this analogy, please first dismantle the gun-automobile analogy).
I have to say that while in Europe I felt safe all of the time, no matter where I was. A Spanish friend of mine even laughed at me one evening, saying “No te preocupes, no tenemos armas aqui.” Don’t worry, we don’t have guns here. Now, that said, I also agree that achieving this would be absolutely impossible in America–about as possible as changing to the metric system and for the same reasons.
**
Joe_Cool, I don’t see how on earth you can claim that the problem’s recent rise as a DEFENSE of your point. The gun itself may have been around for a while, but the proliferation of handguns and assault rifles that we see today is relatively new and in all possibility corresponds for a reason to the time frame you refer to.
And the lack of guns as a social right has not had a real effect on citizen uprisings in other countries. I’m about to do the research, but it is my feeling that there are many instances of a gunless citizenry successfully obtaining guns and overthrowing an oppressive government. Wait, it’s also my gut feeling that the U.S. probably supplied those guns.
Listen, I’m in no way a gun control activist. I own a gun and support my right to own it, but I also acknowledge that, because I live in a society, there is a reason for the government to be involved on this issue.
The argument, the discussion. Your side makes claims, I debunk them. You fail to respond, and I win the debate. And it’s just that simple!
Huh. Sorry to see people so immune to knowledge at the old Dope site. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable with creationists? Perhaps Uncle Beer could post his “reliable facts” >chortle, snort, snicker< debunking descent with modification.
I certainly do not, please spare us your sophistry. It does nothing to convince anyone gun advocates are smart or honest.
Well, the militia, of course, which is a semi-regular, organized body of able bodied men between a certain age, subject to state control. See the uniform milita act of 1792, the Federalist, and the plain text of the constitution, which I have already posted.
Now you’re being dishonest because you don’t like what the facts say. I suspect soon you will call me “anti-liberty.”
The militia is defined as a semi-regular body, which congress is given the power to organize, discipline, provide for (here meaning “to set forth the laws governing,” more so than "bankroll) and govern. That’s the plain text of the constitution, combined with the uniform militia act of 1792, and subsequent laws and court decisions. You could look it up, and probably should if you’re going to argue about it.
Meanwhile, the founders were wrong about many things, and as people, suffered from the same lapses of judgement and morality the people you know do. As we have seen, Jefferson lied about sex, forced himself on women, etc. Thus, we cannot point to the words of the founders as though it was revealed wisdom from on high.
That was pretty simple, huh? “the founders were not infalliable, you have not won an argument because you quoted some old dead guy who agreed with you” and “as a person capable of bearing arms, you are part of the milita, which is subject to certain laws and regulations, and organizing principles as set out in the constitution and related laws. This gives the state tremendous power to regulate you and your arms.”
Playing the odds, though, you will be safer by not selling drugs, buying drugs, or associating with people who do. Also, avoid cheating on your wife or girlfriend, or being the person someone’s wife or girlfriend cheats with. That’s the vast majority of shootings right there. People are not killed by random strangers, they are killed by people they know with some sort of motive.
Oh, I don’t mind guns, I don’t even mind if you want to own several. I just think we should introduce accountability into the mix, so no kitchen table sales. That’ll sure take a lot of illegal guns off the street. Registration is a good idea, too. Car full of mooks with unregistered guns? Send them to the pokey, odds are they’re up to no good. Militia men would have no problem registering
There are age restrictions, sin taxes, liability insurance, licensing, and inspection associated with those things. Would you be willing to apply those things to gun ownership?
That’s not entirely true. To begin with, the courts generally do not read it that way, although perhaps they should. I don’t care either way. However, there are still reasonable restrictions which may be applied to an individual right.
And yet, no gun control law has ever been overruled on a second amendment basis, including out and out bans in some areas.
This, by the way, is largely false. Even states like Switzerland which allow broad public gun ownership have stricter regulations regarding liscencing and registration than the US.
Wow, I’ve penetrated a fact free vacuum.
Justwannano, you said
That depends what you mean? In my life I’ve been in 3 fist fights, I’ve never served in combat, although I don’t think that was what you were referring to, was it? I think you were referring to self defence. I remember once I was walking home when some drunken asshole who, for some bizarre reason, thought I was responsible for his marriage breakup. He swung at me, a fight ensued which, because of his drunken state, I was able to successfully extricate myself from without much damage to either side. That was until he picked up a broken bottle from the side of the road and charged at me again. Luckily for me he was too drunk to aim properly and ended up running into a wall, that was that. However, if he’d had a licenced and legally obtained handgun, then it might have ended differently. He would almost certainly have missed but then again one never knows. The self defence argument is a circular one, “If they take away my guns only the criminals will have them so I need them etc…” It’s all very well saying that someone with a gun can come into my house and kill me so therefore I need a gun but if neither party has one then the chances are nothing will happen at all.
Joe_Cool, you said
No, not at all. There is a noticeable difference between forcibly rounding up guns from the populace and just prohibiting their sale until they are eventually removed from circulation. Yes, the end result is the same and that was never in doubt but the manner in which the two methods go about achieving that end result are very different. Given the choice I know which one I’d prefer.
You also said
Yes, exactly. The reason that a “War on Guns” will be more effective than a war on drugs is because guns would, in theory, be much harder to smuggle than drugs.
I can make cocaine in my kitchen, it’s actually quite easy. I can also make LSD although that’s quite a lot harder. Making large quantities of certain drugs is cheap and can be made from household products at virtually no cost and these drugs can then be sold for vast profit. It is not the same with guns. Guns are complex pieces of machinery which most people don’t have the skill to make, also a lathe and sheet metal is far more expensive than your average household cleaning products which can be used in the manufacture of certain class A drugs. BTW - I just want to stress that I haven’t actually made any drugs, I just know how.
This point was never under dispute. The way I see it a gun is a piece of technology that is constantly misused (actually that’s not correct, guns aren’t being misuced, they’re made for killing and that’s what they do) If you use the hammer to beat someone to death then you are going to get the blame, not the hammer.
I don’t, however many people do and I don’t think they’re up to the responsibility. Every gun massacre or gang shooting or lone firearm homicide hammers that point home to me.
You’re not very good at sarcasm, are you Joe? My reasoning is not ridiculous. A week whacker has other uses apart from “filleting squirrels”. It whacks weeds. You can kill someone with a knife, should we ban knives? No. Because a knife has other uses than for killing. As you quite rightly pointed out you can “It’s even easier to drive a car through the crowd. You can kill many more people in a fraction of the time, and you don’t even need to worry about ammunition.” However a car has other intended uses. We don’t ban cars.
I can’t mow my lawn with a handgun, I can’t cut my food with a beretta and I can’t drive to work in a 12 bore shotgun. Guns don’t have any other use other than that for which they were intended. That is killing. If you can give me just one (ano no hunting does NOT count when applied to handguns) benign use for a handgun then I will concede this point willingly. I have tried and tried and I cannot think of any other use for a handgun than killing people.
You also said:
I love this one. I’ve often heard people say that guns are vital for the protection of liberty, as though they seriously think that an armed militia will ever realistically be necessary. It won’t be, at least not in America and lets not forget America is the only country that is under scrutiny here. An armed militia might be of use in Rwanda or Kosovo but not in America. America is the most politically stable nation on earth. Other countries that are trying to introduce democracy model themselves on countries like America. Do you, in all honesty think that the united states government, with its trillion dollar supluses and its vast military and political might is going to just throw that away in some bizarre military coup which is designed purely to enslave an already relatively docile populace?
sigh, actually I do know what a Dumdum round is. A dumdum round is…well I won’t even bother to explain because you can look up here a simple definition here http://www.cyberpunk.co.uk/archive/c_ammo.html
I’ve not heard of anyone called James Brady but he must be one lucky SOB. I’m sure I don’t need a cite to say that the vast majority of people who are shot in the head do, in fact, die. The same with people who are shot in the leg and happen to rupture their femoral artery (not uncommon).
A little, I have, on occasion, been to a gun club.
None, how about you?
Is it? Are you saying that at point blank range it is nearly impossible to achieve a one shot kills? Even if it is there’s nothing to stop someone letting off 2 rounds is there?
What’s worst case about the Joe Blow scenario? It’s not unrealistic and it happens frequently. A worst case scenario would be if he went on a rampage in the street. He did not. Crimes of passion and murders prompted by jealousy are not uncommon.
At the risk of taking a scenario too far I’d say you’re getting means confused with motive. He didn’t kill because he had a gun, he killed because his wife was cheating on him
and he happened to have a nice and convenient way to release his fury.
Good for you. You are a responsible gun owner. However there are plenty of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners who can, and have, made the wrong choice and taken life. Besides who knows what could happen to you in the future which could drive you over the edge? What if “5 men armed with knives break in and rape your wife and daughter while they play piñata with your son and gut your dog,”. Would you still consider your choices with as much care as you do now?
Bullshit. You do not kill people by warning them of a fire. Taking your gun away would be like cutting out your tongue if you somehow developed the power to fire highly charged metal projectiles with it.
But not in America. America is too stable for any kind of tyrant to rise to power. In less stable countries like Rwanda then perhaps this holds a modicum of truth but in the US of A, the jewel in the crown of democratic process? No way.
I don’t know of anyone who owns a slingshot.
And finally
Well they shouldn’t be your right. I can defend myself perfectly well without a gun. I have done all my life and I feel that guns are far too powerful for this task.
The basic fact of the matter is that you don’t know who has only honourable intentions towards you. Until you do they should have no right to own a gun and by the same rationale, neither should you.
Ben.