What difference does it make what the purpose is, if one is just as deadly and dangerous as the other?
You could ban people from going near any of those things. They are all extremely dangerous.
It causes people to regard the two things differently, which is why one sparks more threads than the other. And only one of the two is part of a national controversy (which apparently never ends).
If you’re suggesting pools and guns are equally deadly and dangerous, you should probably cite that. I’m not really interested in getting sucked into yet another debate about whether a gun is as dangerous, or more or less, than a gun, pool, car, dog, meteor, UV rays or anything else, though - just thought I’d point it out.
Other than feeling that gun ownership is not an important issue, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
As someone with moderate support for gun rights, I view this thread and its equivalents as pretty catastrophic for furthering those rights and furthering the reputation of gun owners as something other than really scary people. All movements need to try to rein in or distance themselves from their crazies. In my opinion, the gun movement doesn’t do enough to rein in and distance the crazies. Instead, the crazies in many cases seem to be the face of the movement. As the hysteria ramps up, my inclination toward pro-gun voting tends to wind down. That’s not fair, I’ll admit, but it’s true.
Trolling is not synonomous with postings that you can not refute logically.
Well - if for some reason there is a spate of disgruntled teenagers bursting into their schools with paddling pools and indiscriminately drowning their classmates, I may have to reconsider my opinion on the public availability of swimming equipment.
With any dangerous object or product or whatever, society has to determine whether the utility of said product outweighs the danger of said product. People are not going to give up their cars, because they feel that convenient personal travel is important enough to justify a few thousand deaths per year. People aren’t rushing to ban swimming pools because they feel that convenient swimming is important enough to justify a few hundred deaths per year.
There’s also the additional difference that you can’t pull a swimming pool out of your pocket and drown someone in it. Anyone who drowns in your pool does so after assuming the risk of swimming themselves- or assuming the risk of entering your property, at any rate.
:dubious:
And some people think that the ability to defend oneself is worth the risk, too.
True, but many of the deaths are children who aren’t capable of understanding the risk. When I was a kid, a 2-year-old drowned in a neighbor’s pool. Her mom fell asleep, the baby let herself out of the house, crossed the street, found a place where the fence was broken, fell in the pool, and drowned. Seems to me that pool was far more dangerous to her than a gun someone might have locked up inside their house.
Are swimming pools designed with that end in mind? If the answer is no, you’re in the running for the SDMB Really Bad Analogy Award for 2008. Because a gun is designed to punch holes in things, and one of the things most frequently punctured is people.
Said it before, say it again: just keep the God-damned things, if they mean that much to you. Muzzle tov, much good may it do you!
I might support gun control if I thought it had the slightest chance of working, but it doesn’t. There are millions upon millions of the things out there, and no way in the world are they going to be effectively “rounded up”. Even if such an effort didn’t provoke hysterical outrage as herein evidenced.
So, just keep yer Precious, and I’ll just hope that nobody does anything more stupid with it than own it. And stay the hell away from me, if thats ok, I just don’t trust someone who feels a need to possess lethal force in the utter absence of plausible threat.
Assault with a deadly puddle?
First, shame on you.
Second, now I have that damned song from “Fiddler on the Roof” in my head, so
Third, shame on you.
Again, I don’t see what difference it makes what the thing is used for. No one NEEDS a swimming pool, and they are extremely hazardous. Would I leave my 2-year-old alone near a gun? Of course not. Would I leave him alone near a pool? Not on your life.
Well, you are mischaracterizing me, if you’re including me in your “you.” I don’t own a gun and never want to. Have never so much as touched one in my life. Couldn’t care less about them, except that I think we should have the right to own one if we want to.
I certainly agree that there should be legislation requiring pool owners to lock their yards, or fence their pools and lock the gate. I feel the penalties for failure to do so should be just as strict as the penalties for failing to lock up your guns, if an accidental death should occur.
I’ll reiterate that I am anti-gun control, in general. I believe noncriminals should be able to possess any firearms they want, up to and including incendiary rounds, if they so wish. I believe that any other approach is inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment. However, I don’t believe the 2A prohibits authorities from requiring that those firearms be registered.
I don’t know what the criminal laws are about this, but at least in some cases, pools are an attractive nuisance, so if you fail to keep your pool secure and a kid is hurt or drowns in it, you’re liable.
Good thing Clyde Colley of Sandlick, Virginia, wasn’t a buddy of yours. He decided that owning a gun was a good thing, even “…in the utter absence of plausible threat.”
And it turns out that plausible threat was not so much absent as just waiting for a chance to commit a home invasion. Probably Colley should have just knocked the two intruders out with his lightning-fast karate skills, but he was 84 years old, and the two men that forced their way into his house were 24 and 39 respectively. As the two men started ransacking the house, they forced Colley and his wife to lie on the floor; when Colley stirred, one of the men shot him in the leg. Now, it was only a leg wound, of course, so I’m sure it doesn’t count as a plausible threat, but you know Colley – one of those utterly paranoid types, no doubt. He somehow believed that these men intended to do him some kind of serious harm. Utterly implausible, I know.
Anyway, Colley was able to reach into an end table and grab his revolver, which he used to shoot one intruder dead and caused the other to flee; he was arrested a short time later. I have no idea what the felon’s legal strategy was at trial, but I somehow doubt he was planning to explain to the jury how implausible a threat he was to the Colleys.
You gun nuts are just so damn cute with you martyr complex and righteous indignation. You’re right, we as Americans have the right to own guns it says so right in the Bill of Rights. It’s a good thing that document is infallible. It’s a good thing it’s so perfect we will never again have to change it. It’s comforting to know that our society will never again have to make tough choices about freedoms over safety, the rights of individuals over the good of the community. It’s a relief that our perceptions of the fundamental rights of man haven’t changed since our founding fathers forged that document and we therefore have no responsibility to reinterpret it’s true meaning.
I can sleep well at night knowing this matter is now closed.
No, I wasn’t. As far as a “right” to own a gun, a plausible case can be made, because the Founding Fuckups crafted a miracle of ambiguity in the Second Amendment. It absitively, posolutely says whatever you believe it says. So those who believe that it enshrines forever the right of Americans to possess lethal force to protect themselves from each other have a case.
But even if they didn’t, as a practical fact, gun control laws are useless, and only serve to foster contempt for law as a positive force. If someone is determined to have one, there is nothing that can be done about it.
The answer, as usual, is better people, not better laws.
Y’know, you had me until the hate started.
I think guns are so far down on the radar that Obama in his first term and if he gets a second one won’t be able to address it without some major gun-related incident.
The OP got worked up, I get worked up too. I don’t relish being viewed as a nutter, thug or paranoid. OTOH, I really don’t give a shit what you or anyone else thinks about my ability to own, manage and maintain firearms. I’ve done so in my own collection for going on 20 years. Not one person has been injured, even slightly, by the weapons I own. I’m careful, responsible and have been taught how to shoot, how to react under pressure and how to properly maintain the weapons under my control. That said, I don’t think Obama’s a-comin for mah guns, but the fact is we need to be dilligent about protecting ALL of the promises of the constitution, including and perhaps especially the ones that W. took away with the “Patriot Act”.
It seems to me, at least on the surface, that your views to the left are as extreme and as nutty as the far right-wing militiamen. You’re painting with a brush that is as broad as your assumptions about gun owners. You’re making yourself look foolish and in the process doing harm to your own cause. Hm. Perhaps I’ve been too quick, please, go on, tell me more about the evils of guns and the paranoid, wild-eyed gun owners. Please.
So change the damn thing already. There is a procedure there for it. Don’t be intellectually dishonest and sneak around trying to claim that the second doesn’t protect individual gun ownership, or that it doesn’t protect ammunition ownership. If it is a problem, deal with the problem. Don’t pass feel good legislation that does nothing but inconvenience the law abiding.
Tell you what let’s do, Bricker. Lets play with bricks. You get two bricks for every time someone used a gun to protect himself from assault by evil, and I get one brick for every time some dumb fuck got drunk, got mad, or was just born stupid - and used a gun where no such threat existed.
Who’s pile is going to get bigger, do you think?
I agree, and we should get on that, but until it happens there is nothing wrong with a discussion of the NEED for the new Amendment.
You must have me confused with another Doper, or do all disagreeing with you look alike?
And ExTank shouldn’t stand behind the Second and say it proves that not only do we have the right, we SHOULD have the right.