This is very interesting. Finish your thought, please-- how do you intend to prevent accidental shootings? Well, my thought was that guns are inherently more dangerous than knives in that they lead to far more accidental deaths. Thus, gun registration and control is a valid policy strictly on the increased danger level vis-a-vis other potential deadly weapons (which, as the game "Clue" taught us, can include knives, ropes, and candlesticks). As for preventing accidental shootings, gun registration can go hand-in-hand with accidental shooting prevention. For instance, mandatory gun safety courses can educate the owners both about the safe way to handle and fire the gun, and about ways to store the gun so that kids are less likely to gain access to them. Mandatory trigger locks are also a good way to prevent the gun owner as well as others from shooting the gun accidentally. Of course, those measures wouldn't necessarily eliminate accidental shootings, but they might help reduce the numbers. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
which, as the game "Clue" taught us, can include knives, ropes, and candlesticks Sam Cassell: lol, mind if I use this line myself sometime, or is it copyrighted ? ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Using this logic, we should also ban cars. Your argument is flawed because you fail to address all the good that comes from private gun ownership. Gun registration will accomplish nothing, because only law abiding citizens will register. Mandatory trigger locks are a horrible idea, because the gun will become useless in the event of a home invasion or an attack when a homeowner is sleeping. In a world full of guns, you don't want to rob the ability of law abiding citizens to defend their homes against gun-toting criminals, do you? I mean, we all realize that there is ZERO chance of getting guns away from bad guys, don't we? ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
I am just curious who believes the "right to bear arms" is a universal American right. And that it put in the BOR so the people would be able to overthrow the government's military. If this is the case, and I think this might very well have been what the framers intended (I am not a constitutional expert though I have studied it a fair amount, I think Haven interprets the 2nd amendment differently), should it be held to the same standard today? If we are talking about an absolute right, again persons should be free to obtain any "arm" they wish, and the most advanced arms would be needed (e.g., nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons) to obviously have any chance to even slow our "government" military--again assuming this was one of the framers objectives. If you think it is not a good idea for citizens to have unlimited access to arms, whether constitutionally consistent or not, then where to you draw the line? This is certainly where the gun debate should be. The constitution certainly is no help here, it doesn't say you can have a musket, but not a cannon or bomb. My line is that it is not a good idea to let have citizens have weapons of mass destruction, and my definition includes automatic and semi-automatic (those easy to convert to auto) guns along with nuclear weapons, biological/chemical, bombs, hand grenades, etc. I also see no problem with registration of guns, to get a car not only do we have to do this but also have our own insurance in place first. We also do everything of reasonable cost to reduce accidental deaths due to autos-not the least to which are requring autos to be made with seat beats, air bags, and getting rid of the Pinto.
Beto: The first major flame war we had was about gun ownership. I believe that you were unable to demonstrate much credible evidence, in the end. Why hash it out again? No matter how you look at it, owning a gun increases the odds of a fatality in your own home. This is true even after eliminating all variables such as social stratum, neighborhood, etc. Guns inherently increase risk. Sorry, you can't escape that. Have guns ever saved a life in a robbery situation? I'm sure they have. But they aggregately cause more harm than good. The argument about cars is banal. When attepmting to ascertain the essence of an object, one must look at its direct FUNCTION. The function of a car is travel. The function of a gun is shooting. Big difference. For one, death is a side-effect of misuse, for the other, death is a product of its necessary function. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 08, 2001).]
I completely reject your assertion. If criminals know that law abiding citizens don't have guns in their homes, and we continue to prosecute the War on Drugs (I am convinced drug prohibition is the source of most violent crime), then we will see a crime wave of historical proportions. This same scenario has played out in Australia, where guns were taken away from the public. Murder is up 30%, and robbery is up 45% in parts of Australia. You have no idea if guns do more harm than good. That is your opinion, and I disagree. How can we measure the crimes that are prevented because a criminal thinks a homeowner is a likely gunowner? What about all the unreported crime prevention that occurs because a private citizens pulls out a weapon? The function of a car is to travel, but many people are killed from misusing cars. The function of a gun is self defense, but some people are killed from misusing guns. More people die from the misuse of cars than the misuse of guns. Both are tools, so one cannot argue for the elimination of guns due to negligent or accidental deaths, without arguing for the elimination of cars. The difference here is that you like your car, and you are willing to accept the risk involved with operating a motor vehicle- both to yourself and potential victims of your possible negligence. You must feel that you are responsible enough to make that decision for yourself. On the other hand, you see no use for a handgun in your life, and you don't trust others to be responsible with a tool that you feel you don't need- correct? This debate is really about control. We all want a measure of control over eachother's lives, that is why we have laws. Your attempt at control though is thoroughly misguided, because your solution leaves the weakest among us (old people, women) at the mercy of brute force. Your solution decreases individual freedom, which is why our founding fathers wrote the second amendment. "A well-regulated (this means well intentioned and law abiding) Militia (Militia means all men of fighting age, that is the only definition from the 18th century) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Law abiding men of fighting age are necessary to keep this society free, so government can never prohibit gun ownership. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
haven, feel free to use that line. Especially against our mutual enemies! Beto, I'm sorry you feel that way about trigger locks and registration. I wish I understood why you feel that a trigger lock would somehow limit your ability to "fight the bad guys" breaking into your house. I'd guess you think that guns should be stored loaded, for the same reason. As for the car argument, it is patently ludicrous. For one reason (one of many), I was arguing for registration of guns, not banning them. Guess what? We DO register cars. Don't tell me that my argument is flawed when you obviously didn't even read it. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
Beto: Two things: 1. The argument that gun ownership increases death risk for the owner is not blind assertion. In the thread I resurrected, you'll see that I cite several recent, well-done studies that evidence this. 2. Self-defense is not remotely a function. Self-defense is a goal. There is no intentionality in a gun. What the gun does, is fire. The person WHO fires the gun bears intent. A gun's function is inherently dangerous, and a normal conclusion of that function is injury or death. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
OK then Beto, than surely if I have the means I can have any arms my government has access to, including nuclear arms. This is the only logical consistency from this interpration. If us citizens can't defend ourselves with comparble arms as the government can, we stand no chance--this wasn't what the framers had in mind was it? The framers didn't say the right to "limited arms", or "all arms less powerfull than the government has" or even the right to "bear guns", it reads <i/> "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". [/i] If you stick with this particular constitutional view (we can have any darn weapon we want, it is our right), I don't think you will have a lot of people standing with you. And it is why I think you and the NRA won't take on this issue head on. Beto, the founding member of the NNA- the Nantional Nuclear-arm Association.
Sam Cassell, you and I both know there is only one reason to register the guns of law abiding citizens- so we know whose homes to go to when the gun confiscation begins. Haven, your studies are worthless because they don't take into account the inevitable resulting crime and vitimization that will occur if guns are taken from law-abiding people. You completely ignore the Australian experience, which is hard evidence from the most similar culture to America in the world. Your second point is incredibly flawed. A gun does much more than fire. A gun can control the actions of people just by its presence. Police officers draw their guns daily, but the average police officer never fires his/her weapon. Your contention that we should leave private citizens at a disadvantage to heavily armed criminals, because you don't feel the average person is responsible enough to handle a weapon, can only be described as unethical. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
I reject your logic. The founding fathers could not have envisioned weapons of mass destruction. You must look at their obvious original intent, which was to limit the power of government and/or criminals over the individual. You are commiting an absurd leap that renders you argument illogical. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Beto: The studies aren't flawed. They eliminate the thing you mentioned as a variable. ALl you've proven is that you didn't bother to read them. Why not parade your ignorance around a little more? Cultures aren't really as different as people commonly think; in the West, at least. That is to say, living in France isn't much different than living in the US. Most low-crime nations have banned hand guns. I'd blame the Australian case on alternate causality. I'd say the British are more like Americans than anyon else... and they have banned firearms, and crimerates are lower. Your continual citing of Australia is disingenuous to say the least. Your second point is incredibly flawed. A gun does much more than fire. A gun can control the actions of people just by its presence. Police officers draw their guns daily, but the average police officer never fires his/her weapon. Your contention that we should leave private citizens at a disadvantage to heavily armed criminals, because you don't feel the average person is responsible enough to handle a weapon, can only be described as unethical. You have no understanding of inherent properties. A gun can control actions yes; but that's completely unrelated to direct function. Yet again, I must inform you: that's related to the actions of the person WIELDING the gun. It is not a direct funciton. I trust statistics, when well used. Give a person a gun, and the statistical odds of them dying in an incident increase. You can't deny this. Heavily armed criminals? Well, I favor taking guns away from them, too . Especially teens. While it's true that some people are always going to be able to acquire guns, it's more difficult than you think if you begin confiscation and destruction, and ban manufacture. Have you read Geoffrey Canada's book "First stick knife gun?" He makes an extremely compelling argument that hte proliferation of guns has led to the majority of inner city murders. You should read it. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
If that is the case, then we can only bear 18th century weaponry, as the founders certainly could not have envisioned all the stuff in people's homes now. How will you take out a tank with a 9mm, Beto? ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Rimbaud: He's also elevating himself over every single judge in the land except for one lunatic in Texas. I wish these fools would stop bragging about their constitutional right for an individual to bear arms when the Supreme Court has already ruled it doesn't exist. The founders meant *the states*. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
That's it. I'm looking up Beto's IP. He's obviously trying to have fun with y'all. How would I take out a tank with a 9mm...? Have y'all been listening in to my family's Thanksgiving dinner conversations...? Well anyway to answer the question: I would, of course, run up behind the tank, jump on top, pull open the hatch, shoot as many of the enemy as were present, then commandeer the tank, drive it to San Antonio, and blow up the Alamodome.
Pretty good, Kagy.. Now, what would you do if a bunch of planes and helicopters were also trying to kill you? ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Haven, I am not challenging your interpretation of the 2nd, you probably know more about it than I do. I am trying to show, even if you accept the teneous NRA position on the "absolute" right to bear arms, it obviously is ludicres with technological advances in weaponry. (To show even if you rely on their fundamental premise it no longer passes muster for any reasonable person.) The framers didn't have armer piercing bullets and machine guns in mind any more than they forsaw nuclear weapons when they wrote the 2nd, the former have no "special" place in the text or spirit of the constitution. Beto, I am glad we agree the right to bear arms is not absolute, and limits on citizens efforts to stockpile weaponry that would give them a fighting chance against our governments military are non-theless reasonable. Beto, I also have no problem with an individual's right to own single shot 18th cetury muskets. I won't take away yours or Unlce Charleston's, but I think doing all we can to reduced weapons designed to kill lots of humans very quickly is fair game for public policy and law. The issue to me is where do we draw the line between individual liberties in owning weapons and when such ownership limits the liberties of others and/or threatens public safety in an unacceptable way. BK, can I come over for thankgiving, sounds a lot more fun at your house [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 08, 2001).]
Are you sure you are qualified to go to law school? For your information, the second amendment does not grant me the right to bear arms, it states that government cannot take away my inalienable right to protect myself and keep society free. ....and you say I am showing my ignorance?? SHEESH! ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Please don't meddle Administrator man, I am busy giving these Liberal youngins' a lesson. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
So Beto, where is your line in terms of which arms you think you have a right to have? I'll even show you where my line is (no means not acceptable for all citizens to freely have): Nukes: No Bio W.: No Chem W.: No Bombs: No Tanks: No (unless to take out the Alamodome) Mil Copters:Not if armed Mil Planes:No (but sure would be fun) Grenades: No Machine Guns: No Armer p. bul.:No Pistols: Yes, but limited rounds/automation Rifles: Yes, (see above + further limits) Shotguns: Yes, but limited rounds/auto Muskets:Yes Swords: Yes Knifes: Yes I also don't see the big deal about registration and other safety provisions concerning rifles, pistols & shotguns. We have not too infringing limits (for the most part, with some exceptions I'd like to see fixed) on cars, airplanes, toys, food and medicines, just to name a few.
