Well if the .gov banned cars in DC they could save more lives than handguns. While it might not be possible for you, many people in the loop could just walk to a bus stop. What if houston banned all cars inside the loop due to accidents, and you protested and someone said you don;t need a car and you only want it cause your crank is small?
What if I have an emergency they can help with, like I need an ambulance or a firetruck. Thats the stuff 911 is used for. Did you not hear Dubious saying it was hard to even operate the On/Off switch of a safety? Much less find a phone then hit the right speed dial number.
There's actually quite a bit of scholarly debate on that. Its not actually clear that that is the point of the second amendment. The text of the second amendment is as follows: 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. There are numerous legal articles analyzing, of all things, the placement of the comma beween "a free State" and "the right of the people..." In fact, different copies of the amendment don't have the comma there, adding confusion to the issue. The NRA and people in support of no gun control tout the idea that the second amendment is an absolute right to bear arms. First of all, its not - various federal courts have addressed the issue. And while the majority support the idea that it protects individual rights, a minority of federal circuit courts have said that it only supports the rights of having a gun in a militia. This case is important as it should finally give a precedent on that issue. But seeing as there is no clear answer yet - to simply say that the whole point of the second amendment is to give citizens the right to bear arms so that they can take arms against their oppressor, is at best over simplifiying the issue. Second, a right to bear arms is far from being the same thing as a right to bear handguns. The Supreme Court has addressed this issue in the past - and again this case will clarify. However, conventional legal thinking is that citizens DO NOT have an absolute right to handguns. Again, this supreme court decision is important to that debate - but it is hardly clear cut. I'm not saying that your statement is 100% wrong, but your arguments throughout this thread oversimplify the issues. P.S. The second part of your statement - the 2nd amendment giving us the right to bear arms to protect us from each other - well, there's really no basis for that in a historical context. Again, that's an extrapolation put forth by the NRA and its followers - the second amendment's focus was on giving the citizens a method to fight the government (either through militias or individuals - as stated before, that's still up for debate)
You can't honestly be suggesting that we follow Africa's lead on this can you? Africa's response to the AIDS epidemic is largely panned as ridiculous and ineffective...this is quite a poor example. There is lots of misinformation being put out by African governments on how AIDS is spread. I'm all for analogies, but anytime you look to Africa for an example of how we should do anything here in the US...you're just asking for trouble.
You have a choice whether or not to drive. You can locate close to your work or locate your work close to your home. You can move somewhere with mass transit or ride the bus. Ride a bike or walk.
I'm not super anti-gun or anything, even though in general I don't like the idea of them...but no one can possibly convince me that guns are as necessary as automobiles...
I don't do a whole lot of face-to-face sales of guns, but I've don't enought that when I look at this thread and read various implications that people who buy handguns are redneck cowboys, criminals, afraid, mentally inferior people, or people compensating for the small size of their penis, I can categorically and unquestioningly say that this is a total load of crap. I've transferred guns to a professional sports agent, several very low key large firm lawyers, a few students, at least one CPA, a few people working various less skilled white-collar jobs and there was even a guy who is in a mariachi band with his family. Nobody looking to rob a 7-11 after cashing their welfare check. They aren’t hicks, they aren’t people afraid of their own shadow, and they aren’t criminals. I have yet to deal with anybody with a belt buckle that says ‘Bubba’ and a big thick Texas accent, or anybody obnoxious, stupid, overbearing or bloodthirsty. In my experience, I would unwaveringly characterize the average handgun buyer as smarter, more urbane, more polite, and wealthier than the average person on the street. I wish people who want to ban handguns would stop trying to make a cartoon out of people who do want handguns. In the history of the BBS, I don't think there has ever been a single gun thread where handgun owners weren't at some point described as compensating for a small penis.
If TR was alive in today's society and told me that handguns were necessary...I'd listen. Teddy rocks my socks off.
Just assume it is there. If you are wrong, no big deal. What if you want to kill the person trying to mug you, seems like a good time to have something that has no use other than to kill one's fellow man.
First of all, there are a few countries where the anti-AIDS movement has been very successful, mostly because of a very concentrated effort by both NGOs and the government. Places where the government isn't really interested or there's large scale disturbances or war definitely aren't going to foster the kind of environment that could lead to getting a handle on AIDS. To say that all of Africa has failed, however, is disingenuous. If we are really interested in keeping our rights intact in America instead of slowly devolving into a morass of legal wrangling over what constitutes "the right to bear arms", I think the desired effect of lowering homicide rates and reducing accidental gun deaths could be achieved purely by a concentrated effort to educate people on the dangers of gun ownership and the responsibilities thereof (and some mandatory training courses). The argument that guns are only for people who are making up for their insecurities is fairly hypocritical. People who wish to ban guns also are doing so out of their own insecurity. They wish to put on the blinders and think that if it's illegal to carry handguns, magically it would make everything better. I would like you to point out some factual evidence that this is the case.
There is no problem, especially from my perspective, with responsible gun owners. I don't even have a problem with responsible people owning pistols. The problem resides in the irresponsible gun owners, and these are concentrated in the handgun segment. Disregarding the criminal element for the moment, it is the irresponsible who, for example, can't or won't restrict access to their unsupervised children. You sees the result of that almost daily in the news somewhere. The criminal element always has access because they steal them from the "responsible" gun owners orpurchase them from pawn shops, gun shows or other places where registration is non-existent or laughably lax. As handguns are seized and melted and their manufacture ends, the supply will dwindle. With fewer handguns, criminals will be less brazen because they won't have their weapon of choice. Robberies, homicides and other violent crimes will not be eliminated, but the number will be greatly reduced since most criminals are cowardly and simply don't like the "hands on" approach required by other weapons.
Our entire economy is structured around the automobile. Oil is like blood. We've massively invested in infrastructure to facilitate the automobile in this country. It's a very poor analogy.
Swimming pools actually kill more children than guns, especially on a per unit basis. Should we ban swimming pools?
Your argument is flawed in that you assume that banning them here will make them illegal elsewhere. The whole house of cards falls down when you realize that yes, other countries will still be producing them, and yes, they will still be getting into this country. See: war on drugs.
Your argument is inherently contradictory. I can of course say Africa has failed in its attack on AIDS and even if you can prove that there are a "few countries" where it has been successful, the overall war on AIDS in Africa is a failure I ask this as a legitimate question and not an attack - which countries are you talking about that have been successful? The countries which seem best equipped to handle the AIDS epidemic in Africa (i.e. South Africa) also seem to be the worst at combating. Further, your analogy is flawed. Africa was filled with disinformation about AIDS - how it was spread and how it could be "cured" (for some time there was a prevailing notion that sex with a virgin would cure HIV). Therefore, an effective information campaign COULD change some of that disinformation (I'm not agreeing that it has). However, when it comes to gun control in the US - there isn't widespread disinformation. Everyone you talk to understands the dangers of guns...and no amount of information is really going to change the danger that handguns bring. I suppose you are talking about widespread education on how to handle guns, but that notion is ridiculous. While that is information that should be given to anyone who purchases a gun, to those who do not use guns - such information would be pointless and wouldn't add to security. An information campaign is only useful when it is sending out simple information to combat commonplace notions that are simply wrong (like AIDS in Africa) - not when you want to teach people to be more safe with guns. Thus, the analogy isn't a good one...even if Africa was successful, which I don't agree. So are you suggesting that everyone goes through a mandatory gun training course whether they want to own a gun or not? If so that's truly ridiculous not to mention unconstitutional and extremely expensive. I suspect you are suggesting that you have mandatory training for those who purchase guns - I agree with you, but that would hardly solve gun crime or lower homicide rates. Someone who is trained may be better to defend themselves, but honestly (and deep down you know this to be true) you increase the chance to death or serious injury if the person on the defensive shoots first. How does training legal gun owners reduce the homicide rates? Where is the logical argument there? I have quite a bit of experience in dealing with criminals - and for the most part, they don't shoot unless they feel they have to. Criminals are dumb, but they know that they're in a whole different world of hurt if they fire their gun. That's why, especially here in Houston, we are having an epidemic of robberies being committed with toy guns and bb guns. The notion is, with less guns on the street period, there are less guns for the criminals to buy. If you really think carrying concealed weapons reduces gun crime - go look at crime rates in states where carrying concealed weapons is legal vs where it is illegal - you may be able to prove to me a statistical difference, but I strongly suspect you won't. You don't need a handgun to protect your home, a shotgun will protect you much better at home - so the only question is on the street, show me the stats to back up the notion that crime goes down when the general citizenry is armed. I'm not sure why I'd have to point out that factual evidence...I never made that claim. I try to avoid broad stereotypes - I don't think gun owners are overcompensating or are insecure, I just think we should take handguns off the street.
Apollo said he had no choice but to have a car. That is simply wrong. Having an automobile is a choice, not a necessity. Ask Fatty. It is ludicrous to suggest you MUST have a car. I give plenty of examples of how you can live without one. Further, if you really want to talk about impacts, the destructive power of the automobile absolutely swamps the handgun. See: global warming, pollution, automobile deaths by accident, conflict for oil security etc. And the economy was at one time centered around the horse and buggy. We didn't keep using those for transportation, we evolved. Terrible arg to contend we can't stop using cars, especially as an individual choice.
I'm not Gun nut I don't even own a Gun. but The 2nd Amendment has never in my opinion been about hunting, etc It has been my opinion that they original Framers of the constitution were a bit paranoid about being enslaved by the government It has always IMO been about . . .self defense against a tyranical Government While i know to some it sounds ridiculous and we generally don't TRUST our fellow American with these type of items but . . . I feel that was the initial INTENT of the 2nd admendment If people want to change it into something else to warp it into something else or to simple Repeal it . .. talk on that but all talk about hunting . . .is irrelevent The right to own a gun . . is about the right to defend yourself from your fellow citizen or your own government or foreign governments Rocket River Maybe watching that JOHN ADAMS Movie on HBO ain't helping my perspective
It looks like the SCOTUS is going to make a Constitutional ruling. Chief Justice Roberts put language in that basically said that reasonable restrictions are okay, but a blanket ban on handguns isn't reasonable.
