Export thread

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/girl-shot-killed-by-brother-with-rifle-he-recieved-as-a-gift.php

CNN said:

"The Crickett website features three different .22-caliber rifle models for kids, with shoulder stock colors ranging from pink to red, white and blue swirls. "My first rifle" is the company's slogan."

Click to expand...

if only that 2 year old was armed

Charlie Don't Surf said:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/girl-shot-killed-by-brother-with-rifle-he-recieved-as-a-gift.php



if only that 2 year old was armed

Click to expand...

This is a case of horrible negligence.

This is horrible.

They kept it leaning in a corner.


Shit.

let's just take a step back from my crazy ludicrous radical stance that people shouldn't own guns and just think about all the things you have to do to own and drive a car compared to all the things you have to do (hint: there are none except have enough money to buy one) to own a gun

Charlie Don't Surf said:

let's just take a step back from my crazy ludicrous radical stance that people shouldn't own guns and just think about all the things you have to do to own and drive a car compared to all the things you have to do (hint: there are none except have enough money to buy one) to own a gun

Click to expand...

I agree with this. People say things like "This is a case of negligence." Well, yeah, so is a car accident, we don't just let anyone strap themselves into a few thousand pounds of metal and hit the highway at 60mph. And the ones we do let still fuck shit up.

Why are we okay with gun 'accidents' if we can say "Oh, they just weren't the responsible flavour of gun owners"?

Chad Sexington said:

I agree with this. People say things like "This is a case of negligence." Well, yeah, so is a car accident, we don't just let anyone strap themselves into a few thousand pounds of metal and hit the highway at 60mph. And the ones we do let still fuck shit up.

Why are we okay with gun 'accidents' if we can say "Oh, they just weren't the responsible flavour of gun owners"?

Click to expand...

The same thing very well could happen with a car if the parents were dumb enough to leave the keys in it and allow the kid to jump in and play anytime he wants. But most people don't. They keep the keys with them, lock the car door, and more importantly don't let their five year old kid drive.

Ravenpoe said:

The same thing very well could happen with a car if the parents were dumb enough to leave the keys in it and allow the kid to jump in and play anytime he wants. But most people don't. They keep the keys with them, lock the car door, and more importantly don't let their five year old kid drive.

Click to expand...

Yeah but this is more like buying the kid a car and then forgetting the keys in the ignition.
"Most people don't" may be true, but what is also is true is that all of those people are trained, tested and licensed. The quality of aforementioned training and testing may be up for debate, but when it comes to guns all you need is cash, unless you're under 12 in which case you also need a note from your mother.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

let's just take a step back from my crazy ludicrous radical stance that people shouldn't own guns and just think about all the things you have to do to own and drive a car compared to all the things you have to do (hint: there are none except have enough money to buy one) to own a gun

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Chad Sexington said:

I agree with this. People say things like "This is a case of negligence." Well, yeah, so is a car accident, we don't just let anyone strap themselves into a few thousand pounds of metal and hit the highway at 60mph.

Click to expand...

We do, however, have no such restrictions on people buying bleach or other typical poisonous household chemicals, matches, or swimming pools, all of which can cause deaths of children if handled as irresponsibly by parents as the gun was here.

Reverent-one said:

We do, however, have no restrictions on people buying bleach or other typical poisonous household chemicals, matches, or swimming pools, all of which can cause deaths for children if handled as irresponsibly by parents as the gun was here.

Click to expand...

Sort of? He was taught the gun was a toy. It was bought expressly for him. I don't think parents buy bleach and show their son how to have a good time with it. The only on the list that comes close would be the pool, but the analogy sort of falters there too; one might play in a pool without adult supervision, the likelihood of drowning your 2 year old sister seems substantially lower.

Point of fact, there is absolutely no regulation stating who can and can't buy/own/drive a car on private property, only on public roads.

Clearly the parents here were astoundingly irresponsible and negligent, and should probably be charged with endangerment. But if you are going to make this about gun control, then you're just a vulture making political hay.

Chad Sexington said:

Sort of? He was taught the gun was a toy. It was bought expressly for him. I don't think parents buy bleach and show their son how to have a good time with it. The only on the list that comes close would be the pool, but the analogy sort of falters there too; one might play in a pool without adult supervision, the likelihood of drowning your 2 year old sister seems substantially lower.

Click to expand...

The analogy works because they're all dangerous substances/items that parents should not simply leave out where children can get into them unsupervised, just because something isn't bought for a child as a toy doesn't mean they won't try to play with it.

GasBandit said:

Point of fact, there is absolutely no regulation stating who can and can't buy/own/drive a car on private property, only on public roads.

Clearly the parents here were astoundingly irresponsible and negligent, and should probably be charged with endangerment. But if you are going to make this about gun control, then you're just a vulture making political hay.

Click to expand...

I think it can be about both things. Our gun laws are ridiculous right now and these parents are horribly negligent. BAM. DONE.

Espy said:

I think it can be about both things. Our gun laws are ridiculous right now and these parents are horribly negligent. BAM. DONE.

Click to expand...

No. Well, I'll agree our gun laws are ridiculous, but not the way you mean.

Reverent-one said:

The analogy works because they're all dangerous substances/items that parents should not simply leave out where children can get into them unsupervised, just because something isn't bought for a child as a toy doesn't mean they won't try to play with it.

Click to expand...

But surely you agree if you are taught something is for you and fun then you're much more likely to play with it? They recognise it, they know what it is, they know it's theirs, they know, or think they know, how to use it...

Chad Sexington said:

But surely you agree if you are taught something is for you and fun then you're much more likely to play with it? They recognise it, they know what it is, they know it's theirs, they know, or think they know, how to use it...

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of saying deaths from irresponsible gun ownership means guns are bad/there needs to be more restrictions on them, but that ones from irresponsible handling of <toxic household chemical x> are just accidents and nothing needs to be done.

GasBandit said:

Point of fact, there is absolutely no regulation stating who can and can't buy/own/drive a car on private property, only on public roads.

Click to expand...

An interesting point IMO.

Btw, do you guys get "Canada's Worst Driver" (or a USA equivalent) down there? This show shows the complete lack of effectiveness the license requirements already enforce. It's both terrifying (especially when you realize a contestant is from the City I live in, luckily he didn't "win" either) and incredibly entertaining.

Chad Sexington said:

But surely you agree if you are taught something is for you and fun then you're much more likely to play with it? They recognise it, they know what it is, they know it's theirs, they know, or think they know, how to use it...

Click to expand...

That's still negligence. No child should be given access to a gun and taught that it's a toy anymore than they should be taught that knives go in eyes.

Reverent-one said:

That has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of saying deaths from irresponsible gun ownership means guns are bad/there needs to be more restrictions on them, but that ones from irresponsible handling of <toxic household chemical x> are just accidents and nothing needs to be done.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I feel that it does have suggest there should be regulations on them, such as, I don't know, we shouldn't create models made for children. Secondly, I never said this wasn't negligent. In fact, I agreed that this is a case of negligence. I am suggesting that we should limit the potential for this kind of negligence. You can't make the world a cushioned place, I understand that people, including children, will always be faced with risks, sometimes deadly ones. The adults here are negligent, and to blame for this. But holy crap are we okay with marketing and providing guns to kids? I hope we're not, personally.

Chad Sexington said:

such as, I don't know, we shouldn't create models made for children. .

Click to expand...

I don't really care about toy guns being illegal. It's kind of messed up, but toy guns aren't going to kill someone. I'd let my hypothetical kid play with water guns.

This was AN ACTUAL .22 CALLIBER RIFLE for a kid. I'm not a gun expert, but I know from this article that that's definitely more than a BB and enough to kill a toddler in 3 minutes.

Chad Sexington said:

But holy crap are we okay with marketing and providing guns to kids? I hope we're not, personally.

Click to expand...

There's a vast gulf of difference between "not okay with" and "should be made illegal." I myself was gifted my first .22 LR when I was 8 years old, by my father (my mother, humorously enough, hit the roof over it). I even attended a summer camp where children of age 10 and up had rifle lessons as part of their activities, not just shooting but cleaning, maintenance, and above all safety.[DOUBLEPOST=1367444525][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:

This was AN ACTUAL .22 CALLIBER RIFLE for a kid. I'm not a gun expert, but I know from this article that that's definitely more than a BB and enough to kill a toddler in 3 minutes.

Click to expand...

.22 caliber is pretty much the lowest power "real" round out there. It's also cheap as hell. However, yes, any gun (including a compressed air pellet gun) has the potential to kill if misused, much like it's entirely possible for a 5 year old to kill a 2 year old with a screwdriver.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

I don't really care about toy guns being illegal. It's kind of messed up, but toy guns aren't going to kill someone. I'd let my hypothetical kid play with water guns.

This was AN ACTUAL .22 CALLIBER RIFLE for a kid. I'm not a gun expert, but I know from this article that that's definitely more than a BB and enough to kill a toddler in 3 minutes.

Click to expand...

This is what I meant, not toy guns. I didn't mean 'model' as in toy, I mean 'model' as 'variety of'.

I was at a YMCA camp that did the same, also boy scouts I was a little older then.

I was also given my first gun around 8 or 9 (certainly not five). I was never allowed to have access to it without my dad present though. Shooting it was a bit of a rare event, maybe once or twice a month when we would go to my uncles, who lived on a large property in a rural area where you could fire guns safely without bothering neighbors. I wasn't allowed to touch the gun until I could recite all of the safety rules, and explain how each part works. All other times it remained in a locked cabinet.

Chad Sexington said:

But surely you agree if you are taught something is for you and fun then you're much more likely to play with it? They recognise it, they know what it is, they know it's theirs, they know, or think they know, how to use it...

Click to expand...

My first .22 was given to me at 6 years old. I did not have unsupervised access to it even though it was mine. I was taught to respect ALL guns as dangerous until verified that they were unloaded and rendered into a safe condition (unloaded, bolt open, slide open, safety on) and even then to NEVER point a gun at a person or thing that you didn't intend to shoot. It still bothers me to this day when people are handling guns at a dealer and inadvertently point it at someone. The parent/parents are going to have to live with the knowledge that they caused the death of one of their children by NOT being responsible gun owners. I do feel sorry for them, it's going to be a terrible, terrible burden for the rest of their lives.

The parents deserve neither children or guns. Unfortunately, nobody picked up on that earlier.

My first response to this story was anger, and I try to live by the rule that if my first reaction to something is rage/anger/hate, then I'm the problem. I think I spoke too soon, is what I'm getting at. While I am completely bewildered that there are guns marketed to kids, and that there isn't a licensing program for firearms, I cannot use this case, which as has been acknowledged, is one of distressingly awful negligence, to argue that such and such must be done.

Chad Sexington said:

My first response to this story was anger, and I try to live by the rule that if my first reaction to something is rage/anger/hate, then I'm the problem. I think I spoke too soon, is what I'm getting at. While I am completely bewildered that there are guns marketed to kids, and that there isn't a licensing program for firearms, I cannot use this case, which as has been acknowledged, is one of distressingly awful negligence, to argue that such and such must be done.

Click to expand...

It's a tragic story, emotions are going to run high. I actually agree with you that more gun control would be a good thing, but this isn't an example.

I had my first gun around 7 around 10 I for my first shotgun that was kept in my room. All of my kids got their first gun at 6 and they are kept in the safe in my room. With that being said neither 8 note my kids have ever shot anyone because my parents were responsible fun owners just like I am. And if my kids ever did shot someone I would hope I would be charged for the homicide fit my negligence. Now then, Charlie comparing driving to buying a gun is apples to oranges because one is a right and one is a privilege.

[quote="Charlie Don't Surf, post: 1047260, member: 247]
if only that 2 year old was armed[/quote]
Also. No charlie, just no. It's too soon for jokes like that.

CrimsonSoul said:

Also. No charlie, just no. It's too soon for jokes like that.

Click to expand...

No, a child dying is just as funny as rape.

Not the first time this has happened in the last few months, either. Josephine Fanning was also recently shot and killed by a toddler, and there's that video of a 2yr-old shooting his dad in the stomach.

Clearly loaded weapons should not be left where toddlers can get hold of them. Ever.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Clearly loaded weapons should not be left where toddlers can get hold of them. Ever.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. Stop trying to take my guns away Comrade! I got freedoms and I will give my 2 year old a gun so they can fight the gumberment if I want!

Espy said:

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. Stop trying to take my guns away Comrade! I got freedoms and I will give my 2 year old a gun so they can fight the gumberment if I want!

Click to expand...

Which is, of course, the argument everyone is making, naturally.

Thats my point exactly. Anytime there is talk about say, tightening up gun laws it becomes taking away "freedom" and "Hitler took their guns first!".

It's not extreme to want to see some basic, common sense gun laws that allow gun sales but work harder to stop them from being abused. However the NRA does a pretty damn good job of amping up the fear game whenever it's discussed.

Espy said:

the NRA does a pretty damn good job of amping up the fear game whenever it's discussed.

Click to expand...

To be fair, it is in the best interests of Government (any government) to disarm the public. The less resistance the populace can muster, the better. Sure, it's Machiavellian (and Orwellian), but whatever. The trouble is that Government should not be acting in its own best interest, it should be acting in our best interest, so any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.

--Patrick

A fair point, but right now 91% of the country is in support of background checks. Yet the NRA and their puppets in Congress talk of fascism and oppression at the mere mention of any new regulations. We're way past "Does the public want this?" Now we're just trying to answer "Why is a minority allowed to drive the discussion away from public will?"

PatrThom said:

To be fair, it is in the best interests of Government (any government) to disarm the public. The less resistance the populace can muster, the better. Sure, it's Machiavellian (and Orwellian), but whatever. The trouble is that Government should not be acting in its own best interest, it should be acting in our best interest, so any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

oh my god you're a fucking idiot if you think an armed public has any chance in hell against the US Military as it is now

Patr, this also intersects with my belief that the government should only do what it must do as opposed to doing what it can do. Many (you may or may not be included in this) see the second as necessary, whereas for me, the second is terrifying.

Espy said:

Thats my point exactly. Anytime there is talk about say, tightening up gun laws it becomes taking away "freedom" and "Hitler took their guns first!".

It's not extreme to want to see some basic, common sense gun laws that allow gun sales but work harder to stop them from being abused. However the NRA does a pretty damn good job of amping up the fear game whenever it's discussed.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between

PatrThom said:

Clearly loaded weapons should not be left where toddlers can get hold of them. Ever.

Click to expand...

and increasing gun control laws. I mean, you should never hand a toddler a sharpened knife, but that's not an argument for banning knives.[DOUBLEPOST=1367605096][/DOUBLEPOST]

Charlie Don't Surf said:

oh my god you're a fucking idiot if you think an armed public has any chance in hell against the US Military as it is now

Click to expand...

You're a fucking idiot. Full stop.

This debate has repeated hundreds of times on this board, ad nauseum. An armed populace does deter government abuse.[DOUBLEPOST=1367605180][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tress said:

A fair point, but right now 91% of the country is in support of background checks. Yet the NRA and their puppets in Congress talk of fascism and oppression at the mere mention of any new regulations. We're way past "Does the public want this?" Now we're just trying to answer "Why is a minority allowed to drive the discussion away from public will?"

Click to expand...

Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.

GasBandit said:

Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.

Click to expand...

But that's a separate argument. Pat's point was that Congress should always consider whether or not the public wants a law, rather than just doing what they want. I was pointing out that 91% of the country supports background checks, so that question is moot.

But to your point: majority rule is sometimes wrong. Not as often as you would like to portray it. And I don't think they're wrong on this one, either.

GasBandit said:

Because simple majority rule is often wrong. Otherwise we'd still have segregation, for example. It's a republic, not a democracy.

Click to expand...

While this is very true, it doesn't make the OPPRESSIONDICTATORSHIPTYRANNY!!!11one argument any less false. As long as the latter is a major public talking point, it's worth pointing out that it's wrong.

Tress said:

But that's a separate argument. Pat's point was that Congress should always consider whether or not the public wants a law, rather than just doing what they want. I was pointing out that 91% of the country supports background checks, so that question is moot.

But to your point: majority rule is sometimes wrong. Not as often as you would like to portray it. And I don't think they're wrong on this one, either.

Click to expand...

Well, I only agree with Patr to a point, and one thing that does have to be taken into account is that the leaders need to legislate without regard to the emotional swelling of the moment. What were your thoughts when the majority of the US was (and still continues to be) in favor of repealing obamacare?

SpecialKO said:

While this is very true, it doesn't make the OPPRESSIONDICTATORSHIPTYRANNY!!!11one argument any less false. As long as the latter is a major public talking point, it's worth pointing out that it's wrong.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The 2nd amendment is the final guarantor of all the others. It is absolutely imperative that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

GasBandit said:

Well, I only agree with Patr to a point, and one thing that does have to be taken into account is that the leaders need to legislate without regard to the emotional swelling of the moment. What were your thoughts when the majority of the US was (and still continues to be) in favor of repealing obamacare?

Click to expand...

I'll agree that decisions should not be overly driven by emotions. As for "Obamacare," I believe that it should be repealed if that's what people want. If it has the votes in Congress then it should go. That's the whole point of Congress. As long as the laws they pass don't violate the constitution, it should be majority rule.

Tress said:

I'll agree that decisions should not be overly driven by emotions. As for "Obamacare," I believe that it should be repealed if that's what people want. If it has the votes in Congress then it should go. That's the whole point of Congress. As long as the laws they pass don't violate the constitution, it should be majority rule.

Click to expand...

Well, the polling on the issue doesn't match the votes in the senate, which has been the stumbling block. The House has repeatedly tried to repeal it, but will of the masses be damned, the democrat controlled upper house won't be moved. I'm in favor of repeal, but I also don't believe that every legislative vote must be required to go along with national polls. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is what it means to be a republic.

GasBandit said:

I disagree. The 2nd amendment is the final guarantor of all the others. It is absolutely imperative that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

Click to expand...

I think you misconstrued what I said. Describing the government as "oppressive" and "tyrannical" or "dictatorial" in this case is demonstrably false. The "public needs/wants" condition that Patr mentioned has been completely satisfied, whether that in and of itself is sufficient to push forward with legislation or not.

GasBandit said:

Well, the polling on the issue doesn't match the votes in the senate, which has been the stumbling block. The House has repeatedly tried to repeal it, but will of the masses be damned, the democrat controlled upper house won't be moved. I'm in favor of repeal, but I also don't believe that every legislative vote must be required to go along with national polls. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is what it means to be a republic.

Click to expand...

When I talked about majority rule, I meant votes in Congress.

I'm having two arguments here, and you keep flipping between the two. Patr's claim that Congress should be worrying first and foremost about what serves the public best, and your discussion of republic versus direct democracy. To the first, I simply pointed out that the public is in favor of background checks and therefore Congress can/should be voting on it. To the second, I don't think every decision needs to be decided by a public poll. I'm well aware of how representative government works.

SpecialKO said:

I think you misconstrued what I said. Describing the government as "oppressive" and "tyrannical" or "dictatorial" in this case is demonstrably false. The "public needs/wants" condition that Patr mentioned has been completely satisfied, whether that in and of itself is sufficient to push forward with legislation or not.

Click to expand...

Maybe I did misconstrue, it's actually pretty hectic here at work. But my point is that, you can't wait until a government IS tyrannical to assert the right to keep and bear arms - you have to assert it to prevent that state.

Tress said:

When I talked about majority rule, I meant votes in Congress.

I'm having two arguments here, and you keep flipping between the two. Patr's claim that Congress should be worrying first and foremost about what serves the public best, and your discussion of republic versus direct democracy. To the first, I simply pointed out that the public is in favor of background checks and therefore Congress can/should be voting on it. To the second, I don't think every decision needs to be decided by a public poll. I'm well aware of how representative government works.

Click to expand...

I assert that the current public interest in increasing background checks is a knee-jerk emotional reaction to recent events for which background checks would have had no preventative effect, and thus can be tactfully ignored until it cools off.

GasBandit said:

Maybe I did misconstrue, it's actually pretty hectic here at work. But my point is that, you can't wait until a government IS tyrannical to assert the right to keep and bear arms - you have to assert it to prevent that state.

Click to expand...

How does asserting that right keep the US government from assuming that state, especially today? And keep in mind, I'm arguing against your "no gun control ever" stance, not for the "guns banned everywhere" stance.

Because if we're heading for a police state, the 2nd amendment has currently done nothing to stop it. And if we're not heading for a police state, there's no credible reason to suggest that it's because of the 2nd amendment.

SpecialKO said:

How does asserting that right keep the US government from assuming that state, especially today? And keep in mind, I'm arguing against your "no gun control ever" stance, not for the "guns banned everywhere" stance.

Because if we're heading for a police state, the 2nd amendment has currently done nothing to stop it. And if we're not heading for a police state, there's no credible reason to suggest that it's because of the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not a binary, "if 1 then 0." It's a deterrent, not a perfect failsafe. It gets back to the idea that government should fear the people and not vice versa. An unarmed populace is much more trivial to oppress than an armed one.

The exact gun bill in particular everybody's so butthurt over not having been passed recently, however, would have been a curtailing of 2nd amendment rights which would not have put any measures in place that would have helped to prevent the recent tragedies that have thrust the issue back into the limelight.

But do bear in mind that there have been a lot of people chipping away at the second amendment for a long time, trying to qualify what you can and can't buy, what you can and can't own, and so on. It's a political question as to how much infringing on that which shall not be infringed we're willing to put up with, apparently. But one thing that must be avoided at all costs is a national gun registry. That's bordering on darwin's law territory there.

PatrThom said:

any regulations have to pass a sort of, "Is it what the Public wants/needs?" test (at least superficially) before anyone wants to be seen championing it.

Click to expand...

To somewhat clarify this point, it is my fervent opinion that our government's job is to look out for us, aid us, and in general act (and ENact) in a manner which consistently benefits a majority* of the population. However there are those who propose legislation that "does something" without actually accomplishing anything. Creating overly burdensome bureaucratic hurdles and registration fees (in the interest of Public Safety, of course) technically do not prohibit the purchase of personal arms, but they would effectively sidestep the 2nd amendment. That's why the language of the amendment says "infringed," and not "prohibited."

--Patrick
*Note that I explicitly state A majority, not THE majority. Policy should be written to maximize the benefit, not for the benefit of the masses. It's a fine point, but an important one. And my reason for this is that policy should not merely be for the benefit of the CURRENT population, it ideally should be crafted that it also benefits future population as well.

GasBandit said:

But do bear in mind that there have been a lot of people chipping away at the second amendment for a long time, trying to qualify what you can and can't buy, what you can and can't own, and so on.

Click to expand...

Which does not make the country a police state, or even heading for one. The actions of a police state, or a state heading for one, are going to reveal themselves in the suppression of free speech and free assembly, citizen disenfranchisement, the removal of due process for "undesirables", and so on and so forth long before there's any kind of forceful affirmation of the descent into tyranny. You know, things that are not magically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Or to put it another way, I'm a lot more worried about things members of Congress say we need to to change in the Constitution to protect ourselves from Muslim terrorists than a background check bill that explicitly makes a national gun registry a federal felony.

Second Amendment, always the most important amendment.

SpecialKO said:

Which does not make the country a police state, or even heading for one. The actions of a police state, or a state heading for one, are going to reveal themselves in the suppression of free speech and free assembly, citizen disenfranchisement, the removal of due process for "undesirables", and so on and so forth long before there's any kind of forceful affirmation of the descent into tyranny. You know, things that are not magically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Or to put it another way, I'm a lot more worried about things members of Congress say we need to to change in the Constitution to protect ourselves from Muslim terrorists than a background check bill that explicitly makes a national gun registry a federal felony.

Click to expand...

It's been a long day for me (dealing with a death in the family), but I need to make a comment on the first point you made. Look at the Boston Bomber survivor, they wanted to not read him the Miranda list, he is a naturalized US citizen. That's just a quick example of desire to remove due process. Public opinion was treat him as a combatant, not a good idea, what would be the next step of broadening the definition of combatant, it's a very slippery slope.

Sparhawk said:

That's just a quick example of desire to remove due process.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there was pressure from the Insurance Industry to treat them as combatants, also. After all, many insurance policies don't have to pay out if the loss is determined to be an "Act of War." Would have been a great way to weasel out of making any of those life/property payments.

--Patrick

The child would not have been legally allowed to use his gun in public places, nor could have obtained a concealed carry license. So as far as the car/gun comparison, they are equivalent since the child couldn't have been fined for driving a car on their property. it isn't until he takes the car on public roads that a license matters. But if you want to torture it further, more children are killed every year in automotive mishaps with legal licensed drivers than gun discharges. Pretending that licensing guns like we license cars will quell gun violence is an apples to bowling balls comparison in the first place, but even if you could strain some sense out of such a tortured analogy you would find that drivers licensing doesn't compare favorably and would hurt your gun licensing argument. Besides which, most states do have a gun licensing law regarding carrying your gun in public places. Some allow open carry without license, but most require a license for concealed carry, and some don't allow open carry at all, effectively forcing all of their armed population to be licensed in order to use their guns in public areas.

You should rest easy at night, Charlie, knowing that everyone around you in Texas who is carrying a loaded handgun is licensed by the state. Unless, of course, you still don't feel safe, in which case you must admit that licensing really means very little in how safe you actually are from gun violence.

None of which is relevant because none of the gun legislation favored by either party would have prevented this child's death.

This is an issue of bad parenting, plain and simple, and quite frankly they are likely not the ones that will suffer the most due to their choice. Chances are their son, the child who killed his own sister, will never truly recover.

stienman said:

Everyone around you in Texas who is carrying a loaded handgun is licensed by the state. Unless, of course, you still don't feel safe, in which case you must admit that licensing really means very little in how safe you actually are from gun violence.

Click to expand...

Damn, I wish I'd thought of that. No open carry + concealed carry license. I keep forgetting Texas doesn't allow open carry (mostly because I think it should).
/smacks head

GasBandit said:

Damn, I wish I'd thought of that. No open carry + concealed carry license. I keep forgetting Texas doesn't allow open carry (mostly because I think it should).
/smacks head

Click to expand...

Amen brother!

BTW Thank you, Charlie Don't Surf for reminding me to re-up my NRA registration!

congratulations on funding terrorism

Charlie Don't Surf said:

congratulations on funding terrorism

Click to expand...

Really? That's quite a leap, isn't it?

Tress said:

Really? That's quite a leap, isn't it?

Click to expand...

if you don't think the NRA amasses power through terrorizing the public and spreading fear, you're not paying attention

Charlie Don't Surf said:

if you don't think the NRA amasses power through terrorizing the public and spreading fear, you're not paying attention

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference in propaganda of the word and propaganda of the act.

sixpackshaker said:

There is a huge difference in propaganda of the word and propaganda of the act.

Click to expand...

Charlie considers all gun owners to be murderers or murderers waiting for the opportunity so you should even waste your breath.

Covar said:

Charlie considers all gun owners to be murderers or murderers waiting for the opportunity so you should even waste your breath.

Click to expand...

Yep,

The only purpose of a gun is to kill people - Charlie

Charlie Don't Surf said:

if you don't think the NRA amasses power through terrorizing the public and spreading fear, you're not paying attention

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with your characterization, and though I admit they use some scare-mongering tactics, that is far cry from terrorism. Pull your head out of your ass.

If scare-mongering is terrorism, both major political parties are worse than Hamas.

Yeah, 'cause only brown furriners can commit terrorism!

/Charlie'd

C'mon, you remember that marketplace the NRA shot up? No? What about that building the NRA bombed? Or that plane they hijacked!

GasBandit said:

C'mon, you remember that marketplace the NRA shot up? No? What about that building the NRA bombed? Or that plane they hijacked!

Click to expand...

One of us does not realize that the other being sarcastic, but I'm genuinely not sure which it is.

SpecialKO said:

One of us does not realize that the other being sarcastic, but I'm genuinely not sure which it is.

Click to expand...

Charlie, in all probability.

Charlie Don't Surf said:

congratulations on funding terrorism

Click to expand...

oh, oh ,oh! since I renewed I also get a "razor sharp" NRA knife for free!

I suppose if buying pot is funding terrorism then just about anything is. But the point is here, stop shooting people with guns. Shoot deer. Deer are assholes.

Espy said:

I suppose if buying pot is funding terrorism then just about anything is. But the point is here, stop shooting people with guns. Shoot deer. Deer are assholes.

Click to expand...

"Clay Pigeons are fuckers! They don't even eat... flies!"

Espy said:

I suppose if buying pot is funding terrorism then just about anything is. But the point is here, stop shooting people with guns. Shoot deer. Deer are assholes.

Click to expand...

This is this debates' "Hey rapists stop raping." C'mon, man. Next you'll be telling me I can't hug my children with nuclear arms.

Uh-oh, it happened again.

I suppose the Spider-Man rule applies here.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Uh-oh, it happened again.

I suppose the Spider-Man rule applies here.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

And as it should be the guy was charged for it

I'm late to the party as always. And I'm sure this has been discussed so many times before (it's a forum that's more than a week old), so I'm probably just opening up doors that don't need to be opened. And most of what I'm going to write is just going to be stuff we've all heard. Please feel free to ignore me if you don't agree with the below information. I'm not going to have my mind changed on the subject, as I'm sure those who disagree will be like-minded on that. We're free to discuss the subject however if you'd like, so long as we keep from making low punches.

My stance on this matter will always be that there needs to be radical change in gun laws.
*Waits for the booing to end*
I just had this very annoying back and forth with a currently unfriended individual via my facebook regarding this article and the statement it makes.
And no I didn't unfriend him because he disagreed with me. I unfriended him because he resorted to wishing ill upon my family to teach me a lesson about wanting to remove guns from households.

During my "conversation" with him it was clear that he'll be one of those "pry it from my cold, dead hands" chaps. Between insulting my intelligence and his links to pictures with pro-gun quotes on them, he made it very clear that his beliefs are...
1) Guns laws would take guns away from the good guys.
2) Guns protect your family from harm.
3) The founding fathers were very clear that the 2nd Amendment was very important.
4) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Regarding item 1: Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point. Whatever the situation is that makes you angry enough to even consider using your gun in a completely unnecessary situation, you are one step away from being the "wrong hands" that many speak of. Sure we have very limited (inefficient) background checks where the "idea" is to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. That's fine and dandy. And even if it worked, consider this: You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.

2) My father owns hunting rifles and a few handguns. When my brother and I were growing up in the household we got training and were licensed to shoot them. At no point however did my father believe that was enough to keep us safe. Those guns were locked up in a safe, and the ammunition locked up in an entirely different safe. Was this effective from keeping any accidents from happening? Absolutely. I mean there is an exception to everything, but I feel that if guns must be in a house this is the best way to keep family members from fatally shooting themselves or each other. But now how about keeping the house safe from burglars or assailants? Oh we'd be fucked. Not unless the burglar agrees to wait patiently while we got the guns and ammo out of the individual safes.
What's the other option? Keep your handgun/rifle within easy access of you and (by default) your kids. And this is why we have accidental shooting deaths. Sure it's negligence. But if people argue that guns are for safety reasons, then the only reason they haven't been called negligent yet is because no one has killed themselves in their household and brought it to the authority's attention.

3) We've all heard the quotes of the founding fathers. "Those who give up security for freedom will lose both and deserve neither" etc. The 2nd Amendment is the big one that keeps psychos well armed. Okay. So what's the problem? Perspective.
At the time of writing the Constitution the founding fathers felt that they were being wise by including an amendment that allowed citizens to arm themselves in case they were called upon to defend their homes and land from either invaders or the possibility of a corrupt government. And at the time that was a pretty wise decision. We lacked a decent military at the time, and the "militia" was essentially every able farmer with a gun. Their contributions during the Revolutionary War shaped the country for us. Can't argue that.
BUT...
Now we have a very well armed Military that keeps us safe from threats to our society. Everyone has the right to join said military, which keeps it stocked with people who just want to make a difference and keep their families safe. (God bless them all). So what is the point of having a gun in the house, if the military is already handling the threats from invading forces situation for us? Is the world going to suddenly be exposed to movie-logic and N. Korea is going to parachute into small-town U.S.A and start executing civilians? And what about our government going rogue and turning against Americans? (Which I assume will happen while a Democrat is in office considering we're the only ones trying to disarm people). Let's say we look past the part about how it's unlikely that everyone in the U.S. Military will turn against America and start killing innocents. Let's say it does happen.
How exactly is Burt Gummer (who I assume all gun nuts aspire to be) going to defend his himself against the government, when the government doesn't even have to be in the same state to take him out?
Need yet another example of how perspective changes everything? Founding fathers were kinda okay with slavery too. Few of them were certainly on board with freeing the slaves at the time, but apparently it wasn't really a priority.

4) First of all a gun is a tool. Yes it can be logically argued that it requires a person to use said tool, but a gun is a tool with the intended purpose of killing someone. You could say I could kill with a car, but the intended purpose of a car is NOT to kill. People can jump out of the path of a car. Not likely out of the path of a bullet (This example is to compare efficiency of the two tools). It is true that killers do not need guns to be killers. Guns simply make killers more efficient. (Nowadays we may as well adopt the saying "Nukes don't decimate millions of people. People decimate millions of people.")
If you claim otherwise then consider what you are implying; A killer without a gun, would be just as efficient at killing with any other "weapon". So if the killer had say, a bat, then he would have to be just as likely to kill as many people with that bat as he would with a semi-automatic rifle. I suppose this could happen... if he had access to a nearly unlimited number of bats that he could hurl at high velocity at a rate of 45-60 per minute.

Shawnacy said:

Regarding item 1: Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point. Whatever the situation is that makes you angry enough to even consider using your gun in a completely unnecessary situation, you are one step away from being the "wrong hands" that many speak of. Sure we have very limited (inefficient) background checks where the "idea" is to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. That's fine and dandy. And even if it worked, consider this: You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.

Click to expand...

Who the hell is this point addressed to? Do you actually know of anyone that only isn't a murderer because he doesn't have a gun handy? This seems to be a huge, flawed leap in logic with no real evidence. It actually reminds me of the religion argument where someone suggests that the only think keeping everyone from raping and murdering everyone all day long is the bible saying not to.

Ravenpoe said:

Who the hell is this point addressed to? Do you actually know of anyone that only isn't a murderer because he doesn't have a gun handy? This seems to be a huge, flawed leap in logic with no real evidence. It actually reminds me of the religion argument where someone suggests that the only think keeping everyone from raping and murdering everyone all day long is the bible saying not to.

Click to expand...

Well, despite the fact that it could be argued that someone didn't kill because he lacked the proper tool to do so, that post was NOT intended for that reason. What it does imply is that a gun is a very powerful tool that can make someone feel superior to others. In the wrong hands you get Aurora and Sandy Hook. Are we willing to say that just because the majority of people can keep their temptations to misuse their firearms at bay, we should keep assuming that everyone is A-OK and those kind of massacres are just the bad apples and nothing more? For every bad apple we get 10-20 innocents that have to pay the price for it. What percentage of the population suffering qualifies as "enough is enough"?

Shawnacy said:

Well, despite the fact that it could be argued that someone didn't kill because he lacked the proper tool to do so, that post was NOT intended for that reason. It mostly just argues that guns are tools made to kill. And they perform very well at that task. Killers simply have access to the best types of killing machines to help them achieve their "quotas".

Click to expand...

That would be point 4. I was quoting point 1, which states:

Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point.

Click to expand...

Ravenpoe said:

That would be point 4. I was quoting point 1, which states:

Click to expand...

Noted after I replied. Sorry about that. Edited my post above to elaborate.

Shawnacy said:

You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.

Click to expand...

You live in a terrifying world. Everyone is a monster waiting to happen, and the only think keeping them from doing so is lack of a gun. I'm actually for increased gun control, but your points seem so out of left field that they don't make any sense to me.

Ravenpoe said:

You live in a terrifying world. Everyone is a monster waiting to happen, and the only think keeping them from doing so is lack of a gun. I'm actually for increased gun control, but your points seem so out of left field that they don't make any sense to me.

Click to expand...

I guess my point is that everyone gets mad. Everyone gets upset. Most people have safe and decent methods of dealing with that anger and are no threat to anyone. But to say we don't all have brief thoughts of revenge at some point or another well... we're not all Mother Theresa. But hey. Temptation is normal for everyone. And it honestly doesn't mean much until it's acted upon. That's when you can tell the difference between the men and the monsters. A gun is a very very powerful tool of destruction. I'm not saying that a gun WILL make someone into a murder. I'm saying that access to a gun has the potential to allow someone to make the wrong decision very quickly.
Example: You are on a diet. You come across a free helping of your favorite dessert. You'll probably make a hasty decision you regret later.

I would turn that argument on its head a bit. Regular readers of this forum probably know me as a level-headed sort of fellow who is genuinely helpful and very much acts in such a way as to act for the benefit of society whenever possible. That said, there are quite a few people I genuinely believe the world could benefit from losing. And I'm not talking "that guy who wouldn't stop picking on me in 8th grade" sort of people, I'm talking "that guy who makes a business of callously ruining other people's lives in order to make a profit and gets away with it again and again" sort of stuff.
Now, I'm the owner of several guns, knives, bats, boards with nails in them, etc. But in spite of my vast array of life-ending parephenalia, these idiots go on living. Why? Because I am a Law-abiding citizen and it is illegal to kill them, plain and simple. And from a practical standpoint, I could probably kill only one consummate jackass before I was caught, tried, and imprisoned, and, in my opinion, there is no single individual out there whose death is worth my freedom.
I know people have violent thoughts and fantasies, and so long as they remain fantasies, I have no problem with that. It is not illegal to want to kill people, and it is not illegal to own the means to kill people. It is only the actual killing of people which is illegal.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

I would turn that argument on its head a bit. Regular readers of this forum probably know me as a level-headed sort of fellow who is genuinely helpful and very much acts in such a way as to act for the benefit of society whenever possible. That said, there are quite a few people I genuinely believe the world could benefit from losing. And I'm not talking "that guy who wouldn't stop picking on me in 8th grade" sort of people, I'm talking "that guy who makes a business of callously ruining other people's lives in order to make a profit and gets away with it again and again" sort of stuff.
Now, I'm the owner of several guns, knives, bats, boards with nails in them, etc. But in spite of my vast array of life-ending parephenalia, these idiots go on living. Why? Because I am a Law-abiding citizen and it is illegal to kill them, plain and simple. And from a practical standpoint, I could probably kill only one consummate jackass before I was caught, tried, and imprisoned, and, in my opinion, there is no single individual out there whose death is worth my freedom.
I know people have violent thoughts and fantasies, and so long as they remain fantasies, I have no problem with that. It is not illegal to want to kill people, and it is not illegal to own the means to kill people. It is only the actual killing of people which is illegal.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying the only thing keeping you from committing murder is the law?

Bowielee said:

Wait, you're saying the only thing keeping you from committing murder is the law?

Click to expand...

I think he's saying the only thing that keeps him from murder is the idea of The Rule of Law. If so, it's more a philosophy of right and wrong than just the letter of the law. But I might be mistaken.

Tress said:

I think he's saying the only thing that keeps him from murder is the idea of The Rule of Law. If so, it's more a philosophy of right and wrong than just the letter of the law. But I might be mistaken

Click to expand...

I don't think so, he refers specifically to the punitive repercussions.

Bowielee said:

Wait, you're saying the only thing keeping you from committing murder is the law?

Click to expand...

Not indiscriminate murder, no. Common decency prevents that. I'm what you would consider a nice guy...I pay my bills, love my family, neglect my yard, etc. I catch mice/spiders/etc in my house and release them outside rather than squish 'em. I hate throwing away anything that has any use left in it just because it's old, or that one switch is sticky, etc. I laugh, I cry, I post on Internet fora.
And yes, there are some people I would absolutely love to see dead. I believe they have no redeeming qualities (and in fact, continue to poison the Human race with their continued existence), cannot be reformed, and so deserve to be put down like the rabid scum they are. Why don't I? Aside from the "it's illegal and I would go to jail" part, much of this is based on hearsay/3rd party info, so while I may hate these people* intensely, I have not personally confirmed their deservedness to die to such an extent that I would commit to encouraging it. That said, if I see that one of them goes Brazelton in the News, I will certainly give good ol' Atropos a fist bump.
There are certainly times when it would be perfectly fine to kill another human being. Yes, I just made that statement, and I believe it to be irrefutable. SWAT teams kill hostage-takers, rapists get shot in the act, and you simply can not tell me that you would have felt at all bad about "accidentally" running over Timothy McVeigh with your car in the Ryder rental parking lot (assuming you had knowledge of what he was about to do, of course).

--Patrick
*No, not Muslims (or any other 'group' for that matter).

I'm sure we all have the fantasies. I think that whether we go through with them or not (even devoid of any repercussions) can vary from person to person. I find it hard to believe I could be capable of killing someone, even if I dwelled upon it for years and years. But I never really can say up until that moment when it either happens or does not. Rest assured I'd have to be very very angry.

I find the idea of "putting down" another human being to be reprehensible, but that's just me. There's a huge difference between self defense and murder.

No, I don't want to kill anyone, honestly

Shawnacy said:

1) Guns laws would take guns away from the good guys.

Regarding item 1: Guns provide the owner with a feeling of power. This power often includes the feeling of safety. You feel safe when you are powerful, and it's a hard feeling to argue with. But as any one with basic comic book knowledge can tell you "power corrupts.". Not only do you feel safe, but you'll also start to feel superior. It's inevitable. What's worse is if you start carrying it around with you, so no matter where you go you feel more powerful. Eventually there is going to be temptation. And please, don't tell me it doesn't happen. If in the middle of a heated argument with someone your mind ever so briefly flashes to the thought of "Why should I listen to this ass? I have a gun." then you have proved my point. Whatever the situation is that makes you angry enough to even consider using your gun in a completely unnecessary situation, you are one step away from being the "wrong hands" that many speak of. Sure we have very limited (inefficient) background checks where the "idea" is to keep these guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. That's fine and dandy. And even if it worked, consider this: You could be the most sane, and stable individual EVER when you get that gun of yours. But what happens when years (decades even) down the line you suddenly decide you've had enough shit and the world is going to fucking pay? A good guy is one lost job/failed relationship away from being a bad guy.

Click to expand...

Do you actually think that at this point it is really possible to remove guns from dedicated "bad guys?" I'm pretty sure your unfriend's point was not just that it takes guns away from good people, but that it takes them ONLY from good people, leaving them even more at the mercy of bad people who now feel even more SUPER empowered because they know their victims are unarmed. You think it's coincidence all the recent major shootings have happened in gun-free zones? The states with the highest incidences of gun crime are also generally those with the strictest gun control laws.

2) Guns protect your family from harm.

2) My father owns hunting rifles and a few handguns. When my brother and I were growing up in the household we got training and were licensed to shoot them. At no point however did my father believe that was enough to keep us safe. Those guns were locked up in a safe, and the ammunition locked up in an entirely different safe. Was this effective from keeping any accidents from happening? Absolutely. I mean there is an exception to everything, but I feel that if guns must be in a house this is the best way to keep family members from fatally shooting themselves or each other. But now how about keeping the house safe from burglars or assailants? Oh we'd be fucked. Not unless the burglar agrees to wait patiently while we got the guns and ammo out of the individual safes.
What's the other option? Keep your handgun/rifle within easy access of you and (by default) your kids. And this is why we have accidental shooting deaths. Sure it's negligence. But if people argue that guns are for safety reasons, then the only reason they haven't been called negligent yet is because no one has killed themselves in their household and brought it to the authority's attention.

Click to expand...

It's actually possible to have other storage options for guns other than "Fort Knox" and "Lying on the floor, loaded and cocked." However, even though I do have a shotgun (among other things) that I purchased specifically for use in home defense, I've always said that this argument is irrelevant - that the 2nd amendment ISN'T about hunting or home defense, and such debates are tangential to the real issue which you have handily listed next:

3) The founding fathers were very clear that the 2nd Amendment was very important.

3) We've all heard the quotes of the founding fathers. "Those who give up security for freedom will lose both and deserve neither" etc. The 2nd Amendment is the big one that keeps psychos well armed. Okay. So what's the problem? Perspective.
At the time of writing the Constitution the founding fathers felt that they were being wise by including an amendment that allowed citizens to arm themselves in case they were called upon to defend their homes and land from either invaders or the possibility of a corrupt government. And at the time that was a pretty wise decision. We lacked a decent military at the time, and the "militia" was essentially every able farmer with a gun. Their contributions during the Revolutionary War shaped the country for us. Can't argue that.
BUT...
Now we have a very well armed Military that keeps us safe from threats to our society. Everyone has the right to join said military, which keeps it stocked with people who just want to make a difference and keep their families safe. (God bless them all). So what is the point of having a gun in the house, if the military is already handling the threats from invading forces situation for us? Is the world going to suddenly be exposed to movie-logic and N. Korea is going to parachute into small-town U.S.A and start executing civilians? And what about our government going rogue and turning against Americans? (Which I assume will happen while a Democrat is in office considering we're the only ones trying to disarm people). Let's say we look past the part about how it's unlikely that everyone in the U.S. Military will turn against America and start killing innocents. Let's say it does happen.
How exactly is Burt Gummer (who I assume all gun nuts aspire to be) going to defend his himself against the government, when the government doesn't even have to be in the same state to take him out?
Need yet another example of how perspective changes everything? Founding fathers were kinda okay with slavery too. Few of them were certainly on board with freeing the slaves at the time, but apparently it wasn't really a priority.

Click to expand...

At the time of the drafting of the constitution (and thus the 2nd amendment), the musket was the most deadly and efficient military weapon ever devised to be carried by a single soldier. Our current implementation of the 2nd amendment is horrifically neutered. I'm not exactly popular in my sentiment here, but I believe the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment is: if a soldier can carry it, it should be available to be purchased and owned by private citizens. (This is what heads off the next hyperbolic rebuttal about "well why don't we just let people own tanks and nukes then smart guy, huh?" because the 2nd amendment even in the 18th century didn't cover field artillery (they did have cannons back then after all) or things like warships.

But to answer your "what hope does Burt Gummer have" question, you frame the question either incorrectly or dishonestly - as does everyone I've ever heard who makes this argument. You assume that our military, at the behest of our government, would for some reason execute a scorched earth campaign against its own citizenry. Well, if for some insane reason that ever does come to pass, you're right, an AR-15 with a 30 round banana clip won't help against that. But that's the most unlikely of scenarios - it's unlikely that the most tyrannical of federal governments wants to preside over an ash heap. What is far less unlikely is repression and occupation, which can't be done just from the safety of another state, or from the inside of armored vehicles (which as has been shown in other conflicts isn't 100% safe from rabble infantry either). It means at some point, soldiers have to climb out of their tanks and maintain a presence. It means controlling the flow of citizens but not killing them all en masse - which means hidden among them might be combatants you don't know about until it's too late. The answer is always - if tanks, nukes and aircraft trumped infantry always, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over in their first year. But they don't. Yes, armed farmers can't go toe to toe with military regulars, but they don't and aren't supposed to - even in the revolutionary war, the reason the British suffered so many casualties early on was because they still persisted in marching across fields in formation as in napoleonic wars while the American rebels ran away - until they got to some trees or walls to hide behind and shoot back. An armed guerilla resistance makes an occupation much, much more difficult, costly, and saps the will of the occupier - and the knowledge that a citizenry is armed makes the decision to make oppressive policy that much more difficult.

4) Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

4) First of all a gun is a tool. Yes it can be logically argued that it requires a person to use said tool, but a gun is a tool with the intended purpose of killing someone. You could say I could kill with a car, but the intended purpose of a car is NOT to kill. People can jump out of the path of a car. Not likely out of the path of a bullet (This example is to compare efficiency of the two tools). It is true that killers do not need guns to be killers. Guns simply make killers more efficient. (Nowadays we may as well adopt the saying "Nukes don't decimate millions of people. People decimate millions of people.")
If you claim otherwise then consider what you are implying; A killer without a gun, would be just as efficient at killing with any other "weapon". So if the killer had say, a bat, then he would have to be just as likely to kill as many people with that bat as he would with a semi-automatic rifle. I suppose this could happen... if he had access to a nearly unlimited number of bats that he could hurl at high velocity at a rate of 45-60 per minute.

Click to expand...

The meaning of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is not that guns are a tool and not meant to be used for killing, it's that guns don't have a will of their own - the person who kills does. The boston terrorists didn't use guns in their attack (though they did later in their flight from capture, but if they had prepared themselves with a little more foresight they wouldn't have had to try to rob a 7-11 with a cop in it), and they sure as hell didn't use bats... they used bombs. How efficient is that? Timothy McVeigh brought down a federal government building with bombs mostly made of fertilizer. Everything they did was already illegal, but laws didn't stop them - which is the real crux of the "people kill people" argument. If you made guns illegal tomorrow, how long do you think it would take to purge the united states of all privately owned guns? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? Would it EVER happen? Sure, the most well-intentioned law abiding citizens would disarm immediately, but they aren't the people you worry about committing violence in the first place, are they? No, the ones you worry about are the ones who will hoard them, hide them under the floorboards or continue to carry them under their hoodies on the street (in cities where strict gun control laws ALREADY make such things illegal, so what really is the difference to them?). Also, suddenly the gun trade with mexico reverses and starts going the other direction. Cocaine and Marijuana are nationally illegal, yet billions of dollars worth cross over into our country to be sold clandestinely every year. Do you really think a blanket prohibition on guns would be any more effective than a blanket prohibition on drugs, or alcohol?

No, what "guns don't kill, people kill" really means is that you need to address the underlying causes of the violence, the person, and not the implement. The poverty, the profit to be made from illegal activity, the mental health issues, whatever.

Bowielee said:

I find the idea of "putting down" another human being to be reprehensible, but that's just me. There's a huge difference between self defense and murder.

Click to expand...

Agreed to your second point. But I don't see how allowing a confirmed sadist to go on making others suffer for his pleasure is any less reprehensible.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Agreed to your second point. But I don't see how allowing a confirmed sadist to go on making others suffer for his pleasure is any less reprehensible.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Killing someone isn't the only way to stop them.

Clicking "like" on the post was hard, but I couldn't deny how well-written GB's comments were.

Bowielee said:

Killing someone isn't the only way to stop them.

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct, though I think the debate was less about how to stop someone, and whether or not it would be possible for someone to deserve death. Really, I expect the argument to come down the same way as a debate on capital punishment.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

You are 100% correct, though I think the debate was less about how to stop someone, and whether or not it would be possible for someone to deserve death. Really, I expect the argument to come down the same way as a debate on capital punishment.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

It pretty much IS the debate on capital punshment

I admit GB makes a strong argument.

1) I don't necessarily believe that taking away guns will take them from all "bad guys". But I do believe that it will have an impact. Let's look at three recent U.S shootings. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech. All of them used legally owned weapons. If they didn't have access to those weapons then it could be argued that 72 people would still be alive today. If the killers were intent on killing without the aid of guns I doubt the body count would have been as nearly as bad. The alternative? Locate black market guns? Honestly I'm not much of an expert on that. I wouldn't know where to go. I kinda doubt that every potential killer is going to figure it out on their own. And even if they do, their inquiries into the matter will hopefully be noted by someone of authority who is paid to look into those kinds of things.
Based on an article I read (and please feel free to cross-check the facts), at least 3/4s of theweapons seized in the 60+ mass murders since 1982 were legally owned. This troubles me.

I'd like to go over the other sections that GB touched upon, but I'll have to do it another time. I'm late to run some errands.

Shawnacy said:

I'd like to go over the other sections that GB touched upon, but I'll have to do it another time. I'm late to run some errands.

Click to expand...

Get your priorities straight, man. You think errands are more important than arguing with people on the internet?

Shawnacy said:

I admit GB makes a strong argument.

1) I don't necessarily believe that taking away guns will take them from all "bad guys". But I do believe that it will have an impact. Let's look at three recent U.S shootings. Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech. All of them used legally owned weapons. If they didn't have access to those weapons then it could be argued that 72 people would still be alive today. If the killers were intent on killing without the aid of guns I doubt the body count would have been as nearly as bad. The alternative? Locate black market guns? Honestly I'm not much of an expert on that. I wouldn't know where to go. I kinda doubt that every potential killer is going to figure it out on their own. And even if they do, their inquiries into the matter will hopefully be noted by someone of authority who is paid to look into those kinds of things.
Based on an article I read (and please feel free to cross-check the facts), at least 3/4s of theweapons seized in the 60+ mass murders since 1982 were legally owned. This troubles me.

I'd like to go over the other sections that GB touched upon, but I'll have to do it another time. I'm late to run some errands.

Click to expand...

Those are just famous shootings. Last time I checked the metric, over 50,000 intentional shootings happened in the US per year. Maybe you don't know how to find black market guns, but those guns will be brought, and the gunrunners will find somebody to pay for them. What kind of people is it likely to be? Somehow not upstanding citizens, I'm guessing. We can't just let a media with a political axe to grind focus on getting us to set policy according to emotionality. Would it have been better if sandy hook, aurora, or VA tech had been bombings instead of shootings? Does it assuage our conscience to put an end to single instances of "mass" shootings when around 100 children a year are killed by people using guns in chicago, which goes unreported because it just further illustrates the futility of draconian gun control laws?

You know that gun homicides are down 75 percent from 20 years ago. 20 years ago it was 7 per 100,000 so now gun homicides are what about 2.5 per 100,000

CrimsonSoul said:

You know that gun homicides are down 75 percent from 20 years ago. 20 years ago it was 7 per 100,000 so now gun homicides are what about 2.5 per 100,000

Click to expand...

You mean ever since the passing of the Brady Bill? Kind of makes a stronger case for gun control than a lack of gun control, doesn't it?

Bowielee said:

You mean ever since the passing of the Brady Bill? Kind of makes a stronger case for gun control than a lack of gun control, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Well it's at the same rate as around the 60s so let's bring back the nfa so I can get me some full auto guns for less than 10k

Or we can say it's down since concealed carry and open carry became widespread except in places like Chicago and dc where gun crime is still rampart despite all of the anti gun bills they have

Bowielee said:

You mean ever since the passing of the Brady Bill? Kind of makes a stronger case for gun control than a lack of gun control, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Gun ownership up, more states with conceal-carry laws... which is the real reason for decline?

It's almost as if correlation doesn't equal causation...

Bowielee said:

It's almost as if correlation doesn't equal causation...

Click to expand...

What?! He's a witch!

One big reason is the end of the Saturday Night Special. i.e. the Brady Bill. I see the Brady Bill's cooling off period that really dropped the number of gun deaths. And the $50 legal pistol is pretty much gone.

sixpackshaker said:

One big reason is the end of the Saturday Night Special. i.e. the Brady Bill. I see the Brady Bill's cooling off period that really dropped the number of gun deaths. And the $50 legal pistol is pretty much gone.

Click to expand...

Eh, I don't know about that. You can get a Hi Point 9mm for around $100-$150, which if you adjust for inflation, isn't that much more expensive. I considered getting one myself (though I was looking at the .45 version) but they have a reputation for being jam-prone.

I have a cheap pistol that I bought nearly 20 years ago. It stove-piped at least once per 13 round magazine. But hey, the first round always fired.

sixpackshaker said:

One big reason is the end of the Saturday Night Special. i.e. the Brady Bill. I see the Brady Bill's cooling off period that really dropped the number of gun deaths. And the $50 legal pistol is pretty much gone.

Click to expand...

No cool off in texas

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a debate where both sides have already made up their minds, evidence be damned. But I do have to report this. Pure anecdote, but interesting. I work in an office where I'm one of the few Americans. A coworker from Bangladesh made a comment that got a murmur of consent from around the lunch table the other day. He said basically "I come from a developing country with a lot of problems. There are a lot of things I like about America, but I can't help but notice the violence here. Everyday, I see 1-2 shooting deaths in Houston, almost without fail. This is not something any of us in Bangladesh ever expected to see in America. In some ways, I find it more scary than most places back home." The other internationals nodded in agreement, including the guy from Tunisia, and the guy from Nigeria. They added that war was one thing, but criminal violence was another entirely, and it seemed to be a problem here in the States.

I am actually quite curious as to the root cause, but have not the means to investigate.

--Patrick

I've had a theory on that for a while. Frankly, things got too good for people in the US. People need strife, and when there isn't any in the environment, they create it. In most of the previous generations in this country, there was a clear enemy to direct ourselves against. Then, post-war (WWII), we began to turn inward on ourselves. When we did get a new enemy, patriotism had been replaced by anti-jingoism. Then we came to the point where violence was considered uncivilized and even deplorable, so we turned to divisive politics, while some--consciously or subconsciously decided that the only outlet they had was to become the bad guy. To shake things up. They're a unique kind of villain in that they don't need to rationalize or pretend to be "good"--they willingly accept their role as the "villain".

fade said:

I've had a theory on that for a while. Frankly, things got too good for people in the US. People need strife, and when there isn't any in the environment, they create it. In most of the previous generations in this country, there was a clear enemy to direct ourselves against. Then, post-war (WWII), we began to turn inward on ourselves. When we did get a new enemy, patriotism had been replaced by anti-jingoism. Then we came to the point where violence was considered uncivilized and even deplorable, so we turned to divisive politics, while some--consciously or subconsciously decided that the only outlet they had was to become the bad guy. To shake things up. They're a unique kind of villain in that they don't need to rationalize or pretend to be "good"--they willingly accept their role as the "villain".

Click to expand...

It's a growing disparity between the richest and the poorest

fade said:

People need strife.

Click to expand...

"My associates couldn't agree more."

That image is so small on my screen, it took me a while to realize what it was.

Yeah, the only other options were giant, screenchoking sizes, and I was too lazy to resize it myself. But the pink and green marble walls separated by floor to ceiling wall lights should have been a dead giveaway.

GasBandit said:

Yeah, the only other options were giant, screenchoking sizes, and I was too lazy to resize it myself. But the pink and green marble walls separated by floor to ceiling wall lights should have been a dead giveaway.

Click to expand...

On my screen, it just looks a non-descript man standing in a greenish-gray room surrounded by black cardboard cutouts. It was only when I muttered that sentence out loud that I realized what it was.

I can hardly wait for the gun control debates when the handheld laser weapon becomes a technological reality.

fade said:

I'm not particularly interested in getting into a debate where both sides have already made up their minds, evidence be damned. But I do have to report this. Pure anecdote, but interesting. I work in an office where I'm one of the few Americans. A coworker from Bangladesh made a comment that got a murmur of consent from around the lunch table the other day. He said basically "I come from a developing country with a lot of problems. There are a lot of things I like about America, but I can't help but notice the violence here. Everyday, I see 1-2 shooting deaths in Houston, almost without fail. This is not something any of us in Bangladesh ever expected to see in America. In some ways, I find it more scary than most places back home." The other internationals nodded in agreement, including the guy from Tunisia, and the guy from Nigeria. They added that war was one thing, but criminal violence was another entirely, and it seemed to be a problem here in the States.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that they think this because they aren't grasping that the guys with guns in their country (soldiers) are more like our gangs than our soldiers. They don't have the same crime rate because the people committing the crimes are soldiers using their authority and weapons to get what they want, not unaffiliated criminals. This makes it a "war" problem, not a "crime" problem.