|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:48:19 AM | How many murders are committed with Law abiding citizens guns? Where do you think criminals get guns? They steal them from law abiding citizens.
That shows you how effective our police departments are.
If they can't stop people from stealing, how do you think they are going to protect us against bodily harm.
A lot of guns are obtained through organized crime, yet another problem our police departments are not able to solve.
If you want to use the 911/dial a prayer system great. I'll keep my guns thanks. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:49:31 AM |
Not having guns on your streets would be better for every single American. No one benefits from living in what must be like a war zone if the statistics I just read are true. Even more so when you look at the suicide statistics using guns too.
Whether or not you like it, America is now part of a wider world community and most nations around the world do not allow for their citizens to be armed as you all are. You already have the greatest military capability the world has ever known to protect you and yet you still need to carry guns at home for protection,. Just how are you protected?. They do not protect you and have no place in a modern country in todays world.
Again, this is a very European model of thought, with it's filters fully evident. The perception of reality is different, and those statistics he's mentioning are very real - and much different from the rest of the industrialized West.
It's just that the combined weight of those statistics are not enough to offset the primacy of the right to gun ownership in the minds of most Americans. That's not "wrong" for Americans to believe in, either. It fits perfectly along a plotted path through their history and culture.
It's not really a question about agreeing to disagree, as we are both right and wrong in our mutual feelings generally in regards to the issue - depending on our filters. It's more a case of realizing that we live in different societies, with differing observations of what that means.
We are each quite comfortable in our own skins, and that's all that really counts in the end.
Let's look at this ruling again, and see what happens when we do. There was this concept of rights as being some solid entity - totally unrelated to perceptions about the way you see the world.
This Supreme Court ruling, indeed all of it's rulings are somewhat akin to a jeweler taking his lupe and examining a diamond, and judging it's quality. It's job is to examine a legal question, and then to apply the Constitution and historical jurisprudence against the matter at hand.
Two important elements are at hand, the perceptions and biases of the judges involved and the quality of the two advocates arguing the case and it's merits. Changing the make-up of the court means decisions are more likely to go one way over the other. Changing the quality of the advocates, and indeed the strength of the individual case involved also changes the potential outcome of said case.
Now a brilliant advocate standing there in front of those chief-justices cannot sway them past a certain point of view anymore than he could physically move the Supreme Court building itself. There's a certain jurisprudence at work there, and the Constitution itself is pretty simple in most of it's statement of what America is.
Those are the lines he has to draw between, and that fixes exactly what he can advocate successfully - with any hope of winning.
But take a great advocate, in front of the right selection of judges, and equip him with the right case argued the right way ?
Then you get a decision like this one. The previous existing "right" that was restricted has suddenly found itself with it's belt loosened again. That gun which WAS illegal to own, and to have legally loaded at home is suddenly quite legal again.
The gun itself never changed, but the perceptions involved around it did.
It's the same way that we can jump into that virtual Delorean and dial in 1848.
If you are a woman arguing for universal suffrage, the right to vote ?
Well, you've just transformed into a rather radical person for that time period. You have no Constitutional right to vote, and not many people (except some rather emancipated women) have difficulty with that.
Argue it all you want, this country's NEVER going to give WOMEN the right to vote.  That's just not how the Republic was supposed to run - see any mention of WOMEN in this Constitution thing ? 
Eighty years later, roughly, the Nineteenth Amendment altered the Constitution to give women exactly that right. The perception had changed, because society's definitions had changed.
A person arguing that a black American could have the right to vote was a rather dangerous radical too - until the mid-nineteenth century, in the USA. It took the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to start to change THAT injustice.
Now anyone today arguing that a woman or black American could not vote would be considered almost intolerably ignorant, misogynistic, or racist by almost all of us. That opinion was a historical reality, accepted by most, until those amendments came to be legislated.
It's always struck me as somewhat ironic, when reading the words of Thomas Jefferson, that such a man who advocated so eloquently and brilliantly for democracy and human freedom from any bondage could own a great number of human beings as slaves. He treated them very well, by all accounts of what I've read about them.
They just couldn't vote, or not be free of being considered as someone's property. They were owned as objects, and not human beings. That really caused Jefferson little concern or remorse at the time, from what I've researched. He was still able to sit there writing at Monticello, and perhaps asking one of his slaves what he thought of his newest piece of writing he'd just came up with, after asking them to get him a cold glass of water from the kitchen.
That's the delightful irony at play here.
Jefferson, in my eyes, wasn't a racist or unthinking man. He was a product of his time period, however. Whatever great vision he had of the Republic's future didn't include blacks or women being able to decide things with their vote.
So these rights you speak of are indeed a product of the perceptions that define them. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 7:57:22 AM | What a ridiculous posting or did you post it in support of my argument?.
If you have a gun, the crook has a gun and people get hurt. No guns no-one gets hurt. 1% of you gun shops supply 57% of the guns used in attacks using firearms. And the American response, 20 out o 22 gun laws are not enforced. This means that anyone can get one and the carnage continues. You seem content as a nation to accept this slaughter of your youth more readily than you accept the slaughter of you children in Iraq and Afganistan where if the truth be told, it is safer for your children to be than at home in the deprived areas of your cities.
One gentleman in here spoke of teaching his kids how to use guns. You would have to be insane to teach your children about guns. You are doing nothing to stop the slaughter on your streets and the fact that the statistics show the victimes to be poor black and Hispanic teenagers is not me being racist sir, it is what the data tells me. That in itself is not an acccusation of rascism but a statement of my interpretation of the facts.
In new York where I think you come from, there were 80,000 gun crimes committed in 2000 - 20002 with some 98 instances of firearms being found inside your schools. Maybe Crash has the right idea after all training his kids to shoot, so they can 'protect' themselves when they go to class. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:07:16 AM | Growing up in Texas and both sides of my family coming from East Texas. My fathers people grew up on a farm. I grew up around guns and learned to respect them. My grandfather had a rifle hanging across the window of his truck. We thought nothing of it. He had guns in almost every closet and trust me no one was ever hurt. We as kids knew the guns were for hunting and protection.
When I was a little girl my father killed this rabid dog that continued to get into our yard and kill our pets. We came home from church and the dog was in our yard with a kitten in his mouth, and a couple of dead or dying kittens in the ground. We were little girls and would not stop crying. He ran in the house pulled out his rifle shot the dog, put him in the trunk of his car and took him somewhere. Every New Years Eve he would go outside with everyone else and shoot his rifle into the air at midnight. My daddy was and still is my hero.
I got married and my ex-husband was from Detroit. He despised guns. In Detroit they were used for gang violence. So, I can see both sides of the coin.
McCain thinks like many country Texans and Obama (south side of Chicago) thinks like many in the inner cities.
I do believe we have the right to carry arms. But, there needs to be restrictions.
The sad part is the underground gun rings. Criminals will get there hands on guns no matter what we put in place. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:14:01 AM |
One gentleman in here spoke of teaching his kids how to use guns. You would have to be insane to teach your children about guns.
Firearms are simply "tools", and if you are a person who grew up hunting or target shooting with them - you might very well want to train your kids how to use such a machine legally and safely.
Your perception of such a "tool" , in Canada or the USA, can allow that rather easily.There is an enjoyment to be found there in that use of them, even I can see that, although I'm not a hunter or target shooter myself. Simply collecting them for the pleasure of their historical value or beauty of design is also a valid consideration.
Guns are not evil, in the right hands.
I think having kids trained in firearm use aren't a bad thing, with the right parents doing it.
I would not want any more restrictions in place here, simply because of that. We've found a way that allows this type of thing to happen in Canada, a way in which responsible people can have legal access to firearms for the above uses.
I personally know of someone who's mentioned a few times that he thought it might be a good idea if someone came into the office he works in and shot a few people. Now he's said that in front of more than one person, on more than one occasion.
If he were to apply for a gun permit here, his company would be contacted. They would most probably be able to mention those statements , with witnesses willing to back up that they heard him say them multiple times.
That would probably be enough to deny him access to a firearm, quite legally. Any court challenge against such a decision would not be an easy case to win. Having multiple people say that he had told people (multiple people ) of the "positive aspects" of cold blooded murder in his office would mark him as a potential threat if given the access to one.
It would be hard to overcome the facts against him, and I see that as a good thing. There's a membrane there that filters people's rights to firearms based on things like these.
In the same way, even in America, a child writing about pulling a Columbine at his school would be most probably quickly arrested and charged today. His right to free speech isn't great enough for him to get away with that legally anymore.
Again, a perception shift. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:18:17 AM | Montreal,
I do not know if you had a chance to read my posting above yours, but once again we are on the same side.
Guns are tools, but in the wrong hands they are dangerous.
I shovel is a tool, but in the wrong hands it can be used to murder as well.
My son was not allowed to play with guns as a child. He went to the military and was the number one marksman in his unit. This allowed him to carry the American flag at his graduation (high honor). It is about respect. I guess my country blood is in him.
| |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 8:30:58 AM |
One gentleman in here spoke of teaching his kids how to use guns. You would have to be insane to teach your children about guns.
Insane? I have been target shooting ever since I was a young boy and never had any problems. I was tought the safe and proper way to use firearms. Because of this I don't buy into the false fears the gun grabbers use to try to convince people that guns are evil.
People are fearfull of things they don't know about. Tha't why most of the people that want guns banned are usually uninformed of misinformed buy the people that know the least about the subject. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 9:36:00 AM | Montreal Guy,
You bring up some good points, and several other points that are not so well supported.
As an American, you have Constitutional rights not to be searched without a court ordered search warrant. You also have rights not to be searched by a peace officer, unless suspected of a crime by court or police officers. Anyone that tries that is in a world of trouble. True.
It is also true that peace officers will often push to search a car when they pull someone over for a minor issue. Your car will be searched unless you actively defend your right to privacy, and sometimes even when you do.
Your right to privacy exists, and needs to be actively defended or the right disappears. This is a worthy line of discussion, though perhaps in another thread.
Now go to an airport in North America, and try and board a plane - especially in the USA. This is an area we both have issues with. I abhor the way things are.
The justification for this situation is that there is no recognized right to be a passenger in an airplane, and "no reasonable expectation to privacy" in that activity. 
I am sure we could have a LONG discussion about this, with widespread agreement all around. The post-9/11 attitude is a road that is leading directly to tyranny. We'd be much better off if the airport screening efforts went towards making sure that only criminals were prevented from carrying weapons aboard an airplane, and everyone else was free do do so ('free to do so' ...I really LIKE freedom!). BTW - people were free to carry firearms aboard a plane up until the 1960s. There were no laws restricting that freedom.
Personally, I won't fly unless the situation damn near requires it.
Again - This is a worthy line of discussion, though perhaps in another thread.
Then you go into statistics & numbers about guns and abandon the argument about an individual right to keep & bear arms that is protected by the Constitution.
I take your abandonment of your argument as your agreement that we do, in fact, have "A Constitutional right to a gun" (well, a right protected in the US at least).
Switching to your new topic of discussion:
Statistics.... There really are three kinds of lies, you know!
This requires great care, because you can be hoisted on your own petard with this approach.
For instance:
Are you aware that the numbers you quote include criminals shot by police? They include criminals shot by people defending their lives. They include suicide by gun. Therefore, using these facts to support an argument goes a long way toward invalidating your position on that argument.
Your entire position against guns is based on the tragedies associated with crimes committed with guns. I agree these are certainly tragic. However, this is only one side of an argument. Anyone can 'win' an argument if only one side of an argument is presented.
It is interesting to note that all the information you give is sourced from, or filtered through, groups that have demonstrated a wish for restricting freedom WRT firearms.
In presenting your position, you completely fail to consider any favorable results from having a gun. The number of tragedies prevented far outweigh the number of tragedies committed.
Since banning guns would have little effect on criminal use of guns, the tragedies you decry will remain. Your efforts would retain the tragedy while eliminating favorable outcomes.
The result is that the favorable results are eliminated and actually turned into additional tragedies!
I see your desire to restrict gun freedoms as a reaction that will create more tragedy!
You want to present a convincing argument that is NOT based on emotion wrought by tragedy alone? Use this information:
--> http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-print.pdf (smaller download, ~800 KB)
--> http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-press.pdf (larger download, ~2.7 MB)
This information is well sourced and fully referenced. Therefore, you shouldn't have much of a problem discrediting the information presented.
Do so and I'll probably be convinced that the widespread exercise of this particular freedom is a bad idea. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:03:51 AM |
The sad part is the underground gun rings. Criminals will get there hands on guns no matter what we put in place. You highlight a critical point in this discussion.
We could pass all the draconian laws in the world and STILL not reduce the tragedy of violence. Look at the very high levels of violent crime in the UK, for instance. The numbers indicate you are more likely to be violently assaulted there than in large US cities, and crime is MUCH lower outside of the large cities.
The choices are:
A tyrannical government AND violence.
-or-
Freedom & liberty AND violence.
I firmly believe the best solution for the problem of violence is Freedom & Liberty -
The more good people we have that are able to resist criminal violence, the less we will have. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 10:20:11 AM | Beachbum,
While your opinion may be strongly held, it is unsupported by facts.
...You would have to be insane to teach your children about guns. ... Your prejudice is blinding.
Rational discussion is not possible. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 11:37:04 AM | As far as BeachBum goes you just have to realize that with some people there is no discourse and even though you can cite facts and show cause in his case nothing other than his viewpoint can ever be open for discussion. Let him rant all he wants I for one choose not to rise to the bait and will just ignore him .
I think a lot of people dont realize that much of these figures though heinous as they are have been taken out of context. As was previously posted they represent all the figures and dont break them down into te groups they belong in such as for example police shooting criminals and law-abiding citizens defending themselves and so on. They have just been all lumped together so dont support any one theory at all. By and large most of the gun crimes are in the major cities not out in the urban areas . which of course speaks volumes of the effectiveness of our inner city police departements heh? Look at Washington DC and at Chicago Illinois for a moment. Both have very restrictive gun control laws some of which were affected by the SCOTUS decision. However they still have some of the worst crime rates. In getting rid of the guns it seems that they still have not gotten rid of the crimes. How can you still blame all the crime then on the gun owners whose guns were taken away? Makes no sense. The reality is that taking away the guns will only make it easier for criminals to ply their trade with no seeming consequence as they will of course not have to fear that someone would be able to protect themselves. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:15:24 PM |
In new York where I think you come from, there were 80,000 gun crimes committed in 2000 - 20002 with some 98 instances of firearms being found inside your schools
Exactly. A place where you cannot own a gun for your own protection. Not for long, though.
Criminals have guns in NYC, but the HONEST PEOPLE DO NOT. That's why there's so much gun crime in places like NYC, DC, Chicago, etc. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:22:22 PM |
In new York where I think you come from, there were 80,000 gun crimes committed in 2000 - 20002 with some 98 instances of firearms being found inside your schools
Well like I said before, it looks like the police either can’t or won’t take care of the problem. All the problems you described are not the law abiding gun owners fault, it’s law enforcement not doing their job.
When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:33:32 PM |
This is not a gun problem it's a people problem. As long as their are murders, rapists, and people that want to do us bodily harm, law abiding citizens will always have firearms to keep the scumbags out of their homes. If your not a gun owner, put a sign in your yard that you have no guns in your home so the criminals will know where they can safely practice their trade.
The first part I agree with. Point blank, because of humn nature, as long as long as humans exist, and because humans by nature are evil, there is going to be murder, rape, theft, and other forms of assault.
I disagree with the second part. A gun is NOT the only form of protection. I have many other ways to defend myself. I am well versed as a wrestler. A champion in a 15 state region. I also have knowledge of submissions and other MMA fighting abilities. Not having a gun in my house doesn't mean that I can't protect my house, and a criminal is not safe in my house. Fact of the matter is that even though I don't have a gun to "kill" someone, I can make someone wish they were dead by giving them pain and disabilities they will have to deal with for the rest of their lives.
The choices are:
A tyrannical government AND violence.
-or-
Freedom & liberty AND violence.
Don't we have a choice of no violence? I mean, I still accept the fact that humans by nature are evil, so maybe I do agree with you, but is it not possible in some ideological world that we can have a governmental system without violence?
I guess that means you would have to accept that by definition a government is amoral. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:40:43 PM | I am well versed as a wrestler.
If the criminal has a gun, you won't be able to get close enough to do anything.
It will be rather difficult to wrestle with a bullet.
An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous
regularity.
| |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 12:51:12 PM |
I am well versed as a wrestler. A champion in a 15 state region. I also have knowledge of submissions and other MMA fighting abilities. Not having a gun in my house doesn't mean that I can't protect my house, and a criminal is not safe in my house.
The best wrestler is no match for a couple .45's in the chest from 7 yards. Kinda hard to get the choke hold goin', then. Worse than bringin' a knife to a gun fight.
The BAD guys are already armed. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 1:36:34 PM |
I have many other ways to defend myself. I am well versed as a wrestler. A champion in a 15 state region. I also have knowledge of submissions and other MMA fighting abilities. You have more options than someone with NO training. This is a very good thing.
Ever since I was attacked with a knife two years ago I have been training regularly in martial arts. However, I don't kid myself.
"More options" does not mean you will walk away from a knife fight. Even if you "win" the fight, you'll be lucky to keep your life.
"More options" does very little against a gun, most especially against someone who has had even two minutes of decent advice. If they stay out of arms reach, no martial arts training will help.
So... martial arts training is nice and I strongly recommend it. Yet even years of dedicated training is not nearly as effective for self defense as a gun.
Don't we have a choice of no violence? NO, we don't. That is not an option.
If you can point to one society in all of human history that has been free of violence, then I'll modify my answer to "Only in your wildest dreams".
If you can point to two societies in all of human history that have been free of violence, then I'll modify my answer to "Only in your wildest dreams".
If you can point to more than two, then I'll modify my answer to "Most likely not, and I'll bet my next paycheck against it".
I still accept the fact that humans by nature are evil... I strongly disagree with this. Look at the numbers! If humans were prone to murder, then most people around you would be murderers, including yourself. How many people do you know that have killed another, even justifiably? This number is a very small percentage of the population, even among combat soldiers.
People certainly do have the capability for doing evil, though this is is (statistically) rare. It is also a largely self-correcting problem since they are most often removed from society, or live short lives themselves. It is this overall rarity that convinces me that people are not inherently evil - it shows me that people are mostly good.
Cases of widespread, ongoing evil are dependent upon cooperation of the local government. There's never been a case of genocide that didn't have a government backing the effort. There were at least 5 instances of government-sponsored murder of its population during the 1900s. Nazi Germany was only one instance, and they were not the best at it... not by a long shot!
THIS IS WHY PEOPLE NEED GUNS. This is why I cringe every time someone says "only the police or the military should have guns", because its the police and/or military that have proven throughout history to be the most prolific murderers (by far!!). If you're saying "but it can't happen here!", then you have a poor grasp of history (native American treatment, interring Japanese during WW-II, slavery, women & children burned to death on live TV - Waco, etc.). Montreal Guy has been pointing to our basic freedoms that we have been surrendering to this government and clamoring for them to save us. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing that is required as a preamble to tyranny.
Conversely, there has never been a case of genocide against an armed population.
With all that in mind, I'll take the crazed murderer over an oppressive government any day! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 2:05:55 PM | Where do you think criminals get guns? They steal them from law abiding citizens.
I agree there is truth to that statement. It would be better to educate the public about proper gun storage. That way children can't access those guns, and it will keep them safer from criminals. Perhaps gunshops or police can provide public gun lockers for a reasonable monthly fee, to people who can't afford a proper gun safe. This way they can still store them safley, when they are not going to be home.
This would not effect carry laws, or privete ownership to law abiding citizens. Its better to look at other options, than it is to remove a right. We don't need and act of congress to do the right thing regarding proper storage.
You'll have to remember too, that guns are a simple technology. Criminals will start making there own guns over time. It wouldn't be hard to make a grease gun. I'm not going into details in how it's made, but it's a lot easier than you may think. You will never fully take guns out of the hands of criminals. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 3:33:58 PM |
"More options" does very little against a gun,
Then why do you need a gun? If more options does very little against a gun, then the option of having a gun would do very little.
The option of having a nuclear weapons would do very little against a gun.
The option of having a M1 Abrams Tank would do very little against a gun.
Obviously, having options does nothing against a gun. So why don't we all just give up. There are very little options against a gun.
Look at the numbers!
Numbers and statistics really do nothing against theory.
Human Nature is all about Theory. Notice how I said absolutely nothing about Humans not having a choice to exercise in a decent way, but I'm sure I could find numbers that would be just as convincing as you could that people do immoral things, but that wouldn't disprove your thought on human nature.
It's much like government and political theory. My belief on government is that a government can not be moral or immoral. A government by definition is amoral. Why do government continuously turn towards corruption and tyranny? It's because of the fact that humans are by nature evil, and the entire thing about power corrupting and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A human can not have power because they become hungry for more power and will abuse their power in order to get more power. I strongly urge you to read Machiavelli's Republic and Camus Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. I think, like me, you would be very apt to lean toward Machiavelli, but Camus does mke some interesting points. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 3:49:16 PM | Then why do you need a gun?
Because more than likely the criminal breaking into your house will have one. If you as the home owner don't have one then he will very quickly get the upper hand on you.
If more options does very little against a gun, then the option of having a gun would do very little.
How so?
If I don't have a gun and the criminal does, I get shot. If I have a gun and he is breaking into my house I can get the upper hand and drop him when he makes entry. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 4:55:13 PM | OK, so, we are arguing different things.
If the "victim" gets the drop on the "assailant," then them having a gun isn't going to matter no matter what the "victim" is fighting with because the "victim" automatically has the advantage. So if I'm the "victim" and I am using my fist, my gun, my knife, my nuclear warhead, or what have you, because I have the drop on the "assailant" by definition, I have the advantage.
If the roles are reversed, then it doesn't matter if the "victim" has any of those things, because the "assailant" automatically has the advantage, so if you as the "victim" goes for your gun, then the "assailant" is going to probably shoot you and you won't have a chance either way. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 5:38:54 PM |
OK, so, we are arguing different things.
If the "victim" gets the drop on the "assailant," then them having a gun isn't going to matter no matter what the "victim" is fighting with because the "victim" automatically has the advantage. So if I'm the "victim" and I am using my fist, my gun, my knife, my nuclear warhead, or what have you, because I have the drop on the "assailant" by definition, I have the advantage.
If the roles are reversed, then it doesn't matter if the "victim" has any of those things, because the "assailant" automatically has the advantage, so if you as the "victim" goes for your gun, then the "assailant" is going to probably shoot you and you won't have a chance either way.
No were not arguing two different things..
At least with a gun you have a 50/50 chance. Without one you're screwed.
| |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 6:59:36 PM |
Statistics.... There really are three kinds of lies, you know!
This requires great care, because you can be hoisted on your own petard with this approach.
For instance:
Are you aware that the numbers you quote include criminals shot by police? They include criminals shot by people defending their lives. They include suicide by gun. Therefore, using these facts to support an argument goes a long way toward invalidating your position on that argument.
Your entire position against guns is based on the tragedies associated with crimes committed with guns. I agree these are certainly tragic. However, this is only one side of an argument. Anyone can 'win' an argument if only one side of an argument is presented.
First of all let me just note here that you are misreading my position re firearms. I'm not "against guns" at all. I'd never consider banning access to long guns or pistols to anyone who 's responsible enough to own and use them properly. I like our system because it does a pretty good job in that regard, and I even understand and appreciate the differences between our two countries that makes such a solution there essentially impractical - if not impossible.
Now, in reference to the numbers of people killed by gun violence.
Once again, filters are at work here.
An American who gets access to a gun, and who decides to kill his or her self with it shortly afterwards, is something that can be reduced with a bit of attention. Giving people who are potentially distressed or distraught temporarily quick access to a weapon means they may turn it against themselves or others in a moment of desperation.
If one takes the wait time involved in getting a firearm here, along with the background check involved - this is lessened. Just look at the number of people who commit suicide in Canada with their legal firearms.
The present study examined the use of guns for suicide during the period prior to the bill and during the period after the passing of Bill C-51 to assess the association of the bill with suicide rates. Analysis showed a significant decreasing trend after passage of Bill C-51 on the firearm suicide rate in Canada and the percentage of suicides using firearms.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4773152
Criminals shot by police or citizens is another point of contention, again based on those same filters being prominently featured. Is a man killed because he tried to steal your car or TV worth killing ? Here , that's not the case. There, at least in certain areas, it quite certainly is a death penalty offense (without trial or jury) for the wrong criminal facing the right gun owner.
You also have to add the element of people killed by misuse of a weapon, by either themselves, or others. Those accidents can never be eliminated - but they can be reduced with well trained citizens.
I was taught at an early age, by a friend with an air rifle, that one never EVER points a gun (loaded or not) at someone unless he intends to pull the trigger. I was also taught to never place my finger on the trigger until I was ready to take my shot.
At a party, as a young teen, I was at a friends house. He and his dad had an impressive legal gun collection. He had an M-16 variant ( don't quote me, but I think it was the original Stoner model) that was particularly impressive to see.
At that party, one of my other friends, after a few drinks, took it out of the gun rack, pointed at my girlfriend at the time - and pressed the trigger yelling " Bang Bang...."
About a second later he was on the floor, disarmed, and being yelled at by the guy whose house we were at, as he was getting beaten up by him.
Let's just say that was a good lesson in gun ownership to be exposed to. There but for the grace of God go I, because one kid pulled a stupid drunken move "for a laugh". Had there been a round in that chamber, or even worse a fully loaded magazine .... there would have been at least one dead kid there.
So I do appreciate firearms, but I also have a very high respect for their potential for misuse. I've actually looked into owning a firearm, and storing it at a gun club. At the time, that wasn't possible.
I don't want one, nor feel I have the need for one, in my house.
I've managed to live fifty one years here, and never felt the need for one. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 9:09:16 PM | As gun control discussions go, this one has been pretty civil, so I'd like to add my thoughts.
I couldn't help but notice while reading this thread that it really seems like almost all who post are not really representing absolute positions (no citizen should have any legal access to guns vs. everyone should have unfettered access to whatever weapons they want) but instead are debating the particulars of what sort of legal requirements are or are not appropriate.
Certainly everyone seems to lean strongly either toward or away from significant restrictions on gun ownership, but I've heard no one assert that any whacko should be able to legally purchase any weapon or that not even hunters and target shooters should be able to legally own a gun.
I'm encouraged by that.
I've never even handled a hand gun, but do own a rifle and a shotgun that were passed down through my family. I use the rifle to fill my freezer with deer from my own land, and keep the shotgun more as a family momento than anything else. Theoretically either could be used to defend myself, but I've never come close to feeling that threatened.
That said, if I could twitch my nose or wave my magic wand and make every gun on the planet disappear I wouldn't hesitate. It saddens me that too often it's too easy for one human to take the life of another. Disputes and confrontations that would otherwise rarely be lethal can too easily escalate. I'd gladly give up my two guns, heirlooms or not, if doing so would be part of making the world a safer place.
But since I don't possess the required magic skills, I accept that guns are part of our society and am honestly unsure what the appropriate degree of regulation is. I lean toward the Canadian system as Montreal Guy describes it but understand that our cultural differences make adopting such a system unlikely in the U.S..
I've often thought that our history of encouraging settlers to move west and carve out their own homesteads in lands full of natural and human hazards established the precedent that led to the degree of influence the gun lobby exerts today.
Living in the most rural state in the East with the lowest crime rate in the country I can't identify with the issues folks in big cities face, but have to say that I'd feel better about letting those cities decide for themselves what gun laws to adopt than letting the Supreme Court dictate their terms to them. This was a 5-4 decision, and could easily have gone the other way. Time will tell whether the repercussions are a benefit or detriment.
I'm mostly saddened that so many gun advocates cast their ballots based on this single issue over any other. Maybe it's just that I can't work up much sweat over the far-fetched prospect of my government driving me to the point of taking up arms against it, nor do I anticipate I'll ever wish I had a gun handy to defend against an armed intruder.
Mostly I just feel there are far more pressing issues to base a vote on, especially after this administration so thoroughly bungled everything from fiscal policy to anti-terrorism strategies to environmental issues to foreign policy to uncounted other messes the next president will be hard pressed to clean up.
Dave | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/29/2008 9:16:46 PM | | Controlling guns in the rational persons hands is one thing, but the criminal or mentally ill is another. We need to crack down on the illegal guns. Criminals will pay good money for a weapon. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
