steve1 5 #301 November 1, 2002 QuoteQuoteI think you and Kallend should read George Orwell's "Animal Farm". It was a classic example of what can happen if a government becomes to powerful. I first read Animal Farm in 1963. How about you? I bet the British and the Australians and the Canadians are quaking in their shoes with worry about their governments becoming too powerful. ......................................................................... If they aren't worried they should be. This sort of thing is still happening over and over again in the World today. Look at many countries in South America or Africa. Some good old boys take over the country. They have almost complete power. After all they control the military and most other things in the country. How are the people going to get them out of power? The people probably don't get to vote in a fair election. That right was probably taken away a long time ago. So again what choice do the people have to get these corrupt all powerful dip sticks out of office. It's probably going to be through a bloody revolution where there is tremendous suffering. When the government is overthrown they put some more good old boys in power who eventually become just as corrupt as the other leadership was because they didn't have the forsight to develop a constitution like the one we have, that limits the power of any one governing body. Maybe you would like a move toward Socialism or some other type of government, but most Americans are smarter than that. I'm not saying the governments of Britian, Canada, or Australia are bad, but they too should be worried about a government becoming to strong or controlling. This is my opinion. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #302 November 1, 2002 QuoteYou haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of legal gun owners using guns to defend themselves, either. You're right Kennedy, but it is irrelevant. I don't care how many legal gun owners use their guns to defend themselves in their homes or whatever, because I don't have a problem with that. If it is self-defense, then fine, good for them. But you cannot legitimately dispute that some people buy guns legally and then use them to wound or kill innocent people. Each incident where somebody takes advantage of their "god given right" to buy a gun legally in this country and then murder somebody with it does more harm to the pro-gun faction than you can possibly imagine. And it happens all the time. The "banning guns only hurts honest folks" mantra is utter nonsense. Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a gun store and bought it within the limits of the law. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by enraged people with valid concealed carry permits. Look at the mother whose child gets killed by a careless gun owner's child in the eye and tell her all about your "rights". I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers, yet that is exactly what you are doing. You say it needs to be easy too buy a gun. You say we have too many purchasing restrictions already. You say registration is bad because it takes away your right to anonymous firepower. You say that even if ballistic fingerprinting worked, it would be bad because it would raise the cost of guns. I am appalled at the callous lack of value placed on innocent human life. It is more important to you to protect your right to own a gun than to protect human life itself. If you don't believe that, then explain why you are unwilling to accept compromises that would lessen the frequency of innocent people dying while still allowing you to own weapons. I am far from an extreme gun control supporter. I'm not even calling for a ban on firearms. But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself. Be thankful that I am not a gun owner who could fly off the handle and easily murder someone due to the generous "rights" you are defending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,070 #303 November 1, 2002 >I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers . . . I am sorry to hear that. I am proud to live in a country that _does_ defend the rights of murderers - even people who killed someone else in plain view of a witness get a trial, and cannot be punished (or executed) before that trial. Such protections are absolutely critical; they are the key to our 'innocent until proven guilty' theory here in the US. About six months ago, a friend of mine had his daughter kidnapped and murdered by a neighbor. I spent days in the desert looking for her body. When the perpetrator was caught, it became clear very quickly that he did it. I even saw him on occasion - I was on jury duty during his trial (different trial, same courthouse.) Yet even if I had the opportunity to do it and not get caught, I would not have shot him. I believe that even people who probably are murderers still have rights, and do so until it's proven that they are murderers. I feel just as strongly about taking away rights from people "just in case." Get guns out of circulation, so a bad or upset man can't get his hands on one. Outlaw demos, or pass many new FAA rules on skydiving, so demo jumpers can never kill a spectator again. Outlaw driving after midnight, or close roads going to bars, so drunk drivers can't kill helpless children. And I could use your emotional arguments to support every one of those proposals: "The 'banning driving after midnight only hurts honest folks' mantra is utter nonsense. Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a bar and drank legally all night, then drove away after midnight on unrestricted roads. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by drunk drivers. Look at the mother whose child gets killed at 1am by a drunk driver and tell her all about your rights'. " Emotional, but not notably helpful. As I've stated several times now, I am in favor of most people being allowed to purchase guns, and am in favor of crime-prevention measures (like fingerprinting) as long as it doesn't hinder people from getting guns. But tactics like the "tell it to the poor dead girl's mother . . ." are as annoying to me as 'the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people' that seems to bug you. Neither one advances the cause of either side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #304 November 2, 2002 Bill, Quote I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers . . . ------------------------------------- I am sorry to hear that. The context I was talking about is different than that which you are defending. I agree with you that even cases of blatant murder deserve a fair trial. What I was referring to when I mentioned being ashamed was the "right" to easily get guns without good background checks, waiting periods, trigger locks, etc. Quote I feel just as strongly about taking away rights from people "just in case." I haven't called for a complete ban on firearms. We are probably in favor of the same things. I think the laws need to be better. The screening process needs to be better. The punishments for violations need to be higher. None of those actually says people shouldn't be able to own firearms. Despite the fact that I dispute most of the arguements people use in support of firearm ownership, I think they should be allowed to own them. I just think that along with that ownership should come a higher level of responsibility. Quote Emotional, but not notably helpful. Correct. I get frustrated sometimes at the assertions that only "hardened lifelong criminals" do anything wrong with firearms. It is an important issue, and sometimes I skew off the path of helpful dialogue and vent some emotion. Considering the mass of rhetoric, inaccurate statistics and absurd analogies, I think I've done pretty decently so far in response. Quote As I've stated several times now, I am in favor of most people being allowed to purchase guns, and am in favor of crime-prevention measures (like fingerprinting) as long as it doesn't hinder people from getting guns. I agree with that, with the one minor change. I'd say "as long as it doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't understand the objections to reasonable changes that may dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still allowing gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnischalke 0 #305 November 2, 2002 Quote The screening process needs to be better. Wow! We agree on something. I am writing my Congressman and my Senator right now and asking them to mandate crystal ball research. Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! Justin, I wish humanity were more humane, but it's not. Ya just never know when a man is going to assault his estranged wife at her new house, or when a mom is going to run her car full of kids into a lake, or when a priest is going to rape an altar boy, or when a minister is going to seduce your wife during counseling, or when a doctor is going to sexually molest your 8-year-old daughter while she's sedated, or when a former United States Army soldier is going to start killing random people. The world is a big shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite every time we walk out the door, turn on the news, pick up the phone or log onto the internet. Murders are going to happen. This country was dubbed the melting pot a loooong time ago. It is a culture of vastly different cultures slammed together trying to get through life. To compare our wonderful nation to others is apples and oranges. We are certainly the most successful nation as a whole on Earth. Even within this nation, some folks end up at the bottom and feel there is no better way to make an impact than to violently act. With our Sweeps Week--Every Week media, the bigger the crime, the larger the criminal's success and so, if I crave to make an impact on this world, but cannot do it the normal ways, I need to make my statement through violence. And, no violence is more eaten up by the greedy media (don't discount the fact that they know we are terribly voyeristic when it comes to gruesome tragedies of others) than a good murder spree. Truth be told, there would be no firearms accidents and maybe even fewer murders if everyone in this country was trained in the proper use and handling of firearms. Guns are a part of our world--we need to embrace them rather than mystify them. Children should be taught by their parents and teachers the dangers of a mishandled firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that for children (16 million to date) under the age of being able to actually grasp the safe handling of firearms. Does the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al. have such programs? Nope. Trust me, I would much rather have my 10-year-old striving to hit the X-ring of a target than blasting digital "bad guys" on the Playstation. I think i was about 8 when I had my first .22 rifle and about 10 when I was allowed to carry the .22 pistol around the farm I grew up on. Ya know, I got in more trouble riding my dirtbike on the road and running from the cops at 12 than I ever even dreamed of doing with a firearm. It just comes down to respect for both the power of a firearm as well as for you fellow man. I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ and will agree to disagree. I do hope that my posts and the many others in this thread helped you and others understand why ballistic *fingerprinting* just cannot work, especially with more than 250 million guns already in the hands of the people of this country. Also know that if for some strange reason, guns ever do become banned, I am moving to Texas, because that is one state sure to secede from the union and my rights will be restored!Bed time, gotta catch a Super Otter in the morning. Peace, mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #306 November 2, 2002 Mike, Quote Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! How about we start with some common sense things like not selling to criminals? Yes, they may get them otherwise, but why make it easy by letting them do it in the gun store? We can also use a little common sense in the store. When someone comes in muttering about how they just got fired and want revenge on their boss, does it make sense to immediately hand them a firearm? Quote Murders are going to happen. Yes, they are, but we could make it a little more difficult. We could also punish it a lot more. Right now, the disincentive isn't enough. Willfully taking a life doesn't have enough negative repercussions on the criminal. For every dead body, the criminal gets little more than a slap on the wrist. Quote Children should be taught by their parents and teachers the dangers of a mishandled firearm. Children of gun owners should be taught by their parents. Even as a non-gun owner, my children will know about guns. But guns have no business in our schools. Not in physical presence (which happens too often) and not otherwise. There is no reason that children should be forced into a gun culture at school if their parents don't want it. It will happen later anyway, but it should not be mandated by the school system. That is a parental responsibility, as determine by each household for their own children. Quote I do hope that my posts and the many others in this thread helped you and others understand why ballistic *fingerprinting* just cannot work Largely, they did. But I did not hear good reasons why it would be undesirable if the accuracy was better. I don't buy into the reasons people have stated why registration is bad. I don't think they are valid, when compared to the potential good. As I said earlier, I don't understand why the gun folks are against safety measures that would cut down on the "collateral damage" of gun ownership without removing the alleged right to own guns. I see that as selfish. Quote Also know that if for some strange reason, guns ever do become banned, I am moving to Texas, because that is one state sure to secede from the union and my rights will be restored! I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. If that happens, please take all your weapons with you, as the rest of us don't want them around. I'd even wish the Country of Texas well, but I will remain a resident of the United States, thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #307 November 2, 2002 After this long, you'd think I'd stay away from this thread altogether...sigh... Quote How about we start with some common sense things like not selling to criminals? Yes, they may get them otherwise, but why make it easy by letting them do it in the gun store? As far as I am aware, and I can only speak for (a poor understanding of the laws in) CA...there is a waiting period that a person must go through, to be cleared by the government to actually purchase a gun. As with most things, when this is enforced, it works. When it is not enforced, then it lets the cracks open for people to fall through. I would also like to hear your version of criminal. Do you mean someone already convicted of felonious behavior? How about a violent misdemeanor? Or a plea bargain agreement which reduces a violent misdemeanor to an infraction? Should they have served time? Or is it just simply a charge was made against them, but nothing ever came of it? Quote We can also use a little common sense in the store. When someone comes in muttering about how they just got fired and want revenge on their boss, does it make sense to immediately hand them a firearm? But wouldn't that be a problem in and unto itself? I mean, people say things all the time. I think that prevention because someone says something is far more dangerous, inasmuch as it infringes on someone's right to free speech, and the proprietor's right to free trade given the example you present. If, however, someone has a history of violent behavior, convicted of such, and it's in the record, that will be found during the waiting period (again, given that the searches are done...). And that period is already in place here. Quote For every dead body, the criminal gets little more than a slap on the wrist. Not being a legal eagle, or even a sparrow for that matter...there are already laws in place (again, here in CA) which call for enhancement of a sentence if a gun is used. If the law is in place, but not enforced, then what would the benefit be for enacting additional laws, which in turn will not be enforced? I can't see one. If the laws are uniformly enacted, and holes found, then additional measures may be in order. But I think that enforcing the laws we have is a good beginning. Quote That is a parental responsibility, as determine by each household for their own children. Agreed. It is a parental responsibility to educate their child about firearms. Quote I don't understand why the gun folks are against safety measures that would cut down on the "collateral damage" of gun ownership without removing the alleged right to own guns. I see that as selfish. I'm not against safety measures that cut down on collateral damage. What I am against is measures which cut down on my personal right to self protection. The question seems to be largely one of "balance". How do I balance my right to self protection with another's rights? If I am restricted in taking those measures I see fit to protect myself, then my rights are being infringed upon. The statistics were quoted somewhere above about the number of times guns were used to protect oneself. I think those are very important to consider when talking about this issue. Each life has value. Including mine. Including yours. Quote I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. If that happens, please take all your weapons with you, as the rest of us don't want them around. I hope I missed the sarcasm here, but you didn't put a little winky face in it, so I am concerned that you are not sarcastic. If I missed it, then I apologize.... That being said, please don't include me in your broad comment "the rest of us"....I am saddened to see that you believe your rights are more important than mine. They are not. They are equal. I am also saddened to think that you believe segregation of part of the population because they believe one thing and you believe another is an answer to this question. Segregation is never an answer. Considering the broad and oftentimes emotional commentary I see here, no wonder our legislators have a hard time finding the middle road...we can't seem to find it here. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Iflyme 0 #308 November 2, 2002 QuoteGuns are a part of our world--we need to embrace them rather than mystify them. Well this is without a doubt the biggest load of bull I've heard in a long time ... terrorists are a part of our world, too -- but we are not about to embrace them! Guns are made for one purpose: killing. Just think how many kids wouldn't be dead, how many murders and other violent crimes wouldn't be committed, if access to guns were restricted. Your culture has a deadly fascination with guns and violence, and as a result, you live in a society with a high crime rate. Why don't you look up some stats, then tell us how many Americans died at the hands of other Americans who were carrying firearms? Then compare those stats to countries where wise legislators have implimented strong gun control measures? Then we will all see the price you pay for embracing guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #309 November 3, 2002 QuoteQuoteThe screening process needs to be better. Wow! We agree on something. I am writing my Congressman and my Senator right now and asking them to mandate crystal ball research. Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! Justin, I wish humanity were more humane, but it's not. Ya just never know when a man is going to assault his estranged wife at her new house, or when a mom is going to run her car full of kids into a lake, or when a priest is going to rape an altar boy, or when a minister is going to seduce your wife during counseling, or when a doctor is going to sexually molest your 8-year-old daughter while she's sedated, or when a former United States Army soldier is going to start killing random people. The world is a big shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite every time we walk out the door, turn on the news, pick up the phone or log onto the internet. Murders are going to happen. This country was dubbed the melting pot a loooong time ago. It is a culture of vastly different cultures slammed together trying to get through life. .... What a cop-out! There are other melting pot countries too, that don't have the gun violence problem the USA has. The argument that the USA is a violent nation (given by Steve several times too) is bull. If gun related homicides are excluded, the USA has a violent crime rate (rapes, assaults, battery...) much the same as Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, etc. The only area in which the USA is way out of line is homicides, 70% of which are committed with guns, and the USA is the only country in which guns are easily available. The US is only more violent than other western nations in crimes where guns are used. (Not addressed just to you) we have seen bogus pro-gun statistics presented in this thread and then debunked (such as - more people drown in buckets than in gun accidents, the crime rate in Texas is lower than in Britain, that more murders are committed with hands and teeth in Texas than all murders in Britain). All these have been claimed at one time or another by a pro-gun writer in this thread, and all are false. The Lott study has been quoted to show that CCW leads to crime reduction as if it is proven fact. It isn't, other authors, just as reputable as Lott, have shown that Lott's analysis is flawed. However, the pro-gun folks never mention this at all. On the other hand, I have listed a number of statistics from various government agencies (as has Bill von), none of which has been refuted, all of which indicate very strongly that easy gun ownership is responsible in large part for the high homicide rate and gun accident rate in the USA. The best that any pro-gun person has done is cast aspersions on USDOJ statistics because Janet Reno headed the agency for a while. Bill and I took the trouble to do our homework, so why can't you folks get your facts straight before you write this tripe. Now, I am not particularly anti gun but I sure see a problem here that needs fixing. It would be best if the gun owners came up with solutions of their own rather than burying their collective heads in the sand and blaming everything from melting pots to a naturally violent tendency of US citizens. If you don't fix it yourselves, someone else will eventually fix it for you, and probably in ways that you won't like. It would also help if the gun owners would admit that in addition to a right, the 2nd Amendment also places a responsibility on them (to be "well regulated"), and stopped fighting tooth and nail against any regulation at all. Did you know that if you want to use a model rocket motor with more than 2 ounces of propellant, you need a BATF permit and have to keep it in an approved (by a BATF inspector) magazine. OTOH, you can have 50 pounds of black powder under your bed quite legally with no permit at all if you plan to use it in an antique gun. DUH! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jfields 0 #310 November 3, 2002 Michelle, I really don't think we are so far apart on this issue. Though you have stayed away from the debate, I welcome your presence as it is rational and considerate, even if differing in views. QuoteI would also like to hear your version of criminal. Convicted of something violence related, whether felony or misdemeaner. If a charge was made, but didn't stick, they aren't a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty. QuoteBut wouldn't that be a problem in and unto itself? I mean, people say things all the time. I think that prevention because someone says something is far more dangerous, inasmuch as it infringes on someone's right to free speech, and the proprietor's right to free trade I don't think it is a problem. If somebody is yelling and screaming in a movie theatre, the management has a right to kick them off of the property. That isn't taking away the right to free speech. It is taking away the ability to do it there and then, on someone's property. They can walk outside and yell all they want. If someone walks into a liquor store, the proprieter has the right not to sell the person booze if they are in question about the person's ID. A bartender may also cut someone off if they think the person has had too much to drink. If I were a gun store owner, I wouldn't sell to someone who was muttering about killing their boss. I wouldn't do it, legal or not, because I wouldn't want the moral responsibility and guilt if the person were to buy it and kill their boss. There will be other, better customers. QuoteNot being a legal eagle, or even a sparrow for that matter...there are already laws in place (again, here in CA) which call for enhancement of a sentence if a gun is used. If the law is in place, but not enforced, then what would the benefit be for enacting additional laws, which in turn will not be enforced? In numerous places earlier in the thread, I've mentioned that I'm not pushing for more laws. I'm in favor of better laws, and better enforcement of those laws. So, I think we actually agree on that. QuoteI'm not against safety measures that cut down on collateral damage. What I am against is measures which cut down on my personal right to self protection. The question seems to be largely one of "balance". Many in this thread have expressed hostilty to the types of safety measures that would cut down on innocent deaths while maintaining the right to have firearms for personal protection. That is what I don't understand. With such unwillingness to compromise for the common good, I see the issue as more about selfishness than equal value on human life. (I'm not throwing you in that group, as you haven't expressed yourself in that fashion.) QuoteI hope I missed the sarcasm here... I am also saddened to think that you believe segregation of part of the population because they believe one thing and you believe another is an answer to this question. Segregation is never an answer. I was responding to Mike's comment that if guns were banned in the general area where we live, he would move to Texas, because it would secede rather than give up gun rights. I don't think segregation is the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #311 November 3, 2002 Kallend, Are you still going at it? You must have an unlimited supply of hot air. Are you telling another big windy when you say you are not particularly anti-gun?....... How in the hell can you say that the US is not a violent place? I don't care if you did find some statistics that fit your argument. The U.S. is a very violent place, and it's not just due to the availability of firearms. There are many other factors involved. To compare the US to other countries in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. They have a different culture. Maybe having a lot of rules and restrictions, enforced by an all powerful government, makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #312 November 3, 2002 QuoteKallend, Are you still going at it? You must have an unlimited supply of hot air. Are you telling another big windy when you say you are not particularly anti-gun?....... How in the hell can you say that the US is not a violent place? I don't care if you did find some statistics that fit your argument. The U.S. is a very violent place, and it's not just due to the availability of firearms. There are many other factors involved. To compare the US to other countries in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. They have a different culture. Maybe having a lot of rules and restrictions, enforced by an all powerful government, makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Steve1 If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, it might be worth debating. As it is, you just keep saying the same thing but produce nothing to back it up. That fits my definition of "hot air". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #313 November 3, 2002 Hey, Proff Quote If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, Curious, though, as to what you would consider "valid". I mean, I see a lot of stats quoted, some from this or that website, some from this or that report, and both sides scream "subjective" or "interpretive", "hot air" or whatever, claiming skewing of data to fit one's perspective. It's human nature. So what would you consider valid data? Which study do you find purely objective, no personal interpretation? Which set of numbers do you see as accurate, and why? Not trying to poke or agitate. Just pure curiousity here. Ciels- Michele PS - did the girls ever pay you for that comment? LOL... ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #314 November 3, 2002 I already answered your question (at least twice) in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Michele 1 #315 November 4, 2002 Quote I already answered your question (at least twice) in this thread. Thanks, Kallend. Would you mind linking your response? It's hard to wade through the heated rhetoric to find them. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #316 November 4, 2002 If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, it might be worth debating. As it is, you just keep saying the same thing but produce nothing to back it up. That fits my definition of "hot air". ........................................................... I'm not a big fan of statistics because they can be twisted to prove nearly any argument. There are some statistics that do stand out in my mind though. Such as there are presently 20,000 gun laws on the books that are doing little to stop gun crime in America. (I mentioned this earlier.) Studies also indicate that firearms are used over two million times a year for personal protection and the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. If these statistics aren't accurate, please refute them. I'm willing to listen. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #302 November 1, 2002 QuoteYou haven't taken the time to type in all the cases of legal gun owners using guns to defend themselves, either. You're right Kennedy, but it is irrelevant. I don't care how many legal gun owners use their guns to defend themselves in their homes or whatever, because I don't have a problem with that. If it is self-defense, then fine, good for them. But you cannot legitimately dispute that some people buy guns legally and then use them to wound or kill innocent people. Each incident where somebody takes advantage of their "god given right" to buy a gun legally in this country and then murder somebody with it does more harm to the pro-gun faction than you can possibly imagine. And it happens all the time. The "banning guns only hurts honest folks" mantra is utter nonsense. Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a gun store and bought it within the limits of the law. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by enraged people with valid concealed carry permits. Look at the mother whose child gets killed by a careless gun owner's child in the eye and tell her all about your "rights". I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers, yet that is exactly what you are doing. You say it needs to be easy too buy a gun. You say we have too many purchasing restrictions already. You say registration is bad because it takes away your right to anonymous firepower. You say that even if ballistic fingerprinting worked, it would be bad because it would raise the cost of guns. I am appalled at the callous lack of value placed on innocent human life. It is more important to you to protect your right to own a gun than to protect human life itself. If you don't believe that, then explain why you are unwilling to accept compromises that would lessen the frequency of innocent people dying while still allowing you to own weapons. I am far from an extreme gun control supporter. I'm not even calling for a ban on firearms. But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself. Be thankful that I am not a gun owner who could fly off the handle and easily murder someone due to the generous "rights" you are defending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #303 November 1, 2002 >I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers . . . I am sorry to hear that. I am proud to live in a country that _does_ defend the rights of murderers - even people who killed someone else in plain view of a witness get a trial, and cannot be punished (or executed) before that trial. Such protections are absolutely critical; they are the key to our 'innocent until proven guilty' theory here in the US. About six months ago, a friend of mine had his daughter kidnapped and murdered by a neighbor. I spent days in the desert looking for her body. When the perpetrator was caught, it became clear very quickly that he did it. I even saw him on occasion - I was on jury duty during his trial (different trial, same courthouse.) Yet even if I had the opportunity to do it and not get caught, I would not have shot him. I believe that even people who probably are murderers still have rights, and do so until it's proven that they are murderers. I feel just as strongly about taking away rights from people "just in case." Get guns out of circulation, so a bad or upset man can't get his hands on one. Outlaw demos, or pass many new FAA rules on skydiving, so demo jumpers can never kill a spectator again. Outlaw driving after midnight, or close roads going to bars, so drunk drivers can't kill helpless children. And I could use your emotional arguments to support every one of those proposals: "The 'banning driving after midnight only hurts honest folks' mantra is utter nonsense. Tell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a bar and drank legally all night, then drove away after midnight on unrestricted roads. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by drunk drivers. Look at the mother whose child gets killed at 1am by a drunk driver and tell her all about your rights'. " Emotional, but not notably helpful. As I've stated several times now, I am in favor of most people being allowed to purchase guns, and am in favor of crime-prevention measures (like fingerprinting) as long as it doesn't hinder people from getting guns. But tactics like the "tell it to the poor dead girl's mother . . ." are as annoying to me as 'the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people' that seems to bug you. Neither one advances the cause of either side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #304 November 2, 2002 Bill, Quote I would be ashamed to defend the rights of murderers . . . ------------------------------------- I am sorry to hear that. The context I was talking about is different than that which you are defending. I agree with you that even cases of blatant murder deserve a fair trial. What I was referring to when I mentioned being ashamed was the "right" to easily get guns without good background checks, waiting periods, trigger locks, etc. Quote I feel just as strongly about taking away rights from people "just in case." I haven't called for a complete ban on firearms. We are probably in favor of the same things. I think the laws need to be better. The screening process needs to be better. The punishments for violations need to be higher. None of those actually says people shouldn't be able to own firearms. Despite the fact that I dispute most of the arguements people use in support of firearm ownership, I think they should be allowed to own them. I just think that along with that ownership should come a higher level of responsibility. Quote Emotional, but not notably helpful. Correct. I get frustrated sometimes at the assertions that only "hardened lifelong criminals" do anything wrong with firearms. It is an important issue, and sometimes I skew off the path of helpful dialogue and vent some emotion. Considering the mass of rhetoric, inaccurate statistics and absurd analogies, I think I've done pretty decently so far in response. Quote As I've stated several times now, I am in favor of most people being allowed to purchase guns, and am in favor of crime-prevention measures (like fingerprinting) as long as it doesn't hinder people from getting guns. I agree with that, with the one minor change. I'd say "as long as it doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't understand the objections to reasonable changes that may dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still allowing gun ownership. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #305 November 2, 2002 Quote The screening process needs to be better. Wow! We agree on something. I am writing my Congressman and my Senator right now and asking them to mandate crystal ball research. Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! Justin, I wish humanity were more humane, but it's not. Ya just never know when a man is going to assault his estranged wife at her new house, or when a mom is going to run her car full of kids into a lake, or when a priest is going to rape an altar boy, or when a minister is going to seduce your wife during counseling, or when a doctor is going to sexually molest your 8-year-old daughter while she's sedated, or when a former United States Army soldier is going to start killing random people. The world is a big shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite every time we walk out the door, turn on the news, pick up the phone or log onto the internet. Murders are going to happen. This country was dubbed the melting pot a loooong time ago. It is a culture of vastly different cultures slammed together trying to get through life. To compare our wonderful nation to others is apples and oranges. We are certainly the most successful nation as a whole on Earth. Even within this nation, some folks end up at the bottom and feel there is no better way to make an impact than to violently act. With our Sweeps Week--Every Week media, the bigger the crime, the larger the criminal's success and so, if I crave to make an impact on this world, but cannot do it the normal ways, I need to make my statement through violence. And, no violence is more eaten up by the greedy media (don't discount the fact that they know we are terribly voyeristic when it comes to gruesome tragedies of others) than a good murder spree. Truth be told, there would be no firearms accidents and maybe even fewer murders if everyone in this country was trained in the proper use and handling of firearms. Guns are a part of our world--we need to embrace them rather than mystify them. Children should be taught by their parents and teachers the dangers of a mishandled firearm. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that for children (16 million to date) under the age of being able to actually grasp the safe handling of firearms. Does the Brady Campaign, VPC, et al. have such programs? Nope. Trust me, I would much rather have my 10-year-old striving to hit the X-ring of a target than blasting digital "bad guys" on the Playstation. I think i was about 8 when I had my first .22 rifle and about 10 when I was allowed to carry the .22 pistol around the farm I grew up on. Ya know, I got in more trouble riding my dirtbike on the road and running from the cops at 12 than I ever even dreamed of doing with a firearm. It just comes down to respect for both the power of a firearm as well as for you fellow man. I respect your opinion, but I beg to differ and will agree to disagree. I do hope that my posts and the many others in this thread helped you and others understand why ballistic *fingerprinting* just cannot work, especially with more than 250 million guns already in the hands of the people of this country. Also know that if for some strange reason, guns ever do become banned, I am moving to Texas, because that is one state sure to secede from the union and my rights will be restored!Bed time, gotta catch a Super Otter in the morning. Peace, mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #306 November 2, 2002 Mike, Quote Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! How about we start with some common sense things like not selling to criminals? Yes, they may get them otherwise, but why make it easy by letting them do it in the gun store? We can also use a little common sense in the store. When someone comes in muttering about how they just got fired and want revenge on their boss, does it make sense to immediately hand them a firearm? Quote Murders are going to happen. Yes, they are, but we could make it a little more difficult. We could also punish it a lot more. Right now, the disincentive isn't enough. Willfully taking a life doesn't have enough negative repercussions on the criminal. For every dead body, the criminal gets little more than a slap on the wrist. Quote Children should be taught by their parents and teachers the dangers of a mishandled firearm. Children of gun owners should be taught by their parents. Even as a non-gun owner, my children will know about guns. But guns have no business in our schools. Not in physical presence (which happens too often) and not otherwise. There is no reason that children should be forced into a gun culture at school if their parents don't want it. It will happen later anyway, but it should not be mandated by the school system. That is a parental responsibility, as determine by each household for their own children. Quote I do hope that my posts and the many others in this thread helped you and others understand why ballistic *fingerprinting* just cannot work Largely, they did. But I did not hear good reasons why it would be undesirable if the accuracy was better. I don't buy into the reasons people have stated why registration is bad. I don't think they are valid, when compared to the potential good. As I said earlier, I don't understand why the gun folks are against safety measures that would cut down on the "collateral damage" of gun ownership without removing the alleged right to own guns. I see that as selfish. Quote Also know that if for some strange reason, guns ever do become banned, I am moving to Texas, because that is one state sure to secede from the union and my rights will be restored! I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. If that happens, please take all your weapons with you, as the rest of us don't want them around. I'd even wish the Country of Texas well, but I will remain a resident of the United States, thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #307 November 2, 2002 After this long, you'd think I'd stay away from this thread altogether...sigh... Quote How about we start with some common sense things like not selling to criminals? Yes, they may get them otherwise, but why make it easy by letting them do it in the gun store? As far as I am aware, and I can only speak for (a poor understanding of the laws in) CA...there is a waiting period that a person must go through, to be cleared by the government to actually purchase a gun. As with most things, when this is enforced, it works. When it is not enforced, then it lets the cracks open for people to fall through. I would also like to hear your version of criminal. Do you mean someone already convicted of felonious behavior? How about a violent misdemeanor? Or a plea bargain agreement which reduces a violent misdemeanor to an infraction? Should they have served time? Or is it just simply a charge was made against them, but nothing ever came of it? Quote We can also use a little common sense in the store. When someone comes in muttering about how they just got fired and want revenge on their boss, does it make sense to immediately hand them a firearm? But wouldn't that be a problem in and unto itself? I mean, people say things all the time. I think that prevention because someone says something is far more dangerous, inasmuch as it infringes on someone's right to free speech, and the proprietor's right to free trade given the example you present. If, however, someone has a history of violent behavior, convicted of such, and it's in the record, that will be found during the waiting period (again, given that the searches are done...). And that period is already in place here. Quote For every dead body, the criminal gets little more than a slap on the wrist. Not being a legal eagle, or even a sparrow for that matter...there are already laws in place (again, here in CA) which call for enhancement of a sentence if a gun is used. If the law is in place, but not enforced, then what would the benefit be for enacting additional laws, which in turn will not be enforced? I can't see one. If the laws are uniformly enacted, and holes found, then additional measures may be in order. But I think that enforcing the laws we have is a good beginning. Quote That is a parental responsibility, as determine by each household for their own children. Agreed. It is a parental responsibility to educate their child about firearms. Quote I don't understand why the gun folks are against safety measures that would cut down on the "collateral damage" of gun ownership without removing the alleged right to own guns. I see that as selfish. I'm not against safety measures that cut down on collateral damage. What I am against is measures which cut down on my personal right to self protection. The question seems to be largely one of "balance". How do I balance my right to self protection with another's rights? If I am restricted in taking those measures I see fit to protect myself, then my rights are being infringed upon. The statistics were quoted somewhere above about the number of times guns were used to protect oneself. I think those are very important to consider when talking about this issue. Each life has value. Including mine. Including yours. Quote I'm sure they'd be happy to have you. If that happens, please take all your weapons with you, as the rest of us don't want them around. I hope I missed the sarcasm here, but you didn't put a little winky face in it, so I am concerned that you are not sarcastic. If I missed it, then I apologize.... That being said, please don't include me in your broad comment "the rest of us"....I am saddened to see that you believe your rights are more important than mine. They are not. They are equal. I am also saddened to think that you believe segregation of part of the population because they believe one thing and you believe another is an answer to this question. Segregation is never an answer. Considering the broad and oftentimes emotional commentary I see here, no wonder our legislators have a hard time finding the middle road...we can't seem to find it here. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #308 November 2, 2002 QuoteGuns are a part of our world--we need to embrace them rather than mystify them. Well this is without a doubt the biggest load of bull I've heard in a long time ... terrorists are a part of our world, too -- but we are not about to embrace them! Guns are made for one purpose: killing. Just think how many kids wouldn't be dead, how many murders and other violent crimes wouldn't be committed, if access to guns were restricted. Your culture has a deadly fascination with guns and violence, and as a result, you live in a society with a high crime rate. Why don't you look up some stats, then tell us how many Americans died at the hands of other Americans who were carrying firearms? Then compare those stats to countries where wise legislators have implimented strong gun control measures? Then we will all see the price you pay for embracing guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #309 November 3, 2002 QuoteQuoteThe screening process needs to be better. Wow! We agree on something. I am writing my Congressman and my Senator right now and asking them to mandate crystal ball research. Then, every gun seller can have an accurate look into the future of each person who wants to buy a gun. All problems solved! Justin, I wish humanity were more humane, but it's not. Ya just never know when a man is going to assault his estranged wife at her new house, or when a mom is going to run her car full of kids into a lake, or when a priest is going to rape an altar boy, or when a minister is going to seduce your wife during counseling, or when a doctor is going to sexually molest your 8-year-old daughter while she's sedated, or when a former United States Army soldier is going to start killing random people. The world is a big shit sandwich and we all gotta take a bite every time we walk out the door, turn on the news, pick up the phone or log onto the internet. Murders are going to happen. This country was dubbed the melting pot a loooong time ago. It is a culture of vastly different cultures slammed together trying to get through life. .... What a cop-out! There are other melting pot countries too, that don't have the gun violence problem the USA has. The argument that the USA is a violent nation (given by Steve several times too) is bull. If gun related homicides are excluded, the USA has a violent crime rate (rapes, assaults, battery...) much the same as Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Australia, etc. The only area in which the USA is way out of line is homicides, 70% of which are committed with guns, and the USA is the only country in which guns are easily available. The US is only more violent than other western nations in crimes where guns are used. (Not addressed just to you) we have seen bogus pro-gun statistics presented in this thread and then debunked (such as - more people drown in buckets than in gun accidents, the crime rate in Texas is lower than in Britain, that more murders are committed with hands and teeth in Texas than all murders in Britain). All these have been claimed at one time or another by a pro-gun writer in this thread, and all are false. The Lott study has been quoted to show that CCW leads to crime reduction as if it is proven fact. It isn't, other authors, just as reputable as Lott, have shown that Lott's analysis is flawed. However, the pro-gun folks never mention this at all. On the other hand, I have listed a number of statistics from various government agencies (as has Bill von), none of which has been refuted, all of which indicate very strongly that easy gun ownership is responsible in large part for the high homicide rate and gun accident rate in the USA. The best that any pro-gun person has done is cast aspersions on USDOJ statistics because Janet Reno headed the agency for a while. Bill and I took the trouble to do our homework, so why can't you folks get your facts straight before you write this tripe. Now, I am not particularly anti gun but I sure see a problem here that needs fixing. It would be best if the gun owners came up with solutions of their own rather than burying their collective heads in the sand and blaming everything from melting pots to a naturally violent tendency of US citizens. If you don't fix it yourselves, someone else will eventually fix it for you, and probably in ways that you won't like. It would also help if the gun owners would admit that in addition to a right, the 2nd Amendment also places a responsibility on them (to be "well regulated"), and stopped fighting tooth and nail against any regulation at all. Did you know that if you want to use a model rocket motor with more than 2 ounces of propellant, you need a BATF permit and have to keep it in an approved (by a BATF inspector) magazine. OTOH, you can have 50 pounds of black powder under your bed quite legally with no permit at all if you plan to use it in an antique gun. DUH! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #310 November 3, 2002 Michelle, I really don't think we are so far apart on this issue. Though you have stayed away from the debate, I welcome your presence as it is rational and considerate, even if differing in views. QuoteI would also like to hear your version of criminal. Convicted of something violence related, whether felony or misdemeaner. If a charge was made, but didn't stick, they aren't a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty. QuoteBut wouldn't that be a problem in and unto itself? I mean, people say things all the time. I think that prevention because someone says something is far more dangerous, inasmuch as it infringes on someone's right to free speech, and the proprietor's right to free trade I don't think it is a problem. If somebody is yelling and screaming in a movie theatre, the management has a right to kick them off of the property. That isn't taking away the right to free speech. It is taking away the ability to do it there and then, on someone's property. They can walk outside and yell all they want. If someone walks into a liquor store, the proprieter has the right not to sell the person booze if they are in question about the person's ID. A bartender may also cut someone off if they think the person has had too much to drink. If I were a gun store owner, I wouldn't sell to someone who was muttering about killing their boss. I wouldn't do it, legal or not, because I wouldn't want the moral responsibility and guilt if the person were to buy it and kill their boss. There will be other, better customers. QuoteNot being a legal eagle, or even a sparrow for that matter...there are already laws in place (again, here in CA) which call for enhancement of a sentence if a gun is used. If the law is in place, but not enforced, then what would the benefit be for enacting additional laws, which in turn will not be enforced? In numerous places earlier in the thread, I've mentioned that I'm not pushing for more laws. I'm in favor of better laws, and better enforcement of those laws. So, I think we actually agree on that. QuoteI'm not against safety measures that cut down on collateral damage. What I am against is measures which cut down on my personal right to self protection. The question seems to be largely one of "balance". Many in this thread have expressed hostilty to the types of safety measures that would cut down on innocent deaths while maintaining the right to have firearms for personal protection. That is what I don't understand. With such unwillingness to compromise for the common good, I see the issue as more about selfishness than equal value on human life. (I'm not throwing you in that group, as you haven't expressed yourself in that fashion.) QuoteI hope I missed the sarcasm here... I am also saddened to think that you believe segregation of part of the population because they believe one thing and you believe another is an answer to this question. Segregation is never an answer. I was responding to Mike's comment that if guns were banned in the general area where we live, he would move to Texas, because it would secede rather than give up gun rights. I don't think segregation is the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #311 November 3, 2002 Kallend, Are you still going at it? You must have an unlimited supply of hot air. Are you telling another big windy when you say you are not particularly anti-gun?....... How in the hell can you say that the US is not a violent place? I don't care if you did find some statistics that fit your argument. The U.S. is a very violent place, and it's not just due to the availability of firearms. There are many other factors involved. To compare the US to other countries in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. They have a different culture. Maybe having a lot of rules and restrictions, enforced by an all powerful government, makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #312 November 3, 2002 QuoteKallend, Are you still going at it? You must have an unlimited supply of hot air. Are you telling another big windy when you say you are not particularly anti-gun?....... How in the hell can you say that the US is not a violent place? I don't care if you did find some statistics that fit your argument. The U.S. is a very violent place, and it's not just due to the availability of firearms. There are many other factors involved. To compare the US to other countries in Europe is like comparing apples to oranges. They have a different culture. Maybe having a lot of rules and restrictions, enforced by an all powerful government, makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but I'm not buying what you are selling. Steve1 If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, it might be worth debating. As it is, you just keep saying the same thing but produce nothing to back it up. That fits my definition of "hot air". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #313 November 3, 2002 Hey, Proff Quote If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, Curious, though, as to what you would consider "valid". I mean, I see a lot of stats quoted, some from this or that website, some from this or that report, and both sides scream "subjective" or "interpretive", "hot air" or whatever, claiming skewing of data to fit one's perspective. It's human nature. So what would you consider valid data? Which study do you find purely objective, no personal interpretation? Which set of numbers do you see as accurate, and why? Not trying to poke or agitate. Just pure curiousity here. Ciels- Michele PS - did the girls ever pay you for that comment? LOL... ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #314 November 3, 2002 I already answered your question (at least twice) in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #315 November 4, 2002 Quote I already answered your question (at least twice) in this thread. Thanks, Kallend. Would you mind linking your response? It's hard to wade through the heated rhetoric to find them. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #316 November 4, 2002 If you actually produced some valid data to support your claim, it might be worth debating. As it is, you just keep saying the same thing but produce nothing to back it up. That fits my definition of "hot air". ........................................................... I'm not a big fan of statistics because they can be twisted to prove nearly any argument. There are some statistics that do stand out in my mind though. Such as there are presently 20,000 gun laws on the books that are doing little to stop gun crime in America. (I mentioned this earlier.) Studies also indicate that firearms are used over two million times a year for personal protection and the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. If these statistics aren't accurate, please refute them. I'm willing to listen. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #317 November 4, 2002 Kallend, I know you are a big fan of statistics, so I found a little more that might interest you. During the past 10 years, of the killers who shoot and kill police officers, 73% had prior criminal arrests, and 23% were actually on parole or probation. This suggests to me that our society needs to get tough with criminals and quit harassing honest gun owners with laws that don't work. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #318 November 4, 2002 Quotequit harassing honest gun owners with laws that don't work. Steve, Please define "honest gun owner", and explain how they differ at the time of gun purchase from people that legally buy guns and then later commit murders with them. Which of the differences could be partially identified and used as screening factors to make sure the "honest gun owner" can purchase guns and the would-be criminal can't, or at least, not as easily. I can think of some right off the top of my head: Substantial waiting period. Gun registration. Considering that neither of those remove your ability to buy a gun or defend yourself, what valid reasons are there for not implementing them fully? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #319 November 4, 2002 To me an honest gun owner is one who has no criminal record and abides by whatever laws are in place, at the time. Oh sure there have been some honest gun owners who have later gone on to commit a murder with them. With the millions of people who legally own guns, is this any wonder? What should we do make it impossible to buy a gun because this possibility exists? What good is a substantial waiting period? Background checks shouldn't take that long to find out if you have committed a felony or have a history of mental problems. Again substantial waiting periods would hamper an honest gun buyer who is playing by the rules. Do you think criminals are going to play by the rules? This is not an idealistic world, and never will be, no matter how many ridiculous laws you want to pass. One legal means to obtain a gun without any background check is to just buy a gun from another gun owner without any background check or registration. (At least here in Montana this is possible.) The newspapers are full of guns for sale. Another method favored by criminals is just to go into someone's home and rip one off. Again there is no paperwork involved here. I'm also against registering guns. I can not see how this is doing much to catch gun criminals. It does let the government know exactly who has legal weapons and they can go on to harass these honest gun owners, but registration also overlooks millions of guns that are not registered. Do you think a criminal is going to go in and volunteer to register his firearm? We also talked earlier of how governments can become too powerful and controlling. If you have a weapon and it's registered, the BATF knows exactly who to harass. Did you know the BATF even has it's own airforce now? That they have been known to storm and ransack people's homes because they had suspicion that someone had something illegal. One fellow was suspected of having a fully automatic weapon. The BATF knocked his door down and stormed his house like a typical SWAT operation to find nothing. The guy was innocent. They left with his house in shambles. Then there was the Randy Weaver incident in Idaho. The government spent millions investigating this guy, eventually stormed his home, killed his wife, and tried to kill him. What brought all this on. Sure he was defending his home and probably shouldn't have been firing back. But it all started over the fact that he had a shotgun with a barrel that was too short. They also had suspicions that he was plotting against the government, but I don't think they even had much evidence to support this. Is it any wonder that honest gun owners are starting to fear the government. I'm sure someone can poke holes in some of these ideas, but this is how things look to me. Steve1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #320 November 4, 2002 >I agree with that, with the one minor change. I'd say "as long as it > doesn't hinder responsible people from getting guns." I don't > understand the objections to reasonable changes that may > dramatically reduce accidental and rage-induced deaths while still > allowing gun ownership. My objection to that is that 'responsible' is a subjective interpretation. There have been times, for example, that any homosexual was considered a security risk, and had a harder time getting a security clearance since their sexuality could provide a 'lever' to blackmail them into giving out classified information. There have been times that anyone who belonged to a communist or socialist political organization was considered untrustworthy, and of course there was a long time when any black man was essentially subhuman here in the US. Now, I will admit that today we're better about that. But what criteria do we use now? Keep guns from Arabs who practice Islam? Keep guns from people who drink? Who have had traffic accidents? Who admit to smoking pot? Who are members of black or hispanic gangs/clubs? Who the 'Armor General' doesn't like? Not only would such restrictions not help much with gun crime, they would be contrary to (I believe) one of the purposes of the second amendment. If the government can restrict ownership of guns to a group of people because they fear they will use them, the very time that militias most need guns (i.e. our government has become so draconian and tyrannical that we need to resist its influence with armed force) will be the very time the government has the tools to remove those guns from the people. I have no problem taking guns away from people who have _proved_ they cannot use them responsibly i.e. anyone who uses them in a crime or even anyone who accidentally injures someone else with their weapon. But I also believe that you cannot restrict access before the fact, even if they are a heavy-drinking, evil looking Arab who prays to Allah, likes guns and lives in a bad part of town. Gun ownership carries with it risk. Tools can be misused, whether the tool is a gun, a car, a chainsaw etc. That misuse in all three cases can injure and kill people. It is a sad but unfortunate result of the freedoms we enjoy. We can certainly reduce those risks by public education of gun owners, car drivers etc and by making sure that people who do abuse those rights lose them. I'm all for that. But we cannot eliminate those risks even with more draconian laws; I don't think that we could even significantly reduce them without an outright ban. And while a ban might reduce criminal use of guns, I think it would be a classic case of the ends not justifying the means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #321 November 4, 2002 Bill, QuoteMy objection to that is that 'responsible' is a subjective interpretation. I was saying "responsible" for purposes of our debate. I would also want more concrete details before anything went further. I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense. I'm not suggesting we screen by ethnicity, color or any type of religious affiliation. First off, lets do a better job of keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns. That seems like a fairly easy distinction that shouldn't upset honest gun buyers, as it won't apply to them. Next, how about some other measures. When you apply for a driver's license, you need to take a vision test. I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. When you want a driver's license, you also have to take a driving test, at least, you do where I live. Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders? Maybe that one only applies to CCW candidates, as people can be as off the mark as they want in their own home. We'll just hope they don't hit anyone through a window or a thin apartment wall. Another limitation that has been vehemently resisted is the limit of buying one handgun per month. While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to defend themselves? That law is probably a bigger problem for potential gun smugglers than anyone else. It slows the flow of weapons from their legal owners into the gray and black markets, and therefore to criminals. A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right. I guess I feel that a few relatively minor checks in the system would be a good thing. I know many of the gun advocates feel that it is a god-given right to be able to walk in to any gun store, buy as many weapons as they want, take posession of them immediately, and do the whole thing anonymously without background checks or registration. I personally don't see the right for every private individual to purchase guns as a constitutionally-guaranteed right, but that is a difference in intepretation of the second amendment. That aside, I definitely don't see those qualifiers in the purchase process as a constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Neither does the supreme court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #322 November 4, 2002 >I'm not advocating anything that isn't basically common sense. Hmm, that's even harder to define objectively, but OK. In addition, keep in mind that law is the opposite of common sense - the law says "you may not xxx" even in cases where common sense would tell you it's OK. > . . .keeping convicted criminals from legally buying guns. Agreed. >I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. Not sure about that. Prevent a farmer with poor eyesight from buying a shotgun? Especially if he needs one due to the occasional wolf? > Would it be unreasonable to want prospective firearms owners to > stand a better chance of hitting their target than hitting bystanders? I would be against mandatory training and marksmanship standards, as that's a way to deny people with no prior record use of a gun. I would be OK with a more basic requirement, like must demonstrate ability to assemble and load the gun, eject a round and use the safety. As you cannot use the gun without knowing that, requiring that knowledge does not restrict anyone's ability to obtain and use a gun. >While you didn't specifically mention opposition to it, it appears >reasonable to me. How many handguns does an individual need to > defend themselves? Not sure about that. Like Kennedy, I would fear the slippery-slope effect i.e. next year the anti-gun lobby starts with "No one needs more than one gun a year! Someone please PROVE you need a gun a month to defend yourself." I would also have to see some evidence that illegal arms dealers really walk into stores, present their unaltered ID and buy 100 Glocks to resell illegally before I'd believe that that would make a difference. >A waiting period between initiating purchase and actual posession of >the firearm also seems reasonable to me. Once again, it doesn't > prevent law-abiding people from purchasing weapons, and therefore > doesn't violate what they feel is their second amendment right. I am ambivalent about this one as well. If you could produce statistics that, say, 10% of gun crime occurred less than a day after purchase of a handgun, you might have a good case for a _short_ waiting period, but again I'd have to see those stats. Some states have waiting periods - has that decreased illegal use of guns there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #323 November 4, 2002 Quote>I'd like to think that people buying guns would also have to see. --------------------------------------------- Not sure about that. Prevent a farmer with poor eyesight from buying a shotgun? Especially if he needs one due to the occasional wolf? Maybe that only applies to handguns, or maybe just concealed weapons permits. If people only use weapons on their own land, I don't really care what they do there. (Well, as long as they don't accidently kill the neighbor's kid or something.) QuoteI would be against mandatory training and marksmanship standards, as that's a way to deny people with no prior record use of a gun. Honest question... can't you walk into a firing range and rent a "house gun" or something without owning one yourself? Just like having some requirement for driving with an instructor (driver's ed) before getting a driver's license, I don't see a problem requiring a basic weapon familiarization course, provided facilities exist. They could cover the basics of assembly, loading and safeties, as you noted, plus the chance to put a few rounds downrange. QuoteNot sure about that. Like Kennedy, I would fear the slippery-slope effect i.e. next year the anti-gun lobby starts with "No one needs more than one gun a year! Someone please PROVE you need a gun a month to defend yourself." I fear the slippery-slope effect in the other direction. Where do we draw the line in what weapons people have the right to own? Handguns? Rifles? Automatic rifles? Rocket launchers, etc? The debate can get absurd. If we can agree that some things shouldn't be in the public's hands (NBC weapons, etc.) and some should (pocket knives, etc.), the whole debate becomes where in the middle the line should be drawn. I'm certainly willing to be reasonable about it. All I'm asking is that the other side be reasonable as well, without using the second amendment as a catch-all for everything and a justification against any limitations whatsoever. QuoteI am ambivalent about this one as well. If you could produce statistics that, say, 10% of gun crime occurred less than a day after purchase of a handgun, you might have a good case for a _short_ waiting period, but again I'd have to see those stats. I see the reason for a waiting period as two-fold. First, it may prevent some of the "heat of the moment" crime. The second, and more important reason is to allow time for a meaningful background check. This check should make sure the person isn't a criminal. Given the inefficiency in government and law enforcement, it may take a little while. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the bureaucracy, but I think that the checks should be thorough. If they could be done quicker with equal or better accuracy, I'd happily see the waiting periods reduced. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #324 November 4, 2002 QuoteI see the reason for a waiting period as two-fold. First, it may prevent some of the "heat of the moment" crime. The second, and more important reason is to allow time for a meaningful background check. This check should make sure the person isn't a criminal. Given the inefficiency in government and law enforcement, it may take a little while. I'm not defending the ineptitude of the bureaucracy, but I think that the checks should be thorough. If they could be done quicker with equal or better accuracy, I'd happily see the waiting periods reduced. When I lived in Maryland they had a 7 day waiting period, one of the longest in the country... their meaningful background check took 2 days to mail the paperwork to the state, 15 minutes to do the check, and 2 days to mail it back to the dealer, then a few days of BS time... When I lived in Arizona, the check was instant (well, the same 15 minutes, but it was while you waited in the store), then you could leave with the gun (if you passed the check). Who do you think has a higher murder rate (per capita)? Maryland.All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #325 November 4, 2002 QuoteBut you cannot legitimately dispute that some people buy guns legally and then use them to wound or kill innocent people. No I can't dispute that. We call these things assault and homicide, and there are already laws against that. QuoteTell it to the innocent dead folks, killed by people who walked into a gun store and bought it within the limits of the law. Tell it to the innocent dead folks who were killed by enraged people with valid concealed carry permits. Look at the mother whose child gets killed by a careless gun owner's child in the eye and tell her all about your "rights". Aren't you the one who said "innocent until proven guilty?" You're saying a person is guilty until he proves to you he is innocent. I don't buy it. Less than 1% of all guns will be used in a crime. Why give issues to people holding the other 99%? Safety? B.S. Target the people holding that 1% of guns. QuoteEach incident where somebody takes advantage of their "god given right" to buy a gun legally in this country and then murder somebody with it does more harm to the pro-gun faction than you can possibly imagine. And it happens all the time. More than I can possibly imagine? Are you kidding me? Do you know what Project Exhile is? I supported it. Directly. Through my contributions to the NRA-ILA. Under Project Exhile, anyone convicted of commiting a crime with a gun gets the normal sentnce for the crime, plus five years determinate sentence, plus goes to Federal pen rather than state. You know what happened in Richmond when they instituted PE? The murder rate [one of the five worst at the time of insitution] fell in half. Yes, half. They punished the CRIMINALS, not the entire citizenry. Another "mantra" I happen to like? Crime Control, not Gun Control. I'm not going to reply to each time, but you put words into my mouth that I never have or would. QuoteI am appalled at the callous lack of value placed on innocent human life. It is more important to you to protect your right to own a gun than to protect human life itself. I place a great deal of value on human life. But you miss one thing. When it comes down to it, I happen to value mine just a bit more than most other people's. QuoteIf you don't believe that, then explain why you are unwilling to accept compromises that would lessen the frequency of innocent people dying while still allowing you to own weapons. We don't need compromises. The best way to reduce crime is to remove criminals. Enforce laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, and let me own, buy, use, etc. firearms as I please. QuoteBut the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the pro-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself. But the dishonesty, disrespect and selfishness of many of the anti-gun people infuriates even moderates like myself.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
