| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's unfortunate that no matter how many times tired arguments like, "Why don't we ban cars? They kill more people!" or "If we banned guns people would still kill each other!" are shown to be wrong or fundamentally flawed, they are still repeated by the same people each time the issue is raised.
Betts, have you noticed that we agree more than we disagree?Yes, though frankly that's true of most people. There is very little that your average person disagrees with any other average person on. But the handful of significant issues that people do disagree on is capable of creating all the tension in public discourse that we see. It's important to keep that in mind, even when in passionate disagreement over something. You're arguing over one thing, not everything.
I should note, this cautionary tale applies to me just as readily as everyone else in this thread.
Even on this one specific issue, we seem to agree about 75% of the time. I just put more faith in mental health and less in legislation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even on this one specific issue, we seem to agree about 75% of the time. I just put more faith in mental health and less in legislation.Betts, have you noticed that we agree more than we disagree?Yes, though frankly that's true of most people. There is very little that your average person disagrees with any other average person on. But the handful of significant issues that people do disagree on is capable of creating all the tension in public discourse that we see. It's important to keep that in mind, even when in passionate disagreement over something. You're arguing over one thing, not everything.
I should note, this cautionary tale applies to me just as readily as everyone else in this thread.
I'm choosing to put my faith in legislation that focuses on mental health. It would also be cool if we could stop the disturbing romance between gun ownership and over-the-top nationalism. Or maybe just put an end to the over-the-top nationalism in general.
I'm on board.
Cell Phones in the Pockets of Dead Children
“The cell phones were still ringing in the pockets of
the dead children –Adam Gopnik
Not only in Aurora’s movie theaters,
not only in the corridors of schools,
on the streets of Jerusalem,
Los Angeles, Newtown, Chicago,
where bullet-pocked walls,
the acne of an adolescent race,
remind us how we kill with guns,
how we die, destroyed in a second,
our souls now leaden.
So generations later someone
who has traveled across the stars,
will read a poem
about the sound of cell phones
ringing in the pockets of dead children
remarking: What are cell phones?
What are guns?
What are children?
©2012 Jane Yolen all rights reserved
It lacks much in poetic ability, but not in agreeing with your side of the gun debate
Methinks your disagreement with the message is colouring your view of it.
But I find it thought provoking that many on the pro-gun side are also very keen on the whole "morality" issue - yet they don't seem to find it morally wrong that their "need" (I should say want instead) for having guns outweighs the desire of others to not get shot by those guns.
I've heard that China is kind of a big, perhaps even larger then the USA, and also that they may have more people. In two years and at least seven different incidents they only seem to have managed to tie what the good old USA and it's easy access to firearms produced in one horrific instance.China is a police state with severe restrictions on people's rights and freedoms. I blame the low murder rate on that more so than on what weapons they have lying around.
In China the only people with guns are the communist party paramilitary police, which is definitely one way to make sure that your country has minuscule amounts of violent crime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It lacks much in poetic ability, but not in agreeing with your side of the gun debateMethinks your disagreement with the message is colouring your view of it.
But I find it thought provoking that many on the pro-gun side are also very keen on the whole "morality" issue - yet they don't seem to find it morally wrong that their "need" (I should say want instead) for having guns outweighs the desire of others to not get shot by those guns.
Well part of it is the feeling that their rights should not be infringed due to the horrible behavior of someone else.
|
Well part of it is the feeling that their rights should not be infringed due to the horrible behavior of someone else.
This has a lot to do with it yes. Especially when those that are responsible for the horrible behaviors are but a small fraction of the equation... And then when we do speak of this, we're called heartless and unfeeling and that we trivialize these types of incidents and call them “acceptable statistics”, and so don’t care about the people who have died or their families. I can tell you that this is THE reason we bring up the car analogy, because we know that it will dismissed as “not the same thing”, with “society needs automobiles, but it doesn’t need guns” among the top reason given; and it this answer in particular that baffles us, because doesn’t that mean that we agree that there is such a thing as an “acceptable statistic” when it comes to the loss of human life as tragic as that already is??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that those who want more control over who can have which types of guns see the victims' right to life as trumping someone else's right to a firearm. That's where many of them are coming from and it does come across as callous when someone asks, "do we need to have weapons with high rates of fire and large magazines available to the general public?" and someone responds with "why are you trampling on my rights?" I think that it's a very fair question to ask. What limits should there be on our right to bear arms? I sincerely hope that we can all agree that there should be some limits somewhere.
|
|
What we need more than tighter gun controlling laws, is to educate people in the proper use, and proper safety and handling of firearms. This would not eliminate incidents such as this one, but I am sure it would help lessen their frequency because people would know how to keep their firearms properly stored and secured. It would help lower the number of firearms related accidents and negligent discharges! One of the most asinine reasons given for a ND is: "I didn't know the gun was loaded!" Proper firearm safety says to ALLWAYS make sure the firearm is not loaded and to treat ALL firearms as if they were.
When I was in grade school, gun safety was a part of the curriculum. To teach young children (and adults for that matter) to respect rather than to fear guns would go a long way in helping to mitigate accidental shootings and such. I do realize that this would not really help with gun violence in general, but it would help in keeping guns that are owned by responsible people from getting into the wrong hands - because a gun that is not accessible is a gun that is not used inappropriately...
I guess that those who want more control over who can have which types of guns ...
I guess it depends on how you are making those determinations, wouldn't you agree? It isn't right to judge people based on the actions of others. If it could be shown that asian-american females* were statistically more likely to use a firearm to harm someone else, I still don't think that people would be okay with saying it would be acceptable to limit an individual asian-american woman's right to own a firearm based on that. That is because we are not okay with making judgements about individuals based on groups they may be similar to. Make judgements about individuals based on the behavior of that individual.
*I'm very sure that there are no actual statistics that hold such a finding. This was merely a theoretical idea.
|
|
What limits should there be on our right to bear arms? I sincerely hope that we can all agree that there should be some limits somewhere.
We have very fair laws already in place. The problem is that some of them are not always properly enforced...
I think that instead of making new laws, we should try to enforce the ones we already have...
We already have to go through a background check to buy a handgun in almost every state.
Most states have a waiting period on at least handguns...
We already have laws restricting the use and ownership of NFA items (fully automatic firearms, silencers, etc.) And these laws seem to work really well as it stands.
A good number of states have a ban on rifles such as AR-15's and Kalashnikov style weapons...
The list goes on...
Just enforce the laws we have!
When I was in grade school, gun safety was a part of the curriculum. To teach young children (and adults for that matter) to respect rather than to fear guns would go a long way in helping to mitigate accidental shootings and such. I do realize that this would not really help with gun violence in general, but it would help in keeping guns that are owned by responsible people from getting into the wrong hands - because a gun that is not accessible is a gun that is not used inappropriately...
Seriously? Where did you go to school? I think this is a good idea. But then you always would have people that were home schooled and such, sigh.
Honestly, when I was around 12 or 13 years old, my dad had a bunch of rifles hanging above the bed that were always loaded. We had a problem with coyotes and feral dogs attacking our chickens, chasing our horse etc etc. If they weren't loaded they would have been useless. I knew what they were and what they did and didn't touch them unless we were doing target practice or something like that. Unfortunately, my dad invited a friend home from work and his friend brought along his kid. Long story short the kid got into my p's bedroom, came out aiming a rifle at me saying "Im going to kill you hahaha" Well, I got lucky and kicked the rifle out of his hand and stomped him into oblivion. He later said he thought it was a BB gun. So maybe a class in school would have helped, I don't know. I have thought ever since, WHY does Daisy make bb and pellet guns to look like rifles. Can't they make them look different so it's obvious?
In either case, does it matter whose FAULT it would have been? My parents irresponsibility not locking up guns or having them not loaded? This kid's parent for letting him wander an unknown house? The kid's fault because he was stupid? The gun's fault for being there? I'm pretty sure if I had got shot I would not have given a crap whose FAULT it was. Seeing as the nearest hospital was over an hour away, I probably wouldn't even be posting this. Dead is Dead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I can tell you that this is THE reason we bring up the car analogy, because we know that it will dismissed as “not the same thing”, with “society needs automobiles, but it doesn’t need guns” among the top reason given; and it this answer in particular that baffles us, because doesn’t that mean that we agree that there is such a thing as an “acceptable statistic” when it comes to the loss of human life as tragic as that already is??
Cars are TIGHTLY REGULATED. As has been said by myself and others many times. You have to have license to drive a car. You have to register your car. You have to have insurance for your car. There are police that monitor how you operate your car. You are unable to obtain your license to drive a car if you are deemed unfit. We have regulations on ladders, stairs, roads, food, alcohol, tobacco...
But the moment we start talking about having waiting periods, licenses, and strict regulation on high capacity assault rifles, people think that their liberties are being trampled on. In Canada they have a 28 day waiting period and in order to make a firearms purchase they have to have 2 people vouch for them. Why can't we do something like that? Why can't we perform strict background checks that include the buyer's mental health history along with the people living under the same roof as the buyer?
We are not talking about a ban of firearms. We just want them regulated like we do cars, airplanes, and ladders.
We need easier access to mental health care and tight regulation over firearms.
I've heard that China is kind of a big, perhaps even larger then the USA, and also that they may have more people. In two years and at least seven different incidents they only seem to have managed to tie what the good old USA and it's easy access to firearms produced in one horrific instance.China is a police state with severe restrictions on people's rights and freedoms. I blame the low murder rate on that more so than on what weapons they have lying around.In China the only people with guns are the communist party paramilitary police, which is definitely one way to make sure that your country has minuscule amounts of violent crime.
Just making the violence legal because its unilateral doesn't count
|
|
What limits should there be on our right to bear arms? I sincerely hope that we can all agree that there should be some limits somewhere.We have very fair laws already in place. The problem is that some of them are not always properly enforced...
I think that instead of making new laws, we should try to enforce the ones we already have...
We already have to go through a background check to buy a handgun in almost every state.
Most states have a waiting period on at least handguns...
We already have laws restricting the use and ownership of NFA items (fully automatic firearms, silencers, etc.) And these laws seem to work really well as it stands.
A good number of states have a ban on rifles such as AR-15's and Kalashnikov style weapons...
The list goes on...
Just enforce the laws we have!
I waited 15 minutes to buy a handgun. The background check was extremely modest. Canada has a 28 day waiting period on firearms. Only 5 states have waiting periods in the USA. Of those, Hawaii and California have the longest waiting periods (10 and 14 days respectively). The rest are trivially short. As far as bans on assault weapons, I am only aware of a ban in 4 states, 1 county, and a partial ban in Connecticut. Is that a good number? In my state I can buy a fully automatic machine gun as long as it was made prior to 1986.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cars are TIGHTLY REGULATED.I was talking about "acceptable statistics", not about banning cars.
Tightly regulated is not the same thing as a ban. When you bring up your car analogy in order to demonstrate acceptable statistics you are ignoring the fact that cars are heavily regulated. If they weren't, that acceptable statistic would be much worse.
Making the car analogy is absurd in its own right. Are you suggesting that because the we accept accidental automobile deaths we should accept intentional murder with firearms deaths? When I enter into my car I am accepting the risk that comes along with it. I have become a player by being behind the wheel. When my crazy neighbor buys a high capacity AR-15, I did not voluntarily agree to be a player. I am not participating in anything that should put me at risk of being shot.
We should do everything possible to keep death stats low - whether it be regulations on the automobile industry for safety, on automobile drivers, on the safety of our food, or on firearms. The only one not taken seriously is on firearms.
|
|
I waited 15 minutes to buy a handgun. The background check was extremely modest.
Law not properly enforced...
Canada has a 28 day waiting period on firearms. Only 5 states have waiting periods in the USA. Of those, Hawaii and California have the longest waiting periods (10 and 14 days respectively). The rest are trivially short.
California has a 10 day wait, and also has the most stringent gun control laws in the country. But the "instant background check" a lot of states have is in lieu of the waiting period, and that check is fee based (and usually costs more than just having to wait)...
As far as bans on assault weapons, I am only aware of a ban in 4 states, 1 county, and a partial ban in Connecticut. Is that a good number?
There are several cities that ban them, and I was including all of these when I said "a good number of states", which was perhaps too broad of a statement...
In my state I can buy a fully automatic machine gun as long as it was made prior to 1986.
This is true for most states actually. And the well is drying up because of that whole "prior to 1986" thing. But the laws in place for NFA items are VERY restrictive...
You can't travel with it across state lines without permission, and even then you have to be very specific in what you intend to do with it while traveling (such as where will you be, and the times you will be there), you can't leave it to another family member when you die (unless special arrangements were made when filling out your Form 4), you practically cannot ever let it out of your sight (I mean you can't even let a non Class III dealer do any gunsmithing work on it without you being there to watch). So like I said, these laws (concerning NFA items) tend to work rather well...
|
|
Are you suggesting that because the we accept accidental automobile deaths we should accept intentional murder with firearms deaths?
Not all car related deaths are accidental, and not all gun related deaths are intentional murders... Just sayin'...
When I enter into my car I am accepting the risk that comes along with it. I have become a player by being behind the wheel.
True...
When my crazy neighbor buys a high capacity AR-15, I did not voluntarily agree to be a player. I am not participating in anything that should put me at risk of being shot.
But in a way you are...
If you live in the United States, then you live in a free society that bestows several rights to its people. One of them is the right to keep and bear arms, so that means that you are by default participating in something that puts you (along with everyone else in the country) at a certain level of risk.
All rights being equal, your right to not be shot ends the moment you limit my right to own a firearm, because the part of the 2nd Amendment people keep leaving out is "Shall not be infringed". And the definition of infringed is: "encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way (emphasis mine). So by telling me I can only buy this type of firearm over here and not that other one over there (because that one over there is Evil), is encroaching upon my rights...
And I am not saying that all limitations are a bad thing, because I fully agree that we need laws that place boundaries concerning firearms and their usage, but what makes a limitation bad or good is the reason(s) behind the limitation; and I don't think that a few nut balls that can't handle the stress of life is a good enough reason to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment right...
Also, let me say that I don't consider telling me that I need a license to buy something like an NFA item for example, to be an encroachment upon my rights because that clearly (at least to me anyway) is a good boundary on the use of specific firearms...
We should do everything possible to keep death stats low - whether it be regulations on the automobile industry for safety, on automobile drivers, on the safety of our food, or on firearms. The only one not taken seriously is on firearms.
But there is such a thing as doing too much...
I think some of the regulations put on food is ridiculous in some cases. As for firearms however, as I've said upthread, I think that if we shore up the laws already in place, and give them an honest try, we'll find that they are quite sufficient...
Also to point out that there are people rundown by cars, intentionally or not. Thus you may be harmed by an automobile even if you never become a "player".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Firstly, my existence in the country does not meet any rational criteria for me becoming a player. I was born here. I committed no action that placed me in the game. When I get behind the wheel of a car I am committing an action that makes me a player.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I own guns. I believe we have the right to own them. My argument is that requiring licenses, extensive background checks, and lengthy waiting periods does not encroach on your 2nd amendment rights. I also believe that the 2nd Amendment does not protect your right to own a high capacity AR-15. If we are going to be strict, it should really only protect your right to own a musket that you are forced to load between shots. The founding fathers had no idea how advanced guns would become. This argument is often thrown aside by anti-gun control proponents. But if the 2nd amendment is meant to cover all guns for the rest of time it is an absurd law.
Well part of it is the feeling that their rights should not be infringed due to the horrible behavior of someone else.It lacks much in poetic ability, but not in agreeing with your side of the gun debateMethinks your disagreement with the message is colouring your view of it.
But I find it thought provoking that many on the pro-gun side are also very keen on the whole "morality" issue - yet they don't seem to find it morally wrong that their "need" (I should say want instead) for having guns outweighs the desire of others to not get shot by those guns.
It's a privilege set up by an outdated law, horribly misinterpreted and very much due to be revised based on the current society and technological advancements.
And what about people's rights to Life? I.e. not being shot by said weapons?What is "easiest" to do without? Guns or your life?
No one should need a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon in Western society.
I cannot ride around in a steel tank with a giant battering ram spike on the front so I can kill more people when i hit them, so why can i have a 100 round drum magazine ?
|
|
Firstly, my existence in the country does not meet any rational criteria for me becoming a player. I was born here. I committed no action that placed me in the game.
Like it or not, accept it or not, the fact remains that since you were born here puts you "in the game"...
The founding fathers had no idea how advanced guns would become.
The founding fathers had no idea how advanced most things we have would become...
So, should we go back to the printing press because the founding fathers did not take the internet into consideration?? Yes, I'm being ridiculous, but so are you with that statement...
This argument is often thrown aside by anti-gun control proponents. But if the 2nd amendment is meant to cover all guns for the rest of time it is an absurd law.
It's thrown aside because it is absurd. The Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing document. It (the whole document, 2nd Amendment and all) is just as relevant today as it was 236 years ago...
|
A part of the problem of these incidents is because so many people don't carry the weapons around with them to put a stop to them.
If any of the adults there had a gun, they could of used it against the shooter, putting a stop to him before he killed so many.
In fact this actually happened at the recent mall shooting when a shopper took out his gun and pointed at the shooter, the shooter stopped shooting everyone else, and took his own life.
I do agree with schools having classes on guns, and needing a liscense is a good idea as well, but also the ability to actually carry weapons around will help (how much it helps depends on how many actually do so) because then people present will be more likely to be able to stop an individual from doing harm.
Well part of it is the feeling that their rights should not be infringed due to the horrible behavior of someone else.It lacks much in poetic ability, but not in agreeing with your side of the gun debateMethinks your disagreement with the message is colouring your view of it.
But I find it thought provoking that many on the pro-gun side are also very keen on the whole "morality" issue - yet they don't seem to find it morally wrong that their "need" (I should say want instead) for having guns outweighs the desire of others to not get shot by those guns.It's a privilege set up by an outdated law, horribly misinterpreted and very much due to be revised based on the current society and technological advancements.
And what about people's rights to Life? I.e. not being shot by said weapons?
What is "easiest" to do without? Guns or your life?
No one should need a handgun or a semi-automatic weapon in Western society.
Some may view the right to religion as an outdated privilege. Certainly religion is used for oppression and violence of others, and the removal of it could arguable make life more peaceful.
In my country if enough people believe that something is no longer a right, they can take measures to change it. That it is extremely difficult to do so (and should be, rights should not be removed merely because people are upset for a day or a week or month) shouldn't be an excuse not to do it. It can be done.
As for technology changes, well it is a good thing that the people that wrote that law weren't familiar with technological advancement. I mean, yeah, they could have looked back and saw that societies had moved from slings and spears to arrows to crossbows to muskets. I mean it is clear they didn't think that it would ever advance further, that is why they put in the phrase, "...right to bear a musket..."
Right to life? Oh no, are we going to have an abortion debate now.
Funny, in my country we have laws that punish people that use their guns to harm others. Is that something other countries don't do? You do something that harms others, you lose your rights. But if you do something that harms others doesn't mean that your neighbor should lose their rights as well.
No one "should" need one. Sadly, there are too many cases where other people try to harm someone and they do need something to protect themselves. What is the old saying, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." As someone that is smaller than average, the idea that I should be protect my family with my bare hands in the same way that a 6'3" 270 lb guy could and if I can't then I some how deserve to be victimized is offensive.
|
|
Go explain to their parents and their friends how your right to play with whatever toys you want trumps their right to not be gunned down in their classroom.
And there is! Just like I said upthread, I'm somehow a heartless bastard because I think that while what occurred in Connecticut was a tragedy; my rights should not be infringed upon because someone else grossly misused a dangerous tool...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like it or not, accept it or not, the fact remains that since you were born here puts you "in the game"...
Only because of outdated concepts and ideology. It isn't morally right that it does. It needs to be changed - and it will. The only point in slowing it down is spite.
So, should we go back to the printing press because the founding fathers did not take the internet into consideration?? Yes, I'm being ridiculous, but so are you with that statement...
I agree that you are being ridiculous. I do not agree that my statement is ridiculous. Your statement makes no sense and is a wonderful example of abusing reductio ad absurdum - something that happens often among those who oppose gun control measures. The internet isn't designed to kill anyone. Certain guns are. As firearms become more advance, and capable of killing more people, a line must be drawn somewhere. I believe it is rational to draw it prior to semi-automatic assault style firearms.
It's thrown aside because it is absurd. The Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing document. It (the whole document, 2nd Amendment and all) is just as relevant today as it was 236 years ago...
Why is it absurd? The founding fathers didn't envision an AR-15 when they made that amendment. They envisioned a single shot firearm. You are right that the constitution is a living and breathing document. It is meant to adapt to a changing society. However, the 2nd Amendment hasn't changed even though the definition of what a gun is has changed. The reason is because some folks misidentify regulation of firearms as a violation of their 2nd amendment rights.
I'm just waiting for the claims that the killings were carried out by presidential decree, in order to increase public support for gun control.
It will happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A part of the problem of these incidents is because so many people don't carry the weapons around with them to put a stop to them.
If any of the adults there had a gun, they could of used it against the shooter, putting a stop to him before he killed so many.
In fact this actually happened at the recent mall shooting when a shopper took out his gun and pointed at the shooter, the shooter stopped shooting everyone else, and took his own life.
I do agree with schools having classes on guns, and needing a liscense is a good idea as well, but also the ability to actually carry weapons around will help (how much it helps depends on how many actually do so) because then people present will be more likely to be able to stop an individual from doing harm.
Yes, because every gun owner is a deadshot John McClane, instantly ready and prepared to take out any would be shooter, with no risk to anyone in the vicinity, certainly not kids in a classroom.
Reality called, you're way over the border.
Some might say that video games can lead to death.
Is people's right to play video games really worth the lives that have been lost.
I bet there are a lot of heartless people on here that will go on and continue to play video games despite the harm it does to others. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror?
|
|
A part of the problem of these incidents is because so many people don't carry the weapons around with them to put a stop to them.
If any of the adults there had a gun, they could of used it against the shooter, putting a stop to him before he killed so many.
In fact this actually happened at the recent mall shooting when a shopper took out his gun and pointed at the shooter, the shooter stopped shooting everyone else, and took his own life.
I do agree with schools having classes on guns, and needing a liscense is a good idea as well, but also the ability to actually carry weapons around will help (how much it helps depends on how many actually do so) because then people present will be more likely to be able to stop an individual from doing harm.
So you think that adults should pack heat while working at an elementary school?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some might say that video games can lead to death.
Is people's right to play video games really worth the lives that have been lost.
I bet there are a lot of heartless people on here that will go on and continue to play video games despite the harm it does to others. How can you look at yourselves in the mirror?
I will never understand arguments that equate deaths from devices that are misused with deaths caused by devices that are used as intended. It is blatantly obvious to me that there is a substantial difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...my rights should not be infringed upon because someone else grossly misused a dangerous tool...
Except that it was used exactly for the purpose for which it is designed -- killing people. We're not talking about a hammer here. Handguns are weapons, period. They exist to harm or kill people.
Every society has to strike a balance when the rights of its members come into conflict. We all accept that being part of a society means we relinquish certain freedoms. Gun ownership is no different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some may view the right to religion as an outdated privilege. Certainly religion is used for oppression and violence of others, and the removal of it could arguable make life more peaceful.
You can't kill someone with religion. Religion might spur you to kill other people (as we've seen with pretty much every religion), but you don't kill them with religion itself. So it's an absurd comparison.
In my country if enough people believe that something is no longer a right, they can take measures to change it. That it is extremely difficult to do so (and should be, rights should not be removed merely because people are upset for a day or a week or month) shouldn't be an excuse not to do it. It can be done.
See below.
As for technology changes, well it is a good thing that the people that wrote that law weren't familiar with technological advancement. I mean, yeah, they could have looked back and saw that societies had moved from slings and spears to arrows to crossbows to muskets. I mean it is clear they didn't think that it would ever advance further, that is why they put in the phrase, "...right to bear a musket..."
I think you give too much credit to those people. Sure, they were probably a pretty smart bunch, but for them to foresee todays automatic weapons? Get a grip.
Besides, they put in place rules for changing the laws. You don't need to bear arms today, nor do you need a militia. So it's time to change the laws.Right to life? Oh no, are we going to have an abortion debate now.
You know perfectly well what I mean, since I've mentioned it above too. The right not to be killed by someone else using a gun.
Funny, in my country we have laws that punish people that use their guns to harm others. Is that something other countries don't do? You do something that harms others, you lose your rights. But if you do something that harms others doesn't mean that your neighbor should lose their rights as well.
Retroactively, yes. But by then it's already too late for the victims.
How about being proactive for once?By your line of thinking here, you should be able to possess any type of weapon. Just because your neighbour nuked someone shouldn't mean that you can't have nukes, right?
Or maybe limit it to those weapons you can "bear" (according to Justice Scalia), so you'd be limited to stuff like rocket launchers and such. On the other hand, you could actually carry around small tactical nukes.
No one "should" need one. Sadly, there are too many cases where other people try to harm someone and they do need something to protect themselves. What is the old saying, "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." As someone that is smaller than average, the idea that I should be protect my family with my bare hands in the same way that a 6'3" 270 lb guy could and if I can't then I some how deserve to be victimized is offensive.
There are many other ways to defend yourself. Get a dog. Have a club like object ready. Take self defense classes. No one has mentioned anything about defending themselves bare handed.
Oh, and work to make your society a place where people don't need to attack others or burglarize them, that should cut down on your need to defend yourself too.
|
...I can tell you that this is THE reason we bring up the car analogy, because we know that it will dismissed as “not the same thing”, with “society needs automobiles, but it doesn’t need guns” among the top reason given; and it this answer in particular that baffles us, because doesn’t that mean that we agree that there is such a thing as an “acceptable statistic” when it comes to the loss of human life as tragic as that already is??Cars are TIGHTLY REGULATED. As has been said by myself and others many times. You have to have license to drive a car. You have to register your car. You have to have insurance for your car. There are police that monitor how you operate your car. You are unable to obtain your license to drive a car if you are deemed unfit. We have regulations on ladders, stairs, roads, food, alcohol, tobacco...
But the moment we start talking about having waiting periods, licenses, and strict regulation on high capacity assault rifles, people think that their liberties are being trampled on. In Canada they have a 28 day waiting period and in order to make a firearms purchase they have to have 2 people vouch for them. Why can't we do something like that? Why can't we perform strict background checks that include the buyer's mental health history along with the people living under the same roof as the buyer?
We are not talking about a ban of firearms. We just want them regulated like we do cars, airplanes, and ladders.
We need easier access to mental health care and tight regulation over firearms.
not very tightly regulated at all. I can walk up to anyone selling a car hand them cash and leave with the car and do what i want with it. To legally drive it yes but to get it NO, not regulated
|
|
...my rights should not be infringed upon because someone else grossly misused a dangerous tool...Except that it was used exactly for the purpose for which it is designed -- killing people. We're not talking about a hammer here. Handguns are weapons, period. They exist to harm or kill people.
Every society has to strike a balance when the rights of its members come into conflict.
People or animals. and picking the wrong target is misuse. you anti gun folks are smarter than this, i know you are
The founding fathers had no idea how advanced guns would become.The founding fathers had no idea how advanced most things we have would become...
So, should we go back to the printing press because the founding fathers did not take the internet into consideration?? Yes, I'm being ridiculous, but so are you with that statement...
I think you would find that the percentage of people killed by actual printing presses is very low. So, yes, it's a ridiculous statement and a fallacious comparison.
This argument is often thrown aside by anti-gun control proponents. But if the 2nd amendment is meant to cover all guns for the rest of time it is an absurd law.It's thrown aside because it is absurd. The Constitution was designed to be a living, breathing document. It (the whole document, 2nd Amendment and all) is just as relevant today as it was 236 years ago...
Stop holding the Constitution up as some infallible piece of legislation. It's not. It's a product of its time and some parts of it are long overdue a rehaul.
Handguns are weapons, period. They exist to harm or kill people.People or animals. and picking the wrong target is misuse. you anti gun folks are smarter than this, i know you are
Go big-game hunting with handguns often, do you?