I'm still trying to figure out what good really comes from guns being everywhere.

Truly, just look at the statistics. Even for "protection" weapons, how many of those weapons actually save a life versus how many end up accidently killing a child or something?

I guess I just wish there were an easy answer. I don't think banning guns will solve much, but there's just so damn many of them out there and I fail to see what good comes from that.

"right to bear arms" should be changed to "ability to bear arms under law and if you are not southern" and all of this would be fixed

_________________

for every accidental shooting of a child, there are a LOT more homes where children and guns peacefully coexist without incident. It's just sensationalized whenever it happens.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

And guess what? In 100% of homes with no guns, there have been no accidental shootings.

And no gun suicides, ether.

Maybe that needs to be sensationalized. There's a lot more homes without guns than with them. (you do the math-- 44 million gun owners, average home size 2.59 people, 300 million+ US population)

I'm not sure how folks inability to manage their firearms has ANYTHING to do with the right to bear arms. Attack their own lack of personal responsibility and wage a campaign there. Because THAT is the real tragedy.

For the record, I'm a marksman with most handguns, and the day I had my daughter in my house, I got rid of my 9mm (it also helps I live on the 30th floor of a WELL secured building downtown, so no need). Once she's old enough, I will teach her how to use them properly, and give them the respect and distance they require.

In 100 percent of homes with no toaster ovens, there have been no house fires caused by toasters.

Naturally a house can still catch fire, just as a human can still die without being shot.

not sure what your point is... that we can go ahead and make homes as dangerous as we want, because people will die anyway?

That people can utilize both of the above items and still remain safe. The question is how you go about using them. And it's not as if we're making every home "dangerous", people choose whether or not to allow them in their homes. It's a risk based on their own assessment of how responsible they can be with said item.

I have no problems with requiring waiting periods, or requiring training before allowing a purchase -- as long as anyone in law enforcement is required to have the SAME amount of training as a civilian who wishes to purchase a gun, preferably more.

In Georgia, the amount of firearms training it requires to be a police offer is sickeningly low. An hour or two in a classroom and that is all, and there are people who want to require a week's worth of classes for civilians to purchase a gun, but do not want to apply the same standard to police.

As long as ALL GUN LAWS are applied equally to police, federal agencies and civilians alike, then I have no problems with them.

(outside of automatic/military classed weapons, of course. I see no need for a civilian to have a fully automatic anything, or anything higher than a 45 caliber pistol or 308 caliber rifle -- though I AM against the "assault weapons" ban)

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Vana, I can go along with a lot of that-- there's definitely a lot of common ground there between you and me.

Well said, Vana. I'm not sure if I agree with everything there, but I can certainly find more to agree with there than the idea of repealing the second amendment.

My husband's agency has to qualify quarterly with a range master. I have no idea how much time he spent in the academy on it...but it might have also been low. The amount of time spent learning REALLY isn't the issue, it's what they have to do to qualify, and how they have to maintain.

And I'm sure those gun owners aren't going to want to go to the range for 5 hours every 3 months.

_________________

I'm in full agreement with Van.

I'm at the range far more than five hours every three months I probably go to the range at least one hour a week if not more (I don't keep a clock on my time, the range does though..maybe I should ask) -- I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners (in Georgia at least) would go through quarterly qualifications if absolutely necessary, though I feel that for civilians, quarterly may be too strict -- twice yearly or yearly should be sufficient. Law enforcement should be held to at least the same standards if not more stringent though.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I feel pretty similarly. My main thoughts on gun control boils down to "Anyone who walks into a gun shop and says they need a gun RIGHT NOW shouldn't get one," combined with "like any dangerous piece of equipment, you should have to show proof that you know how to use it," combined with "really, no one needs an Uzi to shoot a deer."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

See, I agree with pretty much all of that. I don't object at all to people being able to obtain a gun under specific circumstances. It's just that, to me, a "fundamental right" is one that you shouldn't need to qualify for and should be given to everyone. Perhaps that's just my particular interpretation and we're debating semantics.

I would just prefer it if the wording was more similar to the "pursuit of happiness" bit. I'm ok with guaranteeing everyone the power to attempt to qualify for a firearm. Just, not so much with guaranteeing that everyone gets one.

this.

_________________

I don't see how that's relevant at all.



But toasters actually have a use other than killing people.



That's not all that relevant, either.

I just want to know what good comes from all these guns. It just seems tragic to me that so many people die - accidental or not - to something that really has no other use in the first place. =(

Well, for one in Europe there is not as much of a problem with open war over gang turf. Just look at the war in Mexico. That's at its root a fight over who gets to control the transport of narcotics into the US. Drug crime is a large chunk of our homicide rate, and we can't really assume it will drop with a decrease in the supply of firearms.

Also, in my experience, Europeans are a bit more even keeled than your average American. There's less of a sense of entitlement, and violent crime is not glorified to the same degree. They do have problems in Britain, for instance, with council housed kids but it's not quite like what one would find in a housing project.

I have no problem with range qualifications being a requirement of gun ownership. Especially where pistols are concerned.

Let's try this again. If a college can limit students' First Amendment right to free speech, why can't a school or a government entity limit other civil rights and liberties? Are we going to pick and choose who has what rights based solely on who likes which rights? Are we going to alow the government to tell us what rights we have, when the people are supposed to tell the government what few rights it may have? If you say "yes," then what you're saying is that it's acceptable for your political opponents togrind you into the ground in order to achieve their agenda, and you have no right to object to their actions. Sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?

This ties in to the thread about the GOP, because as in that discussion, some people are uncomfortable with some people having rights (gays and lesbians marrying, Christians who vote for one party and not another, and the effects of both those activities upon society), while other people are uncomfortable with people having certain other rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms).

What's either appalling or amusing, depending upon one's point of view, is how many people are willing to eliminate constitutional guarantees against the encroachment of government upon the rights of Americans because doing so is convenient for them. So,
essentially becomes "free speech exists only for certain people with certain points of view, but not for others; and people with certain religious beliefs that some other people doslike will have their beliefs stifled so that others won't be offended. The press is free only when it is an adjunct of one political party, and not the other, and is forbidden from telling the public everything it is entitled to know." And this more or less becomes "the people's right to own firearms and other weapons must be regulated by the State, so only certain approved individuals may have certain weapons as permitted by the government." The Second Amendment is not talking about regulating people's right to protect themselves from thugs, any more than the First Amendment is about force-feeding some propaganda to the public while withholding other information. As with the rest of the Constuitution and the Bill of Rights, it's all about the people having the right to tell the central government to back off. That's why it's important to protect constitutional rights rather than selectively enforcing them according to whims and popularity.


(See http://www.reason.com/news/show/29865.html for additional information.)

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

I am NOT for "selectively enforcing" constitutional rights. That's why I want to repeal the second amendment.

I'm agreeing with Fribur a lot here, I'm scared.

Put it another way -- millions upon millions of Americans consume alcohol. What percentage of those that consume alcohol responsibly ruin their lives or the lives of others because of it? I'd say zero. The people who's lives are negatively affected by alcohol are the ones who probably shouldn't be consuming it in the first place.

Alcohol is legal, yet people die every year as a result of it. Should we try making alcohol illegal again? You do remember how that worked out the first time, right?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

You do realize that the "keep and bear arms" doesn't just mean guns, right?

It means ANYTHING that could be considered a weapon, including common farm implements.

Once you repeal the Second Amendment, you open the floodgates to politicians who do not believe that the people can (or should) take responsibility for/defend themselves. A populace without arms is one step closer to tyranny.

In essence Fribur, you want to move us one step closer to a possible police state. Not that I'm saying that is your direct intent, but you and I have had massive disagreements on this front before.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
The intent was never to limit the right to own firearms to the members of government-approved clubs or militias, but rather to a "militia of the whole" consisting of all able-bodied people who would protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

By desiring the repeal of civil rights and liberties that you find inconvenient, repugnant, or that might -- MIGHT -- lead to someone doing something bad, you are in fact picking and choosing which people can have which rights because you are subjecting the people to the will of the government. That's contrary to the reason why this country was founded: To create a country where the people ran the show, while those who would become our masters (professional politicians, or currency manipulators, or anyone else who falls into the true meaning of the term "upper class" -- in other words, the would-be royalty) would be held in check by the people and the Constitution. Despite what you and the other progressives believe, the Constitution does not exist to grant rights to people, but rather to limit the power that government has over the people. How do you propose to keep the people free, sir, when you want to force them to surrender a God-given right to preserve their freedom simply because you're scared of life -- your own, as well as that of every other person?

Of course, it's all a moot point when the arrogant son of a bitch who replaced the last arrogant son of a bitch is determining who can have what job, at what salary, and which company stays in business and which one folds, and how you can provide light and heat in your home; clearly, real freedom is pretty much shot to hell here, and it's only going to get worse unless the people tell these fuckwads that we, not they, run the country. But to advocate further restrictions on individual freedom by turning over everyone's rights to the government, just so that you can feel good about yourself in the morning because you "made a difference" and screwed up the people's right to guard itself against the government on the pretext that an irresponsible and/or evil person chooses to do something everyone agrees is wrong is beyond disgusting.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

I think Vana just said what I tried to say in a lot fewer words.

_________________
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero

The rampant hyperbole that the gun-supporters throw out is generally a sign that they don't have a great answer either, other than, "I wants me my gun."

I already said I didn't want guns banned. I just wish there were a better way, or a middle ground, because you can throw out all the analogies and arguments about responsibility and poor logic you want, the facts - the reality of the issue - is that many lives are needlessly lost to something that has absolutely no other value or use aside from killing people in the first place.

Yeah, I know, but silly me-- I'm going to try anyway :p.



I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying that the government will outlaw rakes if we take away the second amendment?

Are you aware that there are a lot of items I can buy at Wal-Mart right now that are not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, yet are still legal? You imply a false choice here... that if we got rid of the second amendment, all of a sudden we would only be able to use plastic silverware. Don't be ridiculous.



These kinds of slippery slope arguments are also a little ridiculous. Every time the government does ANYTHING that affects the public in any way, it either takes a tiny step toward tyranny or away from tyranny. Yet, I'm sure you can come up with a list of things that you are glad the government is doing for you. Since I don't know you well enough, you'll have to come up with that list yourself. Not allowing dangerous weapons to be around me is a tiny step toward "tyranny" I'm perfectly willing to take.



Of course we're picking and choosing what rights people can and can't have. I'm postive that you are happy we do so, as well. I could give you millions of examples: I have no right to steal your car. I generally have no right to turn my home into a toxic waste dump in my neighborhood. I have no right to park my car in a no parking zone. Damn you government will! blah blah blah. I simply think that an all-encompassing right to bear arms is unnecessary and promotes unnecessary danger. Take it off the books. This is not a "fundamental right" to me, anywhere near the same category as the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

The problem here is that your underlying assumption is that because it's in the Bill of Rights, then it MUST be a right that we MUST be allowed to have, simply because it's there. In essence, you are treating the Bill of Rights as though it's some kind of inviolable religious text. It's there, so it must be the only way! I've already stated that I don't see that piece of paper as being a holy text that cannot be changed. This is an amendment that I believe they got wrong, at least for our current time.

Of course, but the point was that both objects can be used both responsibly and irresponsibly(and with the evidence in this particular case of millions of gun owners not harming more than a cardboard cutout for target practice). I'm not sure how the fact that a gun's primary use is for killing discounts that point.

If ever there were a slippery slope with any validity, it would be the removal of an enormous stopgap in the document which forms the country's backbone(flawed though in may be in some areas) in a very litigious environment.

I agree with this.

In 100% of homes without electricity, there have been no accidental electrocutions.

_________________

You know, I'm seeing some really stupid fucking points made here, and they're same stupid fucking points that have been made time and again by anti-gun groups for years. Here are the facts:

1. Our founding fathers included the right to bear arms in our Constitution because they understood firsthand that a people must be capable of defending themselves against a government that oversteps its bounds. This is not less true today than it was 200 years ago.

2. The amount of guns present in the United States means that it would completely impossible to rid the country of them entirely. There are over 200 million firearms in the U.S. Think about that. We have enough guns in the U.S. to arm two thirds of our population.

3. Accidental gun deaths account for less than 1% of all accidental deaths in the U.S. Less than 1%. LESS THAN 1% of ALL accidental deaths. Higher on the list? Motor vehicle accidents, falls, poisoning, drowning, fires, and a slew of other things that are obviously present in most homes but we chance them because they are conveniences.

That's right, we chance the potential for an accidental death due to a car accident, or due to a child drinking a cleaning liquid, or an electrical fire, because these are conveniences. Guns are not kept in the home for convenience's sake. They are kept in the home for the defense of one's family and property. While it is impossible to completely prevent all accidents (and anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool), we do our best through gun safety courses, gun locks, gun vaults, and general common sense.

To pretend that we'll be able to control firearms in any way as a nation is absurd. To place the ability to carry guns solely in the hands of criminals is foolish. To take away the power of the citizenry to defend themselves against a corrupt and overreaching government is stupid in the extreme. To pretend that legal, responsible firearm owners are somehow causing an inordinate number of deaths is an outright fabrication.

_________________

I disagree with this. Firearms have legitimate sporting and recreational uses. While I disagree with the extent that some find them valuable as far as personal or home defense is concerned, I concede that they have some value in that arena as well. You do not have to kill someone to discourage them. A gun can represent a tangible threat and be a token without ever needing to be used.

On the other hand...




This is about as ridiculous a statement as you can make. It's that sort of fatalistic thinking that truly scares me about some American people. Because we can't disallow guns completely, we should abandon any attempt to control their manufacture and distribution? Perhaps we should hand them out at voting booths or send them along with tax returns! Every US citizen gets a gun!

I just wish we could use a little common sense. I have to pass a drivers exam to drive a car and I need to be of a certain age to purchase alcohol. Why should there not be qualifications for owning a dangerous weapon as well?

There absolutely should be, and in many cases there are, and those laws just don't matter. The reality is that anyone who really wants a gun will get one, regardless of laws or qualifications.

_________________

man I posted a long reply, hit submit, and lost it all because my wireless connection had shut off in the meantime. Here's a short version:



It may be no less true, but your pistol will no longer stop the government from overstepping its bounds. It's no longer a relavent argument.



You misrepresent us. No one here has said to completely get rid of guns. I have, in fact, already pointed out that I don't have a problem with using them to hunt.

Also, there may be 200 million guns in the US, but don't try to make it sound like we have an armed populace. There are only 44 million gun owners, and the other 260 million of us do just fine without them.




Two things here:

1. It's less than 1% because of what I pointed out above-- the vast majority of us don't have any guns around us, so we pull the percentage down.

2. The reason you keep those guns-- home invasion by someone else with a gun, is even LESS of a killer than accidental gun deaths. Get rid of the guns, and you reduce the chance of dying due to guns.




Already addressed all this. I'll just add that I suffer the possibility of these other things because these other things have every day practical value, unlike guns. I suffer the chance of drowning, for example, because water helps me to prevent disease and keeps me alive.



To pretend there is no way we can control firearms in any way as a nation is jus as absurd, especially when there are countries that have already proven it can be done, with positive results.



The logical conclusion to these kinds of arguments is that everything should be legalized, since only criminals would therefore have them. This is, in your words, "absurd."



We already went over this, but to pretend that a pistol is going to protect you from the ebil government is even more stupid in the extreme.



One is an inordinate number of deaths. The item in question has no other purpose. There is no fabrication.

Except, of course, the fabrication that the item has no other purpose.

(aside)
This much is true. They don't need guns to take you down. They just say you are a terrorist, plant some evidence, and every "do gooder" in the US is after you, from the cops to the average citizen.

After all, "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to be afraid of" has become something of a national mantra. One by which they've basically ensured uprisings against the powers that be won't ever gain momentum before they are squashed by the people themselves.
(/aside)

_________________

[quote=Fribur]We already went over this, but to pretend that a pistol is going to protect you from the ebil government is even more stupid in the extreme.[/quote]

One won't, but many will. Think how easy it would be for an army to nullify an unarmed populace, as opposed to even a lightly armed populace. When the domestic force is forced to actually engage the populace, the morale impact would be significant. You don't have to win, you just have to sap their will to fight through a protracted campaign designed to destroy the superior forces morale. How long til those piloting those F-16's come to the realization they're killing their own countrymen?

There's a reason the US military still teaches their commanders Sun Tzu. I suggest you read it.

[quote]You don't have to win, you just have to sap their will to fight through a protracted campaign designed to destroy the superior forces morale. How long til those piloting those F-16's come to the realization they're killing their own countrymen?[quote]

Yes, and that realization can come whether or not the populace is armed.

Or, the more cynical side of me can go a completely different direction and point out that Nazi Germany teaches us that the answer is "a very long time."

You're missing the logic here. That realization doesn't have to come versus an unarmed populace because more severe action will not likely be required. I understand you've got your perspective, and I know you're a smart guy. You can't possibly be this naive about it tho.

Well, looking back, I realize I forgot to address this point. I don't really think it's entirely relevant, but I will concede that under VERY exact conditions, the Nazi Germany, or Bosnian Serb scenarios are possible. Likely in this country? Not so much. I'm not going to write an essay detailing the effects of nationalism on various cultures, so we'll say my statement is a general one, and the most likely.

Fribur, you should read the book "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

That's not what was said, and you're doing the same thing here that everyone on this board mocks politicians for doing: taking an opponent's argument to the extreme, and then attacking that instead of the argument itself. So no, it's not the "logical conclusion." Why don't you actually look at it from another point of view instead of trying to twist it to your own?

I don't know where you got that figure, but every site I've checked so far lists the number of gun owners at twice that. That's nearly a third of the U.S., and those are just owners of legal firearms. I'm willing to bet that the actual number is significantly higher.

Oh, as an aside, accidental gun deaths in the home are incredibly rare. Most accidental gun deaths happen while hunting. Yet you said yourself that you're okay with keeping guns for hunting. How do you justify that when your primary argument against guns is that they cause accidental deaths?

_________________

Hrmmm... I don't know where I got 44 million either. I did a google search earlier today or yesterday and got that number from several different sites. Yet now when I do it I get the 80 million number that you are likely referring to. Who knows? Doesn't really change the point, since it's still far less than half the population.

My primary argument against guns isn't accidental deaths. It's that there is simply no reason to keep guns in the home because the intent of such an item is to kill, which is something I'm fundamentally against. Because that base belief is rare in today's society in the US, I resort to other lines of thinking to try to make my case.

Even with hunting, btw, my acceptance is only conditional. I continue to deplore hunting for pure sport, without eating or otherwise using what you kill.

I see the information you guys are talking about on the net, but I don't see any citations for that information.

I wonder if they're counting registered handgun owners, or just handgun purchases. In states that have no firearm registration, that number might skew, and person to person sales and gun show sales will also skew it.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Ever heard of shooting sports? I'm aware next to no one watches it, but are you aware they give medals at the Olympics for marksmanship? My firearms can kill, sure. But they were not made for that purpose, nor do I intend to use them that way. The generalization is a little obtuse.

Pesticide, rat poison, Spice Girl albums. Those are made to kill.

So you recommend sharp pointed sticks as a means of home defense? Camouflaged nets like the Ewoks use?

Hey, it worked!

And the point on the home defense thing is that if that's going to be the justification, then it largely fails since vastly more people die to accidental gun deaths in the home than are saved by said gun.

Not that it's a justification for banning anything, it's just strange logic.

If you only take into account lives saved by gun solely when the gun is used, sure. But what about the factor of deterrence? It's not a statistic that's easy to come by to be sure, but it can't really be ignored either. How many criminals decide not to enter a specific town or region to do their deeds because they know it's an area with mostly gun owners? Granted there are a lot of dumb criminals out there, but I think even the more dumb amongst them would take a second thought about robbing in Podunk Texas as opposed to robbing in a more liberal metropolitan or even suburban area.

More importantly, though, is the question of whether it CAN be used effectively - which it can with proper training. Seems to me that it would be a bit presumptious to suggest it largely fails as a responsible home protection device based solely on the fact that dumb people use them incorrectly.

In my opinion, zero, or close to it.

Kennesaw Georgia proves you wrong.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

That's not wiki said. (I had never heard of the town so I wiki'd it).

_________________

The effect of the law is debated, but the Kennesaw PD that I've talked to regarding the law say that they had a much lower burglary rate while the law was in effect, so I'm still unsure.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I actually find this a little hard to believe, given that I would imagine the average goal of a burglar is to rob you while you AREN'T home.

Maybe I'm wrong and burglary happens 90% while the owner is home, but somehow I doubt this.

_________________

Damnit, I wanted Frib to answer this:




Asking you about the 2nd Amendment is a done argument, you won't change your beliefs and neither will those of us that believe that the 2nd is a fundamental right. However, what do you feel about the 1st Amendment being limited here based on assumed potential disruption in the classroom? That one should be very close to you on both sides.

Based ONLY on what you typed out there, and having read nothing else, I think the school board was wrong to deny him election to student council. I don't really care if a student calls me a douche on a blog.

I do think, however, that the school has the right to deny someone the opportunity to run for office if they wish, as long as it doesn't violate any existing discrimination laws (if there are any for this case). I don't think they infringed on that student's right to call his teacher a douche at all-- in fact, he could do it again now that they won't let him run :p.

I was, however, trying to figure out why you brought it up here. Is it a ruling this nominee made?

Yes it was.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Is the school a private or public school?

How is it ok for a school to penalize anyone for expressing their opinion? Did the opinion violate a law? If not, why would you be ok with the school subjectively ruling that some expressions are ok, and some are not? Slippery slope you're on there. It's easy to take the next step and move past a student bad mouthing a teacher to a student expressing political or religious views. Is it ok to prevent them from running for office because they don't like Obama, or DO like Obama?

Do my rights go away when I use the term douche bag?

The school building and it's policies are not a democracy, and the students do not have "rights" in the way you are describing. The school can cancel student council elections entirely if they wish, without breaking any laws.

I did, however, already say that the school was wrong to deny him the ability to run for office. What else do you want from me?