Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

Laws are already in place that restrict the ownership of military grade weapons, I cannot go to a gun store and legally buy a full automatic weapon much less nukes or attack aircraft no matter how much money i have. The precedent of limiting guns has already been established...

[waitforufo]

The Heller case didn't speak against the ability of congress to introduce reasonable regulations, though.

This is true, but they did not define what "reasonable regulations" were either. That is up to them to decide.

[doG]

The Heller case didn't speak against the ability of congress to introduce reasonable regulations, though.

 

It didn't need to, the Constitution says plainly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringements of any kind are unconstitutional. Remember, in the era this was written felons leaving prison after serving their time could bear arms again. Today's infringements against them are technically unconstitutional. That was then and this is now. Another reason the Constitution should be revisited because unconstitutional regulations will not fix the problems with an outdated constitution.

 

Actually, what wiki says is "The Court, which meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate."

So, as political appointees, they are not politically independent.

Perhaps it is just as well that you have a constitution that you worship since you don't realise that your judiciary is not as independent as you think.

 

(BTW, it doesn't matter a damn what our laws say- the decisions are made by juries)

 

That's the reason they are given lifetime appointments. They never have to sway their opinion one way or the other to remain on the bench.

[Moontanman]

I guess I need to clarify what I saying since I got neg rep for my last post.

 

I understand that "they want to take away all our guns" is a strawman but it's a very effective one. It's a strawman the NRA touts at every one of it's meetings both national and local.

 

this claim of they will have to remove my gun from cold dead hands is their rallying cry, I think the leaders know this but are simply inflaming the masses to make sure the sale of guns continue...

 

This gun cause is truly analogous to a fundamentalist religion and to understand the mindset of these people you have to think of it that way.

 

As in most religions the majority are reasonable people who don't know or don't want to know what the fringes of their religion are doing or how it affects them. the reality is like any religion it's the fringe fundamentalists who are the driving force of that religion, they make sure the main body of the religion toes the line as closely as possible and uses fear to keep them from leaving the fold.

In religion that fear is hell fire in gun theism it's fear of crime.

 

I think it's useful to think of it this way...

[John Cuthber]

That's the reason they are given lifetime appointments. They never have to sway their opinion one way or the other to remain on the bench.

How do they get chosen in the first place?

Are they noted for being moderate and inclusive in their ideas?

If they are chosen for following the party line in the first place then it hardly matters that it's a life appointment does it?

 

 

And (though it's not all that relevant to the topic), re.

"I'm sure you're not suggesting jurors shouldn't follow the law."

If the law is wrong then of course the Jurors should ignore it.

That is exactly what they are there for.

 

And, there's a great deal of similarity between the belief in the right to keep guns and the belief in religion.

It reminds me of a comment I saw recently

For most people, religion is like the user license agreement with software. They don't read it, they just skip to the end and tick the box marked "I agree".

 

While I'm at it, this from Moontanman

"A gun... so my gun will leave the house under it's own free will and commit crimes?"

is,a strawman reply to this

"Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense."

 

because it explicitly says the gun was "used" which means there's a user, not that the gun did it by itself.

 

If you need to use a logical fallacy to justify your point it's because your point is wrong.

[Moontanman]

While I'm at it, this from Moontanman

"A gun... so my gun will leave the house under it's own free will and commit crimes?"

is,a strawman reply to this

"Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense."

 

because it explicitly says the gun was "used" which means there's a user, not that the gun did it by itself.

 

If you need to use a logical fallacy to justify your point it's because your point is wrong.

You missed my point, it says "a" gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a crime.... you cannot use statistics to predict the actions of individuals. That is not a prediction for guns it's prediction for criminal who own guns, everyone who owns a gun is not a criminal, does not commit suicide or shoot anyone accidentally. To imply that owning a gun makes any particular individual more likely to do these things is not true nor can you say that gun owners in general are part of this fantasy. That is the strawman... In fact I know it is not a fantasy since I used a gun to stop a crime once in my life i know it happens and is not a fantasy... Edited May 10, 2013 by Moontanman

[Ringer]

SCOTUS disagrees with you.[/size]

Maybe I should have said a strict reading of the constitution alone. There have been a few cases where personal possession of certain firearms have been upheld, but ruling by the supreme court can and have been overturned.

[John Cuthber]

"You missed my point, it says "a" gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a crime.... you cannot use statistics to predict the actions of individuals."

Yes I can. I can , for example, predict that my friend who is of Chinese descent, can't hold his beer as well as I can.

I might be wrong, but it would be a good bet because of the known statistics for the genetically determined traits in enzyme activity.

I'm more likely to be right than wrong.

It would even be reasonable to make decisions based on that statistical assumption (I might bet the cost of the night's drinking on the idea that "last one standing doesn't pay"

 

Obviously, I can't be certain, based on the numbers- but then again, I can't be certain based on anything else either. I have to make decisions on some basis or other and statistics are a very good one.

I base pensions investments on them and I choose not to buy lottery tickets on the same sort of basis.

 

The idea that I can't predict the behaviour of individuals from statistics is true to the extent that I can't (absolutely certainly) predict it at all.

On the other hand, that idea is wrong because it is the best technique I have to make those predictions.

 

 

"To imply that owning a gun makes any particular individual more likely to do these things is not true"

I don't have a gun, I believe that you do.

Do you really think that I am just as likely to shoot myself as you are?

How, exactly?

Am I really just as likely to come home and find that my child has shot himself as you are to suffer the same fate?

(I'm ignoring , for the time being, that I don't have kids)

And, as I already pointed out, the people who bought guns and tragically found that the result was a dead spouse or child, bought them believing just as you do- that the gun wouldn't kill anyone because it's not guns that kill people, it's people who kill people.

 

All those poor individuals believed that they were safer with a gun.

So do you, and for exactly the same reasons.

They were all wrong.

Why are you still so sure?

[Moontanman]

All those poor individuals believed that they were safer with a gun.

So do you, and for exactly the same reasons.

They were all wrong.

Why are you still so sure?

 

Let's take guns out of it and substitute swords and then claim because I have a pocket knife I am more likely to run amok and kill people because people with swords do this... Your statistics limp all guns into one category "a gun" I would be more comfortable if the claim was handguns but to say "a gun" is far too broad a term to accurately describe anything. Your statistics are not as meaningful as you claim due to this lumping...

 

If you want to commit suicide you would almost certainly use the easiest method available to you, if you have a gun then a gun would be what you use. A more accurate way to measure or compare this is to look at suicide rates and see how much more likely suicide is in populations that have guns vs populations that do not.

 

I know guns can be used to protect one's self or others, i have done so, guns can be used and held in private ownership safely, I have done so for almost 50 years while raising two sons, the vast majority are held legally and safely. That is why i am so sure, much like a car, most people mind the laws, drive safely, and rarely if ever have an accident much less kill someone yet some people who own cars use them like toys, showing off as though the car is a toy and guess what, automobile deaths are about the same as gun deaths in the US. While some auto deaths are due to other factors a great many can be traced back to people who drive but don't know how or who don't obey the rules, in some cases even suicide...

 

Could we eliminate death by auto by banning autos? Of course, public transport could be used to make cars unnecessary just like "big brother" could be used to make guns unnecessary but the police force that would be required is just as unreasonable as the public transportation that would be required to eliminate cars.

 

I can see reasonable gun reform, background checks, licenses and training before you can own them possibly even having to have liability insurance much like owning a car but the idea that I personally would be safer without a gun is not supportable.

 

Gun deaths in the US

 

Homicide by gun 2011... 11,101

Handgun Homicide 2011... 6,220

Long gun Homicide 2011... 679

Gun homicides (other) 2011... 1,684

Suicide 2011... 19,776

Accidental 2011... 851

Unknown 2011... 222

 

source http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

 

[doG]

...but ruling by the supreme court can and have been overturned.

I'd love to see some citations of that.

[Iggy]

"I'm sure you're not suggesting jurors shouldn't follow the law."

If the law is wrong then of course the Jurors should ignore it.

That is exactly what they are there for.

 

Jury nullification is certainly not the purpose of a jury. I can quote Lord Mansfield who said it better than I can,

 

So the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.

 

To be free is to live under a government by law [...]. Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State.

[...]

 

In opposition to this, what is contended for? -- That the law shall be, in every particular cause, what any twelve men, who shall happen to be the jury, shall be inclined to think; liable to no review, and subject to no control, under all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the bias of interest in this town, where thousands, more or less, are concerned in the publication of newspapers, paragraphs, and pamphlets. Under such an administration of law, no man could tell, no counsel could advise, whether a paper was or was not punishable.

Lord Mansfield, 1784

 

---

 

 

I'd love to see some citations of that.

 

I'd wager he means they've been overturned by subsequent supreme court decisions the way Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Ringer]

I'd love to see some citations of that.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Supreme-Court-Cases-340/f/List-Supreme-Court-cases.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_US_Supreme_Court_decisions_be_overturned

[John Cuthber]

Let's take guns out of it and substitute swords and then claim because I have a pocket knife I am more likely to run amok and kill people because people with swords do this... Your statistics limp all guns into one category "a gun" I would be more comfortable if the claim was handguns but to say "a gun" is far too broad a term to accurately describe anything. Your statistics are not as meaningful as you claim due to this lumping...

 

If you want to commit suicide you would almost certainly use the easiest method available to you, if you have a gun then a gun would be what you use. A more accurate way to measure or compare this is to look at suicide rates and see how much more likely suicide is in populations that have guns vs populations that do not.

 

I know guns can be used to protect one's self or others, i have done so, guns can be used and held in private ownership safely, I have done so for almost 50 years while raising two sons, the vast majority are held legally and safely. That is why i am so sure, much like a car, most people mind the laws, drive safely, and rarely if ever have an accident much less kill someone yet some people who own cars use them like toys, showing off as though the car is a toy and guess what, automobile deaths are about the same as gun deaths in the US. While some auto deaths are due to other factors a great many can be traced back to people who drive but don't know how or who don't obey the rules, in some cases even suicide...

 

Could we eliminate death by auto by banning autos? Of course, public transport could be used to make cars unnecessary just like "big brother" could be used to make guns unnecessary but the police force that would be required is just as unreasonable as the public transportation that would be required to eliminate cars.

 

I can see reasonable gun reform, background checks, licenses and training before you can own them possibly even having to have liability insurance much like owning a car but the idea that I personally would be safer without a gun is not supportable.

 

Gun deaths in the US

 

Homicide by gun 2011... 11,101

Handgun Homicide 2011... 6,220

Long gun Homicide 2011... 679

Gun homicides (other) 2011... 1,684

Suicide 2011... 19,776

Accidental 2011... 851

Unknown 2011... 222

 

source http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

"Let's take guns out of it and substitute swords and then claim because I have a pocket knife I am more likely to run amok and kill people because people with swords do this."

Alternatively, lets not engage in obvious strawmanning.

Similarly, we can not bother with things like this "Could we eliminate death by auto by banning autos?" because there is a clear difference between cars (which have a main purpose that does not involve killing)and guns (whose design intent is to kill and which have essentially no other purpose). That difference makes the two sets non comparable and comparing them is a strawman.

 

"Your statistics limp all guns into one category "a gun" I would be more comfortable if the claim was handguns but to say "a gun" is far too broad a term to accurately describe anything."

OK, nobody is saying that using a gun in legitimate self defence is a bad thing, but I think we can agree that murder, suicide and accidental deaths are bad.

So, a gun is, overall, a good thing if it's more likely to be used in the former way than the latter.

So if you think that the type of gun is the problem I'd expect you so provide some evidence that says

"Guns of types X and Y are not major contributors to "bad" deaths (compared to the number of "good" deaths), but guns of type Z are bad because they contribute more "bad" deaths than good ones.

 

Accordingly I'd expect to see some sort of breakdown of types of deaths by types of guns.

The data should be available- there must be relatively few deaths from gunshots where the type of gun is unknown.

 

Now, according to this

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

nearly half of all guns in the US are handguns

And, according to your data they are responsible for about half of the homicides by guns

So the ratios of hand gun deaths to all gun deaths is about the same as the ratio of handguns to all guns.

(if anything, handguns are more "dangerous", but the effect isn't big.

 

and, once again "I know guns can be used to protect one's self or other"

Yes, but they are more likely to be used to kill your family than to save them.

Not only that, but the "I want to defend my family" is used to justify the continued sales.

That culture ensures that criminals and nutters have no difficulty getting hold of guns which means yet more deaths.

 

 

 

"Jury nullification is certainly not the purpose of a jury."

What are they there for then?

"It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right"

That's trial by judge, not trial by jury.

"To be free is to live under a government by law [...]. Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State."

Well, that makes us all miserable then, since the law can be changed, it isn't certain.

Also there's no reason to suppose that 1 judge is any less subject to "all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the bias of interest in this town" than that 12 jurors are.

Edited May 11, 2013 by John Cuthber

[doG]

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Supreme-Court-Cases-340/f/List-Supreme-Court-cases.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_US_Supreme_Court_decisions_be_overturned

 

Thank you, you're right, it could technically be overturned but.... Do notice your 3rd link states explicitly, "No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government."

 

The only way to reverse SCOTUS decisions is for SCOTUS to reverse itself or for the Constitution to be amended. It is not likely SCOTUS will reverse itself on the plain language in the Constitution, i.e. "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The only other way your scenario of overturning the Heller decision is that 3/4's of the state legislatures will ratify an amendment that strips them of their own personal rights to keep and bear arms, another path I see as highly unlikely. The personal right to keep and bear arms is protected and quite likely to stay that way. Any claims that is not protected are false.

[Moontanman]

John, I did provide those figures, 11,101 homicides by guns, 6220 homicides by handguns, 679 homicides by long guns...

BTW John, your source is from an anti gun control group...

[Iggy]

"Jury nullification is certainly not the purpose of a jury."

What are they there for then?

 

They find someone either guilty or not guilty of a law. They adjudicate facts of a case. They don't decide what the laws should be.

 

 

"It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right"

That's trial by judge, not trial by jury.

 

That is out of context.

 

The Judge would say something like, "if you find that the defendant killed the deceased, and that the killing was planned and premeditated then you must find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree". The jury then decides if the evidence of the case does prove that the defendant killed the deceased, with premeditation (guilty of first degree murder), without premeditation (guilty of second degree murder) -- or, that the killing was not proven by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt (not guilty).

 

What the jury does not do -- should not do -- is find that the defendant killed the deceased with callous forethought and premeditation, but should only be found guilty of second degree murder because they collectively decide that there should be no such law as first degree murder.

 

 

"To be free is to live under a government by law [...]. Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State."

Well, that makes us all miserable then, since the law can be changed, it isn't certain.

 

The point is that with jury nullification I will have no idea if I'm doing something right now that will eventually find me guilty in a court of law or not because the jury could do whatever they want.

 

The law is certain because the constitution bans ex post facto laws meaning I can't be convicted tomorrow of something that is not illegal today. A person can't be punished with a new law retroactively.

 

 

Also there's no reason to suppose that 1 judge is any less subject to "all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the bias of interest in this town" than that 12 jurors are.

 

That is why the decision of one judge is subject to appellate courts whose job it is to interpret law. An unfair application of a law is subject to appellate review. Jury nullification is not.

 

Jurors decide if someone did an illegal thing. They don't decide what should and should not be illegal.

 

 

---

 

 

 

Yes, the life appointment matters very much. It means they are independent from outside influences. Following your own conscious and belief system does not mean you are not independent.

 

In addition, it is not unusual for justices who have been selected for their past conservative (or liberal) rulings to begin to vote against the wishes of the party responsible for their appointment.

 

And the senate has to confirm the nominee -- a moderating influence especially since the minority party can filibuster, and they certainly would if an unqualified ideolog were nominated.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Iggy

[Ringer]

Thank you, you're right, it could technically be overturned but.... Do notice your 3rd link states explicitly, "No single entity - not the President, Senate, House of Representatives, state Governors, nor anyone else - has the power to overturn a US Supreme Court ruling. Supreme Court decisions cannot be nullified by other parts of government."

 

The only way to reverse SCOTUS decisions is for SCOTUS to reverse itself or for the Constitution to be amended. It is not likely SCOTUS will reverse itself on the plain language in the Constitution, i.e. "...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The only other way your scenario of overturning the Heller decision is that 3/4's of the state legislatures will ratify an amendment that strips them of their own personal rights to keep and bear arms, another path I see as highly unlikely. The personal right to keep and bear arms is protected and quite likely to stay that way. Any claims that is not protected are false.

Obviously it's not that plain since there are very large 'if's of the shall not be infringed. Felons cannot own firearms most places, surface to air missiles are not allowed, most places require a carry permit to carry a firearm, etc. Not to mention, as I said before, just saying shall not be infringed is cherry picking part of the quote. I could just as easily say that the language plainly says 'well regulated'.

 

I am not for removal of guns in their entirety, I am for stricter regulations. Hell, all I had to do when I got my life-time conceal and carry permit is turn 18 give the police department $100. Now I can have a pistol with me in over half of the states in the US. I find that to be pretty ridiculously easy to legally own a deadly weapon.

[doG]

Obviously it's not that plain since there are very large 'if's of the shall not be infringed. Felons cannot own firearms most places, surface to air missiles are not allowed, most places require a carry permit to carry a firearm, etc. Not to mention, as I said before, just saying shall not be infringed is cherry picking part of the quote. I could just as easily say that the language plainly says 'well regulated'.

 

I am not for removal of guns in their entirety, I am for stricter regulations. Hell, all I had to do when I got my life-time conceal and carry permit is turn 18 give the police department $100. Now I can have a pistol with me in over half of the states in the US. I find that to be pretty ridiculously easy to legally own a deadly weapon.

No, those if's really don't exist if someone gets the court to hear a case that presses that very literal point and it's meaning and context in the era it was drafted. Felons in that time did their time and took up arms once they had served their time. Arms that didn't exist then are now part of the problem and they are technically protected. Well regulated clearly refers to the militia and not the general people of the population. Think legally and follow the punctuation of the amendment, the protection of the people to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated and it is that very protection that would allow the people to assemble a well regulated militia if and when it became necessary for the security of a free state. It is hard to form a militia from unarmed citizens.

 

I personally fear the language of the amendment is too broad and too vague in today's world but until it is changed I fully support what it says because the law should always say what it means and mean what it says. It should not be open to interpretation based on the times as the living document crowd advocates. Shall not be infringed means no encroachments of any kind. If that language is now a problem then it needs to be fixed, not circumvented.

[iNow]

the law should always say what it means and mean what it says. It should not be open to interpretation based on the times

 

Perhaps unfortunately, but ALL laws are open to interpretation, almost regardless of how will writ they may be ,and that's why we need/have judges in the first place.

[zapatos]

Shall not be infringed means no encroachments of any kind.

But you realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right? I suspect most any right granted in the Constitution can be legally regulated. An obvious example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim your right to Free Speech cannot be regulated. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is wrong?

 

In 2008 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did secure the

right of law-abiding, responsible adults to have handguns in their homes

for protection. Yet the court went out of its way to acknowledge that

most forms of gun regulation remain constitutionally permissible. “Like

most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not

unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. In a sentence the NRA and

many gun-rights extremists apparently missed, Scalia wrote that the

Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever

in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html

 

[doG]

But you realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you, right? I suspect most any right granted in the Constitution can be legally regulated. An obvious example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim your right to Free Speech cannot be regulated. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is wrong?

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/17/the-second-amendment-is-all-for-gun-control.html

That's because the right of free speech is not a right to cause harm to others. As long as the right does not violate the right of another it is a fairly well protected right at the federal level since the 2nd amendment is a bar to federal infringement but not necessarily state or local regulations. The 14th amendment clouds the interpretation at that level though. See this analysis from the Congressional Research Service.

[Iggy]

An obvious example is that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim your right to Free Speech cannot be regulated.

 

 

 

It's true. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

Unless, of course, there is a fire. In that case, scream "fire" loudly so that everyone can hear.

 

Don't shout fire falsely is the main idea, I think.

 

Unless, of course, you are in a dire situation, like being the victim of rape. If someone is forcing themselves unwanted upon you -- in that case scramming fire falsely is the cleverest thing you can do because people will come running for "fire", but they may not want to get involved if you yelled "rape".

 

Don't yell "fire" falsely unless your best judgment tells you that you should... is the main idea, I think.

 

Unless, of course, you have bad judgment. But, that's what lawyers are for.

 

Don't scream fire falsely unless you either have good judgment and know for sure it is the right thing to do, or unless you have consulted a lawyer whom has advised you to scream fire falsely... is the main idea, I believe.

 

Unless, of course, you don't have time to consult a lawyer because the decision about shouting fire needs to be made quickly. That would most likely be the case, so....

 

Don't shout fire falsely unless you either have good judgment and you're sure it is appropriate, or if you have bad judgment and a lawyer has advised you to do so, or if there is no time for a lawyer then be sure to create a small fire before shouting fire so that you aren't doing it falsely... is the main idea, I dare say.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Iggy

[Moontanman]

This brings concealed carry to a whole new level...

 

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

ot topic discussion on the independence or not of SCOTUS has been split away

!

Moderator Note

 

I cannot really unweave the posts on the role of a jury in a common law criminal trial (BTW it is as arbiter of facts not law - but as mod in thread I shouldn't get involved) but can we either let it rest as it stands or you can take it up in a new thread.

 

It is quite understandable how these branches arise - but please do try and keep on topic.

 

[MonDie]

As long as the right does not violate the right of another it is a fairly well protected right at the federal level

 

How do we determine when one right violates another? Must they be in direct conflict on the level of individual action, or merely on the level of government enforcement? I'll elaborate.

 

When one owns a gun, there is an increased probability that someone's right to life will be violated.

When such an event occurs, the person most to blame may be the owner simply because they owned the gun. For example, the owner's son of 15 steals the gun and accidentally shoots someone. But such instances probably don't comprise the bulk of gun deaths.

In most instances, the owning of a gun was only secondary. For example, suppose the gun owner shoots himself. He might not have killed himself if he didn't have a gun, but he still had a choice when he had the gun to his head. Similarly, if someone else shoots him with his gun, it's not his fault for owning the gun, it's his killer's fault for shooting him. However, this whom to blame point is irrelevant from a regulatory perspective. The best and perhaps only regulation(s) to prevent these situations may be a guns ban.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die