Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[zapatos]

No, it is not worth a life (at least not to me; maybe to others). On the other hand it is unlikely that my guns will kill anyone so I use them anyway.

 

My car could also kill someone as I am on the way to work, and I have other non-lethal ways to get to work (my bicycle), but since the risk is low I drive to work.

 

Life is a balancing act between risk and reward, and I am the kind of person who doesn't take much risk.

[dimreepr]

Even in England I still have the right to do both I just have to prove I’m worthy of that right.

[zapatos]

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

[dimreepr]

My car could also kill someone as I am on the way to work, and I have other non-lethal ways to get to work (my bicycle), but since the risk is low I drive to work.

 

 

A car may be used as a weapon but it was designed as transport; guns don’t have the luxury of that excuse.

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

 

 

 

On this we agree.

[zapatos]

 

 

A car may be used as a weapon but it was designed as transport; guns don’t have the luxury of that excuse.

I have a .22 target pistol. Are you telling me that was designed to kill?

 

A gun, or any inanimate object, does not have inherent evil in it. It is its use that matters. Some guns are used only to start races or avalanches.

 

My car wasn't designed to kill people riding bikes, but if I chose to kill people riding bikes it would be ideal for that purpose.

[StringJunky]

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

I don't disagree with anything here.

[zapatos]

And just to rant a bit, I find it incredibly hypocritical for those who demand a 'waiting period' for women seeking abortion and that the women view photographs of fetuses or abortions, would balk at the idea of gun purchasers having to endure a waiting period or be required to view photographs of children who have been shot.

[dimreepr]

I have a .22 target pistol. Are you telling me that was designed to kill?

 

A gun, or any inanimate object, does not have inherent evil in it. It is its use that matters. Some guns are used only to start races or avalanches.

 

My car wasn't designed to kill people riding bikes, but if I chose to kill people riding bikes it would be ideal for that purpose.

 

 

Firstly I’m not anti-gun; I, used to own a competition .22 target air rifle and regularly shot clays.

 

But guns were designed to kill target/skeet shooting is a by-product of that design; just as your cars potential as a weapon is a by-product of its design which makes them antipodes.

Edited July 24, 2015 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

 

 

Firstly I’m not anti-gun; I own a competition .22 target air rifle and regularly shoot clays.

 

But guns were designed to kill target/skeet shooting is a by-product of that design; just as your cars potential as a weapon is a by-product of its design which makes them antipodes.

I don't get the emphasis that you and others put on 'design'. You make it sound like it is inherently evil because it was designed to kill. In my mind it only matters if it is actually used to kill. I would venture to say that most guns sold in the US are never used to kill anyone.

 

Using your line of reasoning I could say that thalidomide was inherently good because it was designed to decrease the suffering of pregnant women. (Not really quite right but you get my point.)

[sunshaker]

 

Also gun control doesn't work. Ask those at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Ask those as Sandy Hook Elementary. Ask those at the shopping mall in Tennessee.

 

You gun control people have lost. Time to get over it.

I have not been following this thread, but I cannot help but wonder if the figures for gun related deaths are true, or whether it is Fema trying to disarm the American people so they can be better controlled,

I have read quite a bit about sandy hook and the more I read the less I believe, once again Fema was running an exercise the same day 20min away from the shooting to do with the possibility of this kind of shooting happening,

They where also there at 911 running a terrorist exercise, and we had the same in England on the day of the london bombings.

 

I know some do not like videos but here is one on the sandy hook(you can do your own research. We are being disarmed by our governments and our rights taken away by false flag operations.

look at one of the so called "fathers" just before he goes on camera at 8.30mins.

Edited July 24, 2015 by sunshaker

[dimreepr]

I don't get the emphasis that you and others put on 'design'. You make it sound like it is inherently evil because it was designed to kill. In my mind it only matters if it is actually used to kill. I would venture to say that most guns sold in the US are never used to kill anyone.

 

Using your line of reasoning I could say that thalidomide was inherently good because it was designed to decrease the suffering of pregnant women. (Not really quite right but you get my point.)

 

 

TBH given the gravity of the topic and our basic agreement on that topic, this tangent doesn’t seem worth exploring further. Maybe I would in a separate thread.

[Prometheus]

I don't have much time for this today, but I will take time to respond to this.

By "this side of the pond" do you mean that magical place where they have royal families? Royal families where people are born better than the common folk. Born so much better that you pay taxes to keep up their palaces, gardens, and mow their lawns. Then you pay guards for these places to keep out the riff raff. That side of the pond? Who's crazy?

 

Any American that believes that this country was not founded on the principal natural rights must have missed an important civics lesson. So if you missed that lesson Wiki does a pretty good job.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

 

After you are done with that you can read the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

 

I agree that many British subjects' attitude to their monarch is crazy. How does that impact on this discussion in the slightest?

 

Thanks for the links, i had already read the first. Unfortunately, it does not answer the questions i posed, maybe you could: here they are again.

 

The right (to gun own and bear guns) is something humans have decided upon - it's just that these rights supersede the agency of the government. So if the government tried to ban guns you would argue this right is mine by virtue of my birth not the government so you cannot take it away?

 

But what if the 'will of the people' had it in mind to ban guns, then lobbied the government to make the necessary changes (if any are required). In your view could this legitimately change such rights?

 

Zapatos gave an answer i can easily identify with

 

 

Unfortunately 'natural rights' are just a concept created by man. There is no agreement on what constitutes natural rights. Natural rights and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee unless there is someone willing and able to guarantee those rights. If you rip the second amendment from the US constitution, your right to bear arms will exist only in your mind.

 

But i'm aware that some people regard natural rights to come from some 'ultimate' source: some god, or from the universe itself. I just wondered where on the spectrum you considered natural rights.

[waitforufo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33647535

 

How many more people have to die before your shame overcomes your need to hold on to the privilege of owning a lethal weapon?

Edit... Besides that doesn't answer the question.

I feel no shame for the actions of others. If someone purposefully runs down a crowd of people with a car should I feel shame because I own a car? No. Does that better answer your question?

 

 

No it’s not; people die FOR rights not because of them.

No, people FIGHT for rights. They FIGHT for their rights because there rights are inalienable part of there being. The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable.

As long as the right to own guns is in the US Constitution (and I think it is likely that it will always be there) I think we'd be much better off regulating guns to a much greater extent. For example, I would like to see legislation that required people purchasing guns to attend gun safety classes, and to have significant security of their weapons in their homes. To me these are just common sense requirements that do not infringe on anyone's rights.

 

What I really despise about the NRA and gun nuts is their knee-jerk reaction to ANY legislation that would enhance the safety of their fellow citizens, just because it might cause them to suffer some minor inconvenience.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

 

And just to rant a bit, I find it incredibly hypocritical for those who demand a 'waiting period' for women seeking abortion and that the women view photographs of fetuses or abortions, would balk at the idea of gun purchasers having to endure a waiting period or be required to view photographs of children who have been shot.

So you are for abortion waiting periods?

 

If I already own guns, what purpose does a waiting period serve?

 

 

I agree that many British subjects' attitude to their monarch is crazy. How does that impact on this discussion in the slightest?

 

 

It points out a defect in your culture with respect to rights. In your culture some people have more rights than others. Some are born better. It's understandable that Brits don't get rights. Our culture has similar rights defects in particular with respect to race. Just look at our history to understand the deaths caused when rights are ignored.

 

The right (to gun own and bear guns) is something humans have decided upon - it's just that these rights supersede the agency of the government. So if the government tried to ban guns you would argue this right is mine by virtue of my birth not the government so you cannot take it away?

 

But what if the 'will of the people' had it in mind to ban guns, then lobbied the government to make the necessary changes (if any are required). In your view could this legitimately change such rights?

 

But i'm aware that some people regard natural rights to come from some 'ultimate' source: some god, or from the universe itself. I just wondered where on the spectrum you considered natural rights.

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

[dimreepr]

 

I feel no shame for the actions of others. If someone purposefully runs down a crowd of people with a car should I feel shame because I own a car? No. Does that better answer your question?

 

No, people FIGHT for rights. They FIGHT for their rights because there rights are inalienable part of there being. The right to FIGHT for their rights is the reason why the right to bear arms is inalienable.

 

 

 

It seems you’re prepared to sacrifice others to maintain your privilege (sorry, inalienable rights) and even if you feel no shame others will see that you should and change things anyway; either way your intransigent attitude is part of the problem and so you’re partly responsible for every death since you first posted; let’s hope you never find out what it feels like to actually take a life, you may prefer to amputate your hand (to prevent you typing another’s death warrant) than find out.

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

 

 

LOL This argument is beyond ridiculous, no wonder you feel no shame.

[zapatos]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The part that says you can't be required to take a class, or should be allowed to buy surface to air missiles, or shouldn't have to pay money for your gun, or taxes on the purchase, or that not being allowed to carry a gun into a Federal building is an infringement.

 

So you are for abortion waiting periods?

No, I am against hypocrisy.

 

If I already own guns, what purpose does a waiting period serve?

Do you mean when you try to purchase another? If so, the purpose is to give you the opportunity to think about what you are doing and possibly turn away from such an affront to God.

 

My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?

Haha. No, seriously.

[waitforufo]

It seems you’re prepared to sacrifice others to maintain your privilege (sorry, inalienable rights) and even if you feel no shame others will see that you should and change things anyway; either way your intransigent attitude is part of the problem and so you’re partly responsible for every death since you first posted; let’s hope you never find out what it feels like to actually take a life, you may prefer to amputate your hand (to prevent you typing another’s death warrant) than find out.

I'm sure I would feel horrible if I was ever forced to take a life in defense of human rights. I may not even have the courage. Neither of those things mean that actions do defend my rights would not be justified regardless of my feelings about them.

 

The part that says you can't be required to take a class, or should be allowed to buy surface to air missiles, or shouldn't have to pay money for your gun, or taxes on the purchase, or that not being allowed to carry a gun into a Federal building is an infringement.

 

No, I am against hypocrisy.

 

Do you mean when you try to purchase another? If so, the purpose is to give you the opportunity to think about what you are doing and possibly turn away from such an affront to God.

Where does the second say I need to take a class? Should people have to take a class before they are allowed to vote? I do not need surface to air missiles to defend my rights to life, liberty, or property nor does anyone else. I must pay for my own weapons. Doing otherwise would bind the makers of of sad weapons to involuntary servitude. I am bound to respect the life, liberty, and property of others just like they are bound to respect mine. I have no right not to pay taxes. Believe me I pay lots of them. Have you ever noticed that gun free zones are where most mass shootings happen. Sandy Hook Elementary School was a gun free zone. In my youth I carried a gun into a federal building. No one died. I was taking a hunter's safety class at the time. Hunting is a privilege.

 

You are not a hypocrite? Are you for waiting periods or not?

 

If I already own a gun. In your way of thinking, by already owning a gun I have demonstrated that I have no problem with affronting god. So what does god have to do with it? Besides we have a separation of church and state in the United States. Worrying about god is none of the governments business.

 

 

In response to "My rights are as essential to me as my chromosomes. Can my chromosomes be legislated away?" You two replied

Haha. No, seriously.

 

LOL This argument is beyond ridiculous, no wonder you feel no shame.

My chromosomes come from nature do they not? So do my rights. Why is this idea laughable or ridiculous? Where do your rights come from? Do you have any? Are they granted by a king? Are the decided by your government. If so are the rights of someone in the US different from someone in Chad, East Timor, or the Islamic State? I don't think they are.

 

I have the right to free speech, but I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I have the right to own guns, but I don't have the right to fire that gun in a crowded theater. Seems to me we have our laws and rights properly ordered.

 

 

Edit ---

Come to think of it I also brought guns into my high school for wood and metal shop projects. I made a new stock for an old 410 shotgun and I modified an old Turkish Mauser to accept a scope mount for hunting. Lots of boys did this. You didn't even have to ask for permission. Also, almost every pick up truck in the high school parking lot had a gun rack with guns in the rack. This was particularly true during the fall hunting season. No problems at all.

Edited July 24, 2015 by waitforufo

[Harold Squared]

Whether or not there is a culture of fear the point remains that, there are people who are dead who would be alive if someone had chosen to buy a gaming system or a set of skis rather than a gun.

 

They died because someone chose to get hold of a thing that is designed to kill.

 

That's a strange choice with a very bad outcome. Obviously it doesn't happen all the time but that's not the point.

Every time someone buys skis instead of a gun they don't lead to someone getting shot.

So, perhaps they don't care about someone getting killed (I guess you would agree that someone who thinks that way shouldn't have a gun).

Or perhaps they thought" it won't happen to me"; but everyone whose kid gets shot in an accident or who tshoots their spouse dead a slanging match had bought the gun thinking "it won't happen to me" - but it did.

The way to avoid shootings is not to have guns.

Fine. Put a big sign on your front lawn saying, "No guns here, rob and rape with impunity." Nobody will shoot you for having such an enlightened point of view, they will respect your desires and confine themselves to clubs and knives which will not kill you nearly as dead.

 

WAIT, are not criminals professional lawbreakers by definition? Maybe they would not be so considerate, after all.

 

It does seem incongruous to imagine Chainsaw Vinnie saying, "Rocco, I cannot pull dat bank job wit youse on account of my handgun permit has expired."

Edited July 24, 2015 by Harold Squared

[StringJunky]

Fine. Put a big sign on your front lawn saying, "No guns here, rob and rape with impunity." Nobody will shoot you for having such an enlightened point of view, they will respect your desires and confine themselves to clubs and knives which will not kill you nearly as dead.

Nice to see you scraping the barrel Harold. Millions of people in the UK don't have guns on their property and burglars know that. 53 years later I'm still waiting for the gun-toting burglar, or to even hear of it happening near me. Why is that Harold?

[Harold Squared]

You don't have anything worth stealing?

 

How the hell should I know? I haven't been robbed either lately, though crimes did occur at several places I have worked in the past.

 

But one thing is for sure, criminals have no scruples when it comes to violating the law. Laws which deprive citizens of legitimate weaponry therefore have no effect upon the criminal element.

Nice to see you scraping the barrel Harold. Millions of people in the UK don't have guns on their property and burglars know that. 53 years later I'm still waiting for the gun-toting burglar, or to even hear of it happening near me. Why is that Harold?

Let's just be glad that your country's economy can't go into the dumpster, and some fringe political party can't come to power, and that party cannot take issue with your politics or religion or you picking the wrong goddam ancestors and ship you off to a camp someplace, shall we?

[zapatos]

Where does the second say I need to take a class?

Where does the second say you don't have to take a class?

 

I do not need surface to air missiles to defend my rights to life, liberty, or property nor does anyone else.

The person who is on the ground being attacked from the air needs a surface to air missile to defend his rights to life, liberty, or property.

 

You are not a hypocrite? Are you for waiting periods or not?

I hope I'm not a hypocrite. No, I'm not for waiting periods.

 

In your way of thinking, by already owning a gun I have demonstrated that I have no problem with affronting god. So what does god have to do with it? Besides we have a separation of church and state in the United States. Worrying about god is none of the governments business.

Sorry, I was attempting to be facetious, trying to tie waiting periods to purchase guns back to waiting periods to have abortions.

 

My chromosomes come from nature do they not?

Yes

 

So do my rights. Why is this idea laughable or ridiculous? Where do your rights come from?

My rights come from the Constitution, which came from those who wrote it, voted on it, and guaranteed it. Outside of the fact that nature is why I'm here, nature had nothing to do with my right to own my Glock 17.

[Harold Squared]

Actually your rights come from God. That way no temporary secular authority can take them away.

 

Even the atheists have God given rights, the pack of ingrates.

 

GENERAL GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER'S NOTES ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE ENEMY

 

1.) The enemy will arrive in suitable numbers and as well equipped as possible to secure his objective.

2.) The enemy will fail to notify you of his plans.

3.) This is gonna hurt...

[iNow]

Have you ever noticed that gun free zones are where most mass shootings happen.

This is, of course, untrue. It's little more than another of those long debunked myths that people strangely never stop touting in these discussions despite its obvious falsity.

 

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-gun-free-zone-myth-mass-murder-magnets/

I would venture to say that most guns sold in the US are never used to kill anyone.

You and I appear to be pretty close on this issue, but you have to admit... The numbers here sort of bleed out and get lost in the noise when you realize there is roughly one gun per person in the US (and we have a population of 320M).

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/24/9030337/gun-violence-mass-shootings

[overtone]

You and I appear to be pretty close on this issue, - - -

Along with a huge majority of your fellow American citizens. Hold that thought.

 

So any time we want to, we can discard the overheated rhetoric and come to a perfectly reasonable consensus. But that means the threatening bs on both sides has to go - there is no moral high ground on top of bad stats, appeals to emotion, slander of reason, trashing of basic principles, and the like, regardless of the virtues of one's higher cause.

 

America is awash in firearms, and will be for our lifetimes barring tyranny. American society is comparatively violent on a personal level, and will be for our lifetimes barring tyranny. So an unusually high level of peacetime gun violence is within reason a permanent aspect of American life, barring tyranny. That's the bad news. The good news is that it's not that bad for most people, and it could get a lot better for everyone.

 

It could even get a lot better without addressing guns specifically - by addressing the drug laws, minimum sentencing, and economic oppression of racial minorities, say.

 

But it could also get better via legal backing and accountability behind the notion of a "responsible gun owner". And that is where the consensus is broadest, the meeting of minds easiest to achieve. Most people would agree, for example, that an armed man who starts a fight with an unarmed man is not exonerated by "self defense" if he shoots the guy because he is going to lose the fight. Carrying a gun carries extra responsibility for those starting fights, in the common and consensus view.

Edited July 25, 2015 by overtone

[Ten oz]

How did the founders feel and the right to arms:

 

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” – Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776 George Mason

 

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” – Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850) Samuel Adams

 

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military, supplies.” – Speech in the United States Congress, January 8, 1790; George Washington: A Collection, compiled and edited by W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1988), Chapter 11 George Washington

 

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, New York Packet, January 29, 1788; The Federalist (The Gideon Edition), (1818), James Madison

 

 

Much was written on this topic during the framing of the country. The founders made it very clear that they believed armed citzens as oppsoed to an armed standing government controlled Army was the greatest way to ensure liberty. The founders spoke of arms being used to fight standing Armies and protect whole communities. In context it make sense. They had just taken up arms and built a civiclian rebellion to earn independence. Individual states and communities self governed and the country to a large extended was still beyond any form of centralized control.

Those of us in this thread who would like to see various forms of gun control have been repeatedly told that we don't understand the Second Amendment or distort its meaning to satisfy or opinions. I believe pro gun advocates distort the meaning and intentions behind the Second Amendment much as anyone else. The founders spoke of "arms" not specifically guns. They spoke of combating standing Armies as they had England. They did so with all the "arms" available at the time. To directly translate their vision the United States wouldn't currently have a standing military and the people would be armed. Of course today, as techn has changed, being armed would mean weapons akin to long range missiles. Pro gun advocates are smart enough to not take the Second Amendment there. To tip toe back the definition of "Arms" to mean gun specifically because that was the most widely used weapon at that time. Because advocating for individuals to posses long range missiles is too ridiculous. That is of course the reason why we have a standing Army to today. Because as technology changed our security required it. Armed citizens are not sufficient vs nuclear submarines, jet fighters, and tanks. Armed citizens grabbing the rifle off the mantel above the fireplace doesn't get it done in the modern world.

So lets stop accussing each other of not understanding the Second Admendment. Lets stop all the hyerbole about the Second Amendment. What is means, to the people who wrote, no longer exists as a practical thing. We can argue that individuals having guns is valuable against an oppressive government, for self protection, as a crime deodorant, and etc without insisting that the Second Amendment explicitly states that.

[waitforufo]

My rights come from the Constitution, which came from those who wrote it, voted on it, and guaranteed it. Outside of the fact that nature is why I'm here, nature had nothing to do with my right to own my Glock 17.

Well if rights come from the US Constitution, it seems to me that billions of people, not living under the US Constitution, that have no rights. I think you are wrong. I think they have the same rights that you and I have. Exactly the same. That piece of paper, the US Constitution, simply recognizes those rights, it does not establish them. That is what makes it such a great document. Why is this such a hard concept, particularly for those with a liberal mindset, to accept?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/louisiana-gunman-suffered-from-mental-illness-court-documents-show/2015/07/24/798162f0-3220-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

 

 

The gun used in the shootings — a .40-caliber, semiautomatic handgun — was legally purchased in February 2014 at a Phenix City, Ala., pawn shop, police said. A legal purchase would mean a background check was done, and experts said Houser’s earlier involuntary commitment for mental illness most likely should have prevented him from making the purchase. It is unclear why he was allowed to buy the weapon.

Another great demonstration of gun control and the effectiveness of government.

Edited July 25, 2015 by waitforufo