6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[Sava]

Hey David, does that mean its okay if I own a nuclear weapon?

[David Floyd]

Hey David, does that mean its okay if I own a nuclear weapon?

I'm not going down this road because its a tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is also a minefield.
If I say "yes", you'll turn that into the main topic of the thread and use it to hit me with ad hominems.
If I say "no", you'll call me a hypocrite.

So it's lose-lose, and I'm not getting into it.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sava
I witnessed a shooting when I was at the University of Illinois. A bunch of gang members tried coming into this party I was at. When some guys from a frat told them they couldn't come in, they came back and one of them shot one of the frat guys. I was 20 feet away from it.

Did the gang members have their FOIDs? Were they carrying concealed? I thought that was illegal in Illinois.

Re: nuclear weapons.

Gosh, Sava. You dragged out the nuclear weapons fallacy. Surprise, surprise.

If that's really a concern, why not go look up the section of the Constitution dealing with amendments and get one passed forbidding nuclear weapons. Otherwise, stop going to absurd levels to shore up your argument.

[David Floyd]

why not go look up the section of the Constitution dealing with amendments and get one passed forbidding nuclear weapons.

Oh we don't bother with amendments anymore. The process is too bloody inconvenient. We just pass whatever ol' law we feel like these days.
Sad but true.

[Az]

If I say "no", you'll call me a hypocrite.

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Azazel

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

Well, a Belt miner fighting off pirates might need one.

Oh, you meant on Earth.

[David Floyd]

There is no hypocricy in that . Nuclear weapons aren't in ANY WAY POSSIBLE , a self-defence oriented weapon.

Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the right to property are not limited to self defense, are they?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


How does that have ANYTHING to do with the right of government to restrict private property?

Why shouldn't the public be allowed to hear both sides of the argument? Are you saying that the people on this forum should not be allowed to gauge the effects of the policy of unrestricted gun access? Are you saying that the effect of the policy on people's lives has no bearing on the argument?

[David Floyd]

Why shouldn't the public be allowed to hear both sides of the argument? Are you saying that the people on this forum should not be allowed to gauge the effects of the policy of unrestricted gun access? Are you saying that the effect of the policy on people's lives has no bearing on the argument?

I'm saying that such emotional arguments have no place in rational discussion. Emotions should never be used as a justification for denying someone their natural rights.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Of course, the 2nd Amendment and the right to property are not limited to self defense, are they?

We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

It's also well known that the second amendment was put in the Constitution to placate some of the more paranoid southern states; it was meant to allow them the security blanket of having their own militias to protect them from the Federal government. They revolted anyway, and they lost. At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Hmmmm......Here's an idea. Some future rational Federal government should convince some like minded state government that it should sue to get back it's state militia. The Attorney General puts up a weak fight, then agrees to surrender the suit on the provision that the language of the Supreme Court's opinion clarifies the fact that the second amendment was only intended to grant the states' rights to have their own militias. Then the Federal government will be free to pass some effective gun regulation.

Sweet, huh?

[David Floyd]

We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

Through an amendment, of course. Try getting a gun-banning amendment through.

At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Wrong, because the wording of the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms.

The Attorney General puts up a weak fight, then agrees to surrender the suit on the provision that the language of the Supreme Court's opinion clarifies the fact that the second amendment was only intended to grant the states' rights to have their own militias.

That won't be anytime soon, what with the current Court and the likely Bush appointees

Actually, Bush's appointees (if he appoints people similar to his own views) are likely to push through an opinion with the opposite language - and it's pretty rare that a future Court directly invalidates the decision of a previous Court.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
We did away with slavery, so the fact that the original constitution had its flaws is well established.

It's also well known that the second amendment was put in the Constitution to placate some of the more paranoid southern states; it was meant to allow them the security blanket of having their own militias to protect them from the Federal government. They revolted anyway, and they lost. At the end of the 19th century the state militias were federalized, thereby essentially voiding the second amendment.

Care to prove *that* little assertion?

(...trying to stay diplomatic. Though I do wonder if there's a pony hiding somewhere in your words.)

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Uh... so why is England's violent crime rate (with handguns even) going up?

Still isn't within screaming distance of the US murder rate.

...and making guns completely illegal will stop criminals from breaking the law how, exactly?

Don't be obtuse Even you assume that nobody who breaks that law would ever be caught buying the gun (thereby stopping the gun related crime before it happens), making guns harder to obtain will reduce the chance of them being used. Fewer guns in society makes them harder to use in impulse crimes.

If breeding anthrax in basements was a popular hobby, would you support that, too?

[David Floyd]

Oh, and one little point Dr Strangelove. The National Guard and the militia are totally separate. The Guard was created by an act of Congress, while militias, according to US law still on the books, consist of every able bodied and willing male. So even if you argue that the right to bear arms only extends to the militia, it won't get you very far.

[Lars-E]

There are a lot of crimes in the USA where guns are involved. Not?

Look to other countries where there is gun control. Less gun-related crimes.

And the slogan of the NRA... Pure rethoric and nothing but so imo.

"Guns don't kill ppl - bullets do" is on the same level..

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm saying that such emotional arguments have no place in rational discussion. Emotions should never be used as a justification for denying someone their natural rights.

Sure they do, because what's at stake here are competing natural rights, the right of one group to own dangerous objects and the right of another group to live. I'm not going to even try to give a comprehensive list here of the different laws which restrict your right to own property, laws like building codes, construction codes, DOT codes, etc., etc. The right of the people to protect themselves by restricting the ownernership of dangerous items is well established. The simple fact is that in America many more people are killed by guns each year than are saved by them.

The fact that you really seem to be completely untouched by the vast amount of suffering caused by your so called right to own a mere piece of metal ought to cause you some concern David.

A few years back one of the nurses at the clinic I work at was killed in the parking lot by her boyfriend. The gun he used had been bought legally sometime back at a private gun sale. In Virginia private gun sales do not require the background check that gun stores are required to make. The man who killed her had been released from prison shortly before meeting her. he had been convicted of assaulting another woman. The truly pathetic thing about this affair was that the girl's brother had been killed by a gun during an argument with a friend of his a few years before. Her death left her parents childless.

[David Floyd]

I'm not going to even try to give a comprehensive list here of the different laws which restrict your right to own property, laws like building codes, construction codes, DOT codes, etc., etc. The right of the people to protect themselves by restricting the ownernership of dangerous items is well established.

And I'm saying that this is not a proper or legitimate function of government. Government has a responsibility to punish crime when it occurs, but not to pass laws designed to prevent crime by denying basic rights to law abiding citizens.

The fact that you really seem to be completely untouched by the vast amount of suffering caused by your so called right to own a mere piece of metal ought to cause you some concern David.

"A mere piece of metal" can also be seen as a symbol of property rights, and natural rights as a whole. If the government can take my gun, what CAN'T they take?

A few years back one of the nurses at the clinic I work at was killed in the parking lot by her boyfriend. The gun he used had been bought legally sometime back at a private gun sale. In Virginia private gun sales do not require the background check that gun stores are required to make. The man who killed her had been released from prison shortly before meeting her. he had been convicted of assaulting another woman. The truly pathetic thing about this affair was that the girl's brother had been killed by a gun during an argument with a friend of his a few years before. Her death left her parents childless.

A tragedy. Hopefully the guy got the death penalty. That'll prevent him from committing any more crimes EVER. How's that for deterrance?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and one little point Dr Strangelove. The National Guard and the militia are totally separate. The Guard was created by an act of Congress, while militias, according to US law still on the books, consist of every able bodied and willing male. So even if you argue that the right to bear arms only extends to the militia, it won't get you very far.

The National Guard was formed from the state militias right around the time of the Spanish - American War. All state militias are now part of the federalized national guard. Governors can call out their state National Guard Units only with the permission of the Federal government. That is why Eisenhower was able to order the state National Guards of Arkansas and Alabama to protect school campuses threatened with (white) racial violence in the 1950s.

The "Unformed Militia of the United States" was established on the law books at the time of the first draft in the 1860s. It was enacted in order to legitimatize the federal draft. Since every male of the appropriate age was to be considered already a member of this militia, then drafting them was merely a matter of calling up the militia.

Hmmmmm.......You're full of great ideas tonight Dave. Since militias are under the control of their commander, and a commander can order his men to give up their weapons, it should be possible to write a law that would give the federal governmen the right to regulate the ownership of guns based on the fact that everyone is a member of the "Unformed Militia"! Membership in this militia would of course have to be greatly extended.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd

"A mere piece of metal" can also be seen as a symbol of property rights, and natural rights as a whole. If the government can take my gun, what CAN'T they take?

Unfortunately, we live in a society. A government can (and should) regulate activities (such as gun ownership) that pose an undue threat to the lives of the members of the society it governs.

[Space05us]

Has anyone on this forum ever been shot? Does anyone here know someone who has been killed by a gun, or who has been shot and suvived? Does anyone here know someone who lost a family member or friend to gun violence? Does anyone here know someone who has a family member of friend who has been shot and survived?

One of my freinds was killed with a baseball bat. Someone I knew was killed with a knife.
All of the gang violence I know of is commited with knives or blunt objects (including chains, crowbars, bats, etc.)

However my sister has a freind who has a freind that knows someone who was shot over a drug deal does that count?

...If the government ever tries to confiscate everybody's firearms...

that would be a nightmare. could you imagine how much of the military and law enforcement would mutiny? there would probably be a huge civil war.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Lars-E
There are a lot of crimes in the USA where guns are involved. Not?

And other weapons. Is that because of lax gun control laws as well?

Look to other countries where there is gun control. Less gun-related crimes.

...and less gun-related crimes before the laws in question were passed. Funny that.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd

And I'm saying that this is not a proper or legitimate function of government. Government has a responsibility to punish crime when it occurs, but not to pass laws designed to prevent crime by denying basic rights to law abiding citizens.

"A mere piece of metal" can also be seen as a symbol of property rights, and natural rights as a whole. If the government can take my gun, what CAN'T they take?

A tragedy. Hopefully the guy got the death penalty. That'll prevent him from committing any more crimes EVER. How's that for deterrance?

Right now the government can regulate just about anything associated with your home. They can even seize it if it's not up to code. What could possibly be a more important right that the "right to be secure in [your] homes"? The up side of these laws is that no American city has been burned to the ground in nearly a century because codes increased the spacing and reduced the flamibility of buildings. Can you understand the rationale behind these laws?

Do guns prevent crimes? I've argued with Wraith, Berserker and you over Kleck's work at least twice, and proven that his work isn't worth the pixels it's printed on. Do I have to do it again?

The guy was stopped by the police because of a broken tail light several miles away from the scene of the crime and shot himself to death. He was an emotionaly unstable person who should not have had access to a gun.

[Space05us]

The guy was stopped by the police because of a broken tail light several miles away from the scene of the crime and shot himself to death. He was an emotionaly unstable person who should not have had access to a gun.

the mentaly unstable and convicted criminals should not be allowed to own guns.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

(england)
Still isn't within screaming distance of the US murder rate.

Still going up, while the US's is going down.

Don't be obtuse Even you assume that nobody who breaks that law would ever be caught buying the gun (thereby stopping the gun related crime before it happens), making guns harder to obtain will reduce the chance of them being used.

No, it only leaves them in the hands of those most likely to use them to harm others: violent criminals. Oh, and the government, but I digress.

Fewer guns in society makes them harder to use in impulse crimes.

And harder to use to defend oneself and presumes everyone's too unstable to own one.

If breeding anthrax in basements was a popular hobby, would you support that, too?

Strawman. Guns don't act on their own. Anthrax is a biological organism. Oh, and not something one can breed in a basement w/o some very expensive equipment.

[Capt Dizle]

The ultimate stupidity of gun control laws is that they are aimed at keeping criminals from having guns. But since when do criminals have a problem stealing?

If I wanted to pop someone do you think I would blanch at B@E to obtain a weapon?

Idiots.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by Sinapus
And other weapons. Is that because of lax gun control laws as well?

No, lack of "other weapons" laws.

BTW, I am not saying gun-control is the only measure that needs to be taken to combat crimes involving guns.

...and less gun-related crimes before the laws in question were passed. Funny that.

No, and not really funny imo. In my country there was a culture of stabbing in the old times. Not anymore... Way back in the Viking times everyone had a right to carry weapons. Almost the same as Americans today. Look what happened and what is still happening.

How can widespread distribution of tools for destruction lead to less destruction if you have a lot of them available to almost everyone, instead of a very limited number?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus
No, it only leaves them in the hands of those most likely to use them to harm others: violent criminals. Oh, and the government, but I digress.

So, are you saying that the US has more violent criminals per capita than other nations? Why do you think that is?

To stay on topic... where do these violent criminals get their guns, if there are none in society?

And harder to use to defend oneself and presumes everyone's too unstable to own one.

People don't use guns to defend themselves. It's a fallacy to assume that having a gun gives someone a better chance of surviving a violent confrontation. More likely, the hypothetical violent criminal takes the gun away from the victim, or shoots the victim first.

It always amazes me that people can put their 'natural' right to own a gun above the right to survival.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Space05us

Quote:

The guy was stopped by the police because of a broken tail light several miles away from the scene of the crime and shot himself to death. He was an emotionaly unstable person who should not have had access to a gun.

the mentaly unstable and convicted criminals should not be allowed to own guns.

Though Virginia requires background checks when guns are bought at stores, checks are not required when guns are sold by private owners, so this guy obtained a gun legally at a gun show. Thanks to this loophole, which the NRA supports, gun shows are almost as common around here as funerals.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


People don't use guns to defend themselves. It's a fallacy to assume that having a gun gives someone a better chance of surviving a violent confrontation. More likely, the hypothetical violent criminal takes the gun away from the victim, or shoots the victim first.

Ah, but we have some of the finest research results that money can buy to prove otherwise.

[David Floyd]

I'm not sure what your point is about research. I've frankly never much cared what the research proves, because it is irrelevant to my belief on the subject.

Regardless of how many people use firearms inappropriately, that has nothing to do with me, and I should not be penalized for it. Once someone breaks the law, they should certainly be punished, but they should not be punished in advance through the stripping of property rights.