Gun Legislation: 11-20-2003 Guns Kill, not people

[Fencer128]

Hi,

Whilst I see why you'd want to own a gun if you live in America, I find it hard to dispute that knives, clubs, fists, paperclips kill people - but guns and bullets kill many people very easily. Pyschologically it's much easier to kill by pulling a trigger at a distance than by going up to someone and pushing a knife into them - ask any soldier who's had the unfortunate priviledge of being in a bayonet charge and I doubt they'll dispute it.

Unfortunately this is all moot - as now the guns are out there - no amnesty/ban will ever succeed in removing the millions of firearms in the hands of the criminals (since there not law abiding) so you'll still probably want to hang onto your own weapon in that case.

Cheers,

Andy

 

[freegeeks]

there should be a law that everyone must have a Vulcan mini gun in his house

 

[chess9]

Fifty years ago there was no question that Americans should have the right to bear arms. Today it is a legitimate question whether Americans should still have unfettered ownership rights, and for several reasons. Americans have shown poor judgment in their recent handling of firearms and this problem has been exacerbated by a host of aggravating factors e.g., drugs, reckless automobile use, divorce, and the promotion of violence by our culture and government.

I support the private ownership of guns, yet I think those who have the privilege to own guns should be circumscribed more severely. Those who regularly violate our traffic laws obviously don't have the self-control to own a firearm, so they should be among the first to lose their guns. Those who violate our drug laws also should forfeit their right to own a gun. Ditto for anyone who commits a violent crime. I see no reason to take guns away from non-violent criminals, though. And, anyone who has a record of safe gun usage should have expanded rights, e.g. the right to sell and repair guns and teach firearm safety. No one needs an assault weapon any more than they need a tactical thermonuclear weapon.

Support freedom by supporting rational gun control.

FWIW. the 9th Circuit is nuts. I see no merit in that lawsuit, just a plaintiff looking for deep pockets.

-Robert

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: chess9
Fifty years ago there was no question that Americans should have the right to bear arms. Today it is a legitimate question whether Americans should still have unfettered ownership rights, and for several reasons. Americans have shown poor judgment in their recent handling of firearms and this problem has been exacerbated by a host of aggravating factors e.g., drugs, reckless automobile use, divorce, and the promotion of violence by our culture and government.

I support the private ownership of guns, yet I think those who have the privilege to own guns should be circumscribed more severely. Those who regularly violate our traffic laws obviously don't have the self-control to own a firearm, so they should be among the first to lose their guns. Those who violate our drug laws also should forfeit their right to own a gun. Ditto for anyone who commits a violent crime. I see no reason to take guns away from non-violent criminals, though. And, anyone who has a record of safe gun usage should have expanded rights, e.g. the right to sell and repair guns and teach firearm safety. No one needs an assault weapon any more than they need a tactical thermonuclear weapon.

Support freedom by supporting rational gun control.

FWIW. the 9th Circuit is nuts. I see no merit in that lawsuit, just a plaintiff looking for deep pockets.

-Robert

Well said.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chess9

FWIW. the 9th Circuit is nuts. I see no merit in that lawsuit, just a plaintiff looking for deep pockets.

-Robert

Good Post. Enforcement OF Freedoms not Banning FROM Freedoms.

Unfortunately the 9th Circuit is not alone. Whacky Judges all over the Country are the Rulers of the Country.

 

[Bulk Beef]

No one needs an assault weapon any more than they need a tactical thermonuclear weapon.

Support freedom by supporting rational gun control.

Does that mean the AWB is "rational"?

 

[chess9]

Sward666:

Why not?

-Robert

 

[Bulk Beef]

Answer the question first. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

 

[Fencer128]

Good Post. Enforcement OF Freedoms not Banning FROM Freedoms.

Unfortunately the 9th Circuit is not alone. Whacky Judges all over the Country are the Rulers of the Country.

Just out of interest (I don't live in the USA) - are these judges directly elected? If not - how are they selected? What I'm getting at is "Are these 'wacky' people just representative of the population in those areas?"

Cheers,

Andy

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Good Post. Enforcement OF Freedoms not Banning FROM Freedoms.

Unfortunately the 9th Circuit is not alone. Whacky Judges all over the Country are the Rulers of the Country.

Just out of interest (I don't live in the USA) - are these judges directly elected? If not - how are they selected? What I'm getting at is "Are these 'wacky' people just representative of the population in those areas?"

Cheers,

Andy

U.S. Circuit Court judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

 

[djNickb]

So while we're at it we should ban cars too they kill way too many people and what about those that decide to pack em full of explosives and ram em into buildings. I think we should definitely ban cars first. Think of the children

 

[maluckey]

Sure, let's go that route. Roughly 50 percent of all auto related accidents show the driver to be under the influence of a mind altering substance. I think that we should ban beer, and sue Budweiser, and Jack Daniels for forcing the drivers to drink. Then we sue the corner drug dealers for making people take drugs, then we sue mom and dad dfor not raising us correctly, and lastly, we sue everyperson in the U.S. that ever imbibed an alcoholic beverage, or and anyone who ever partook of a DEA Schedule I drug.

For good measure, we should also sue those who took DEA Schedule II drugs without a prescription. After that we can sue the drug manufacturers, and the banks that gave them the capital to build the plants, and the construction companies that built them. We should also sue the British, since they used to own part of our country. The French are next, having owned the midwest, and it's now Metamphetamine ridden corridor.


It's a stupid lawsuit. The 9th Circuit Court is the most overturned in the U.S., and for good reason!

 

[chess9]

djNickB:

Well, about half the people driving shouldn't have drivers licenses, IMHO. Seventy-five percent of males over the age of 16 are "suffering" from so much testosterone overload they should be reduced to riding a bike everywhere. I'm not kidding. Half the women are so distracted in their cars and have such lousy driving skills they should be walking. All of which would have a salutory effect on our Medicare costs, given the rampant obesity in America. We might even get the experience of breathing oxygen again at some point in the future.

Anyway, we give almost EVERYONE a drivers license. Getting a judge to pull a drivers license of a drunk or habitual violator is harder than getting the death sentence imposed, or so it seems. An uninsured, unlicensed (suspended), and uncoordinated female struck me from behind while I was out on a training ride on my bike. Her license had been suspended 3 times yet she never served a day in jail, including the aforementioned accident in which I was almost killed. She had 2 convictions for possession of cocaine, so we all knew what her problem actually was.

-Robert

 

[djNickb]

Originally posted by: chess9
djNickB:

Well, about half the people driving shouldn't have drivers licenses, IMHO. Seventy-five percent of males over the age of 16 are "suffering" from so much testosterone overload they should be reduced to riding a bike everywhere. I'm not kidding. Half the women are so distracted in their cars and have such lousy driving skills they should be walking. All of which would have a salutory effect on our Medicare costs, given the rampant obesity in America. We might even get the experience of breathing oxygen again at some point in the future.

Anyway, we give almost EVERYONE a drivers license. Getting a judge to pull a drivers license of a drunk or habitual violator is harder than getting the death sentence imposed, or so it seems. An uninsured, unlicensed (suspended), and uncoordinated female struck me from behind while I was out on a training ride on my bike. Her license had been suspended 3 times yet she never served a day in jail, including the aforementioned accident in which I was almost killed. She had 2 convictions for possession of cocaine, so we all knew what her probably actually was.

-Robert

Exactly my point! There should be 'car control' before we advocate so strongly for 'gun control' Its so easy to get ahold of a vehicle - legal or not and a car can become a weapon quite easily. Almost anything in the hands of an idiot can become a threat to other peoples safety. THINK OF THE CHILDREN - BAN CARS NOW

p.s. I think someone put something in the coffee here this morning ~~~

:Q

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do.

What about dangerous majorities?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain
I guess miguel and dirtboy are therefore opposed to the Iraq War. Saddam merely owned WMDs. He didn't use them. Everyone should be allowed to own their own personal nuclear bomb.

Errr, kinda quick to jump to conclusions, aren't you? Guns != WMD

Shrug, they're both weapons, designed to cause destruction. Even if Saddam had WMDs, he never used one. Should we have one form of reasoning in one case and another form in another case?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: rjain
I guess miguel and dirtboy are therefore opposed to the Iraq War. Saddam merely owned WMDs. He didn't use them. Everyone should be allowed to own their own personal nuclear bomb.

Errr, kinda quick to jump to conclusions, aren't you? Guns != WMD

Shrug, they're both weapons, designed to cause destruction. Even if Saddam had WMDs, he never used one. Should we have one form of reasoning in one case and another form in another case?

Yes. It's all about degrees. If you don't see the difference between a nuclear weapon and a gun, then I can no longer help you.

 

[AEB]

Larry elder discuss this in his book "10 things you can't say in america". He makes reference to a book called "more guns, less crime:understanding crime and Gun control Laws" THis particular point is interesting from larrys book "Thirty-one states in america allow citizens to carry concealed weapons... in all thirty-one states, the murder rate declined" (from journal of legal studies 96) Also 74 percent of felons in a survey by teh national institute of justice said "one reason [they] burglars avoid houses when people are home is they fear of being shot during the crime"

Charlton heston said something interesting in regard to gun controls. When the LA riots of 92 were going on lots of Liberal Democrats he knew called him and asked him if he could train them to use a firearm. Heston said "Not this quickly". Elder then adds the old line "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged".

 

[Shad0hawK]

it is more dangerous being the mistress of a democrat than going to the firing range.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
it is more dangerous being the mistress of a democrat than going to the firing range.

I'm pretty sure you were trying to be funny, but does anyone know how dangerous the firing range really is? From what I know, it's a very safe place.

 

[seti920]

Just out of interest (I don't live in the USA) - are these judges directly elected? If not - how are they selected?

Cheers,

Andy

All federal judges (9th Circuit court is federal) are appointed by the president; their appointment must be confirmed by a majority vote of our senate.

Most states elect state judges directly - Massachusetts and Cow Hampshire allow their governor just to appoint judges.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
it is more dangerous being the mistress of a democrat than going to the firing range.

I'm pretty sure you were trying to be funny, but does anyone know how dangerous the firing range really is? From what I know, it's a very safe place.

Well, as long as you aren't the target, it's pretty safe Most folks who go to a firing range take gun safety very seriously. They are very popular with police (often police departments contract out ranges rather than build their own), so criminals don't generally come with their stolen saturday night specials to keep sharp

My father-in-law was a range instructor for his department. Hell of a shot, even when he lost partial eyesight in one eye I can't come close to him with any gun.

 

[miguel]

When it comes to gun laws, I don't understand why they don't go after the criminals. Pass a law that if you commit a crime with a gun, then automatic life in prison. If you had fired said gun, death penalty. Period. Why pass laws to make law-abiding people (you know, the ones who follow the law) give up their guns? They aren't the problem. Face the problem. Fix the problem. Don't dance around it. Don't ban wood houses because of arsonists. Kill the arsonists.