|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2001 : 10:05:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I'm a computer programmer, we are in air all day. (for obvious reasons) The only thing I think they should do is have someone with a blow torch at the front door. ("This is what it feels like outside." puffffffffffffft)
Gee Dancer, I would hope you are in air all the time, wouldn't want YOUR untimely death.
I don't understand the ''puffffffffffffft''?
I too worked with computers where the temp had to be kept at around 68. It wasn't all that bad, although everyone did complain. We all just wore sweaters. Big deal.
VHEMT
The Pufffffffftttt is an attempt to make the sound of the blow torch being activated.
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2001 : 22:51:48 [Permalink]
|
It has been some time since I heard of a drive by stabbing. While it's true that guns are not the only way to kill people, they do make it a bit too easy to do. For one thing, you don't have to touch the person your trying to hurt. Just aim and shoot. Crimes of passion or silly accidents that lead to a death are a piece of cake with guns. I would much rather face a crazed person wielding a knife.
I doubt that there is a way to make guns safe from children. Lock them up, hide the key and run for cover. The NRA has opposed every mandatory safety device. They oppose everything that would inhibit their right to be as dangerous as they want to be. Personally, I think they are nuts.
Screw their interpretation of the second amendment right to bear arms. I think the amendment needs a rewrite so that these clowns will understand its intent. Maybe it would help if the second amendment came with pictures and small words.
As for comparing automobile accidents to accidental shootings, well, most of us drive and have chosen to take that risk. I choose not to have a gun and would consider it extremely rude if I was killed by some jerk because he shot a bullet into the air that just happened to fall back to the place on earth where I was standing and pierced my skull.
I'm sure Snake made that comparison because she lives in a hot place and doesn't have air conditioning. I get crazy when I have to go to the Valley.
I have been shot, by the way. It's no fun at all. The child/man was really sorry about shooting me. He was really very sorry. It was an accident. The bullet hit my middle finger. I had to have two surgeries to have the damage repaired and my hand will never be 100% again. Close though. I was lucky I suppose. If I had been standing a few inches to the left, I might have been killed.
The Evil Skeptic |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 02:05:06 [Permalink]
|
Gun make it much easier to kill people.
Guns allow all the following which are usually not possible with other weapons
- Kill victims from afar.
- Maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity.
- Kill larger and stronger people.
- Kill crowds.
- Frighten away people who might otherwise help.
- Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle.
- Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer.
- Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him.
There aren't many other weapons that can do that.
As for using them for self-defence, yes you have to pull the trigger, but if you do that when you can escape and avoid being killed or seriously injured or otherwise over power the offender then you are a criminal.
Self-defence requires that reasonable force be used. If your life isn't in danger then deadly force is not reasonable.
As for the 2nd amendment I read somewhere that it only applies to the rights of the states and not the people. It also mentioned that is how the courts over there have interpreted it to read.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 03:34:54 [Permalink]
|
The Second Amendment states:
quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I believe this means that people in a well regulated Militia can keep and bear Arms. Today, we call these people Policemen and National Guardsmen.
Not all change is progress. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 07:14:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Second Amendment states:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe this means that people in a well regulated Militia can keep and bear Arms. Today, we call these people Policemen and National Guardsmen.
There is some validity to this argument, and it is in fact the basis of most serious challenges to individual ownership of firearms. However, it has not been the interpretation of the courts, and I am of the opinion that it was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution. In partly inaccurate essence, the argument for individual ownership in light of the reference to "a well regulated militia" is based on the subsequent phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state." In this light, militia refers not to a body of the government (meaning, not the National Guard which cannot honestly be interpreted as a militia since it is a standing military force paid for, trained by, and controlled by the individual states), but to an armed citizenry capable of forming in the absence of governmental dictates, and possibly in opposition to the government.
And the idea that the police force constitutes the militia as referred to in this amendment is an unsupportable stretch.
Be all of that as it may, the intent is only secondary, though important. Most important is the directive portion of this amendment which says quite clearly "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
quote:
I doubt that there is a way to make guns safe from children. Lock them up, hide the key and run for cover.
If you mean there is now way to ensure perfect safety, then you are, of course, correct. If perfection is your standard then little will be accomplished, and there will be precious little that we are allowed to do or own.
But there is a way to ensure safety short of perfect safety. It's called education--education by the parents, by the way, not the state. I am reminded of a recent psychological study which placed children in a room with tubs of sweets, candies, popcorns, etc. They were told to wait five minutes while the grown-up left the room, and please not touch anything. The children from homes where treats were restricted fairly severely all rushed for the candy and gobbled it up; those from homes where the treats policy was a bit more permissive did not even appear tempted, choosing instead to color, play with blocks, etc. etc.
We could get anecdotal, I suppose, with some telling stories of tragic use of guns by children or grown-ups, and some (me included) telling stories of early education and consistently responsible use, but it proves little.
quote:
Guns allow all the following which are usually not possible with other weapons
Kill victims from afar.
Maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity.
Kill larger and stronger people.
Kill crowds.
Frighten away people who might otherwise help.
Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle.
Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer.
Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him.
There aren't many other weapons that can do that.
Kill victims from afar: Crossbows, bows, slingshots, throwing knives, stars.
Surprise, secrecy, and anonymity: These are all a matter of planning (and if it's not planned, then the firearm affords none of these). I can kill someone with as much surprise and a greater chance at secrecy and anonymity with my hands.
Kill larger and stronger people: And defend against larger and stronger people. Knives do the same. Martial arts training does the same.
Kill crowds: I'll concede the INTENT of this comment, but not the literal interpretation of it. And it's not impossible or unheard of for mass murders to occur with other weapons (ref: the recent attack in Japan). Despite what the media and movies portray, firearms are not easy to use effectively and most bullets miss with most victims surviving. (Please don't attack me about Columbine; I'm not trivializing it; I used to live near there and it was horrific.)
Frighten away people who might otherwise help: This is a new one, and the statement of someone without experience. You may as well say they give courage to those who would otherwise flee.
Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle: And in the case of self-defense, is this a bad thing?
Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer: First, you're begging the question in assuming that all those who use guns are murderers. Second, this is not a sure thing (the vast majority of shootings occur within a few feet and the shooter is likely to get splatter). Third, it ignores other physical evidence detectable with the old 'paraffin test' and other methods. Fourth, I can kill somebody without firearms quite cleanly without getting blood on me, thank you very much (when I say "I can kill...", I really mean it is possible and I do know of these things.)
Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him testify against him: Again, you're begging the question. And I'd like to see some stats, please, regarding percentage of intentional shootings resulting in death as opposed to intentional stabbings resulting in death or attacks with baseball bats, etc.
quote:
As for using them for self-defence, yes you have to pull the trigger, but if you do that when you can escape and avoid being killed or seriously injured or otherwise over power the offender then you are a criminal.
This applies to anything, including hitting someone when you could walk away.
quote:
Self-defence requires that reasonable force be used. If your life isn't in danger then deadly force is not reasonable.
Not strictly true, at least in most states in the U.S. Reasonable force in the legal sense is defined by two questions:
1. Is the amount of force used the minimum necessary to accomplish the goal?
2. Is the goal sufficiently desirable to justify the force used?
Regarding #2, an example would be stopping someone who stole a shirt from a store in the mall. If the only way to stop him is to shoot him, then you must let him escape, because the loss of a shirt does not justify the killing. But if you can stop him by grappling him and putting him i |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 08:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Like climate change, I think this is once again a topic in which the feelings towards certain high-profile propenents of gun rights color the views of the topic itself (e.g. NRA are a bunch of nuts, etc.).
Does anyone have any comments on the fact that many studies (including one sponsored by the Department of Justice) show anywhere between 800,000 and 1.5 million (one as high as 2.5 million) annual defensive gun uses? Versus 30,000 gun deaths?
(There is one study that found only 108,000 annually, but here is a good reason why.)
In this light, do the risks of guns really outweigh the benefits? It certainly doesn't appear so.
I'm all for enhancing gun safety through technology, though. One company has a really nifty gun that identifies it's owner through fingerprint recognition when the handle is grasped.
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 11:07:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does anyone have any comments on the fact that many studies (including one sponsored by the Department of Justice) show anywhere between 800,000 and 1.5 million (one as high as 2.5 million) annual defensive gun uses? Versus 30,000 gun deaths?
I am going to have to ask for some reference here. The use of guns in self defense are anecdotes to me. I have seldom heard of a gun being used to save someone.
Personally, I don't even care how the Supreme Court interprets the Second Ammendment. I think it was a bad idea. No amount of gun training is going to stop someone with mental troubles or someone that is on drugs or drunk or under extreme mental duress. One side effect of the Second Ammendment is that we need metal detectors in elementary schools! And the rest of us that don't want guns have to live in fear of those that do. I look at the American love affair with guns as this quaint macho custom that sadly has made it to the 21st century. It wasn't any good for anyone a hundred years ago and it's just worse for us all now. Why is it that so much of the world gets along just fine without guns yet we need to cling to this irrational belief that we need guns to protect us from people with guns??? It just seems incredibly stupid to me.
If you think I feel strongly about this you would be right. I think of guns as a risk to my fundamental right to life. The Second Ammendment is no longer workable in the world we now have and maybe never was to begin with.
So what are these militias that we end up with? I see examples like Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas and gangs. Yeah good fricken idea. Borders on genius. So the founding fathers screwed up. Let's fix it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 12:04:25 [Permalink]
|
Follow the link I posted. It refers to the studies done. The author of the study that came up with the 2.5 million figure is a Florida State University criminologist:
quote:
The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.
quote:
I look at the American love affair with guns as this quaint macho custom that sadly has made it to the 21st century. It wasn't any good for anyone a hundred years ago and it's just worse for us all now. Why is it that so much of the world gets along just fine without guns yet we need to cling to this irrational belief that we need guns to protect us from people with guns??? It just seems incredibly stupid to me.
I'm sorry, but this is just your safe middle-class U.S. experience talking. Ask some ethnic Albanians how useful guns would have been to them. How about the Afghans? Nah, they could've done without guns and still beat the Soviets... yeah, right. How many examples are there throughout history of peoples defended their freedoms from would-be conquerors through the use of firearms? So the need for firearms ended when we kicked King George out? How naive.
quote:
If you think I feel strongly about this you would be right. I think of guns as a risk to my fundamental right to life. The Second Ammendment is no longer workable in the world we now have and maybe never was to begin with.
How many examples of risks to your fundamental right to life does one have to cite that is more of a risk than guns, but that are totally acceptable in our society? Round and round; I don't understand why rationality is lost on this debate...
quote:
So what are these militias that we end up with? I see examples like Ruby Ridge, Waco Texas and gangs. Yeah good fricken idea. Borders on genius. So the founding fathers screwed up. Let's fix it.
This makes zero sense. These example you cite (sans gangs) are examples of the government using guns to kill it's citizens. This is what the 2nd Amendment is FOR!!! So we'll have a fighting chance should we ever need to protect ourselves from our or some other government, should our armed forces fail us, or turn against us. You may say "Oh, that wil never happen." I sure hope not. But I would say, you can count on it happening, if not in our lifetimes, then in our decendents.
quote:
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 12:22:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This makes zero sense. These example you cite (sans gangs) are examples of the government using guns to kill it's citizens. This is what the 2nd Amendment is FOR!!! So we'll have a fighting chance should we ever need to protect ourselves from our or some other government, should our armed forces fail us, or turn against us. You may say "Oh, that wil never happen." I sure hope not. But I would say, you can count on it happening, if not in our lifetimes, then in our decendents.
Sorry but I don't buy it. Picture some gun toting militia going against the Marines. No I don't think so LOL
Their guns would be cute but inneffective vs a modern army.
And the argument that guns were useful in Afghanistan and Armenia doesn't do it for me(why did I expect Afghanistan to come up when I wrote the previous post ). This is not Afghanistan and it is not Armenia. These are not good examples and in the case of Afghanistan guess where the guns came from? That's right. They came from the USA.
Yes guns came in handy when we kicked out King George, but there were many factors besides guns that helped. Back then a poorly armed militia was able to just squeak out a victory with the aid of the French and with a big help from the distance Britain had to go to send troops and arms. This is ancient history and not the world we live in today.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 13:16:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is ancient history and not the world we live in today.
Ah, @tomic, this attitude so frightens me! I wish I could convince you otherwise, and I hope you're right... *sigh*
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 13:30:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Pufffffffftttt is an attempt to make the sound of the blow torch being activated.
Thank you.
Glad to see you are still around and haven't died from being in no air.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 13:38:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Gun make it much easier to kill people.
Guns allow all the following which are usually not possible with other weapons
- Kill victims from afar.
- Maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity.
- Kill larger and stronger people.
- Kill crowds.
- Frighten away people who might otherwise help.
- Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle.
- Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer.
- Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him.
There aren't many other weapons that can do that.
Are you 'nuts' or maybe you just haven't thought it through enough?
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 13:48:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My kids still love me.
I may not love you like your kids, but I like to read your debates.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 14:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No amount of gun training is going to stop someone with mental troubles or someone that is on drugs or drunk or under extreme mental duress.
One word for you @,....Uni-bomber. While I do agree with Teddys ideas it does go to show you don't need a GUN to rain terror on people. If someone is on drugs, a knife will do. How many times do we see stories where the police can't subdue someone on drugs even if they don't have a gun. I don't think the gun is the point.
VHEMT |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2001 : 14:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you think I feel strongly about this you would be right.
Great. It's refreshing to find a passionate conviction. I feel as strongly about my position.
quote:
I think of guns as a risk to my fundamental right to life. The Second Ammendment is no longer workable in the world we now have and maybe never was to begin with.
Then don't buy them and don't associate with those who do. Frankly, I find the Second Amendment to be extremely workable in the world we now have, and I am at a complete loss to understand your assertion that it never was workable. Heavens to Betsy, man, it was as crucial and workable as any of the amendments, second only (perhaps) to freedom of speech.
quote:
I am going to have to ask for some reference here. The use of guns in self defense are anecdotes to me. I have seldom heard of a gun being used to save someone.
I think you can reach this site from TD's link, but here's the direct one. It's long with lots of tables and stats from different years, but it's worth your time (I haven't studied nearly all of it).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
This is a Brief regarding stats earlier than the tables at the link above, but by the same folks. Easier and quicker to read.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
quote:
Personally, I don't even care how the Supreme Court interprets the Second Ammendment. I think it was a bad idea. No amount of gun training is going to stop someone with mental troubles or someone that is on drugs or drunk or under extreme mental duress. One side effect of the Second Ammendment is that we need metal detectors in elementary schools!
Okay, so you're not arguing the current legality of it, just the desirability. I can keep the argument there, mostly.
If your concern is those with mental illness, on drugs, drunk, or under mental duress, then show me the stats that they cause more harm with firearms than with other items.
And your claim that metal detectors in schools are a side effect of the 2nd Amendment is sophistry. Metal detectors in schools (those that have them which is still very few) are a result of 1) school violence, including that not involving firearms, and 2) a misguided attempt to improve security by throwing money at it without understanding the mechanisms employed or the sociology behind the problem.
A side effect of the Fifth Amendment is that killers still walk the street--killers I live in fear of.
A side effect of the First Amendment is that dangerous subversives can spout their nonsense and recruit naive college students, and I live in fear that my children, when they are that old, will fall under their sway.
A side effect of the prohibition against illegal searches and seizures is that the cops can't bust into that crackhouse that I know operates downtown and so I have to be afraid when I walk through the neighborhood.
quote:
And the rest of us that don't want guns have to live in fear of those that do.
Why? Do you live in fear of the nice man down the street simply because he is large and muscular and could beat the crap out of you if he wanted? How about the truck driver with the 10 ton rig that he could use to barrel into your living room if he wanted; do you live in fear of him?
I suspect that you don't because you know that the likelihood of either of those fellows doing those things is remote. It is, in fact, nearly as remote as a gunowner coming to shoot you. It's just that the muscular guy and the truck driver have no emotionally-laden rhetoric built up around them.
quote:
Why is it that so much of the world gets along just fine without guns yet we need to cling to this irrational belief that we need guns to protect us from people with guns???
This brings up a couple of points. First, much of the world gets along fine WITH guns, some peace-loving countries included. Switzerland mandates gun ownership for all its male citizens yet they have a lower gun-related crime rate than England. New Zealand saw a rise in gun-related crimes after passage of their gun bans. I think Australia did, too, but my memory may be faulty on that one.
Second, where do you get that it's irrational to want a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun? I don't follow that at all.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes zero sense. These example you cite (sans gangs) are examples of the government using guns to kill it's citizens. This is what the 2nd Amendment is FOR!!! So we'll have a fighting chance should we ever need to protect ourselves from our or some other government, should our armed forces fail us, or turn against us. You may say "Oh, that wil never happen." I sure hope not. But I would say, you can count on it happening, if not in our lifetimes, then in our decendents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but I don't buy it. Picture some gun toting militia going against the Marines. No I don't think so LOL
Their guns would be cute but inneffective vs a modern army.
TD is right.
And many armies have scoffed at the abilities of their enemies. The Soviets scoffed at the Afghanis (yes, of course their weapons came from us, the anti-air stuff did, anyway; how does this support your argument?). The Brits scoffed at us. We scoffed at the Native Americans. We also scoffed at the Viet Cong (yes, yes, this is a VERY complex issue regarding political aims versus military aims and what constituted a battlefield victory, etc., etc.; we can go there if you like). Perhaps the best example: Germany and the Soviet Partisans in WWII. Did those partisans make a difference? You betcher sweet patootie they did, and with little more than old hunting rifles to start with and some crude home-made explosives.
And to take this to the extreme on my side of the issue, if you're concerned that commercially available firearms are not sufficient to stand up to the Marines, then for heaven's sake give us MORE guns and BIGGER guns! That's the point. (Yes, I'm exaggerating; I think o |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
