|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:32:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Do you also feel that people who drive cars should not have to be licensed or have to
register their vehicle? Now as I understand it, in every state that I know of you must show some proficiency at driving and understand the safety issues before they let you out on the highway. A car is designed to get us from one place to another. But it can be very dangerous, as we know. Why is it that guns, "designed to kill things" should not be at least as controlled as owning and driving a car?
The difference between cars and guns is that car registry's haven't been used to confiscate cars in car control movements. However, gun registries have been used. I am fully for proficiency test (thats part of that training I mentioned). As for strict gun control laws, they rarely change the gun crime associated with those countries. In the US, gun control laws have done nothing to change crime rates. The only effective changes seen were economic in nature. If you want to curb violence, of all types, fight for economic prosperity, education, and social equality.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
What is the harm in a cooling off period prior to taking home a weapon?
What harm does registration cause the buyer?
Background checks?
Proof of training, Including safety education and periodic certification?
I have no problem with backround checks. I have already addressed the registration issue. Incidentally, such registration programs are also digustingly complex and expensive. Just look at Canada.
BTW, I love the term "cooling off period". You make it sound like the majority of people are going out buying guns because they are pissed. I had to wait three days when I bought a handgun recently. Is that long enough for you? Backround check took a few days, that seems to be long enough.
AS for saftey education, doesn't that fall under that category of training? AS I said, I am a firm believer in education and training. Alot of families teach their children about gun saftey, many don't, many don't understand gun saftey themselves. If you know nothing about firearms, you shouldn't pick one up.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
And more...
If you are law abiding, why should these things matter to you?
I'm with Larry on the handgun thing. I would have you visiting your handguns
at a range where they would be locked up when not being used. But I know that kind of law is not likely. What I don't understand is the resistance to gun control at all?
I am a law abiding citizen, who has served in our military, and proudly served to defend both the constitution and its amendments. I see that protection of Bill of Rights to be important, and we should defend all aspects of it, not those that we wish too. There are people that could easily make similar arugements to curb any of the other amendments. However, our rights are only as strong as our conviction to defend them. I appreciate the fact that you don't like firearms. I would like to curb gun crime as much as you would. However, there is nothing that supports your contention that gun control would curb violence. Frankly, the only purpose of most gun control is to try to push for the eventual ban of all civilian firearms. |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:43:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
so I am not a rabid gun owner although I really enjoy shooting them
Yikes jm, I hope that's not part of your argument against gun control. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:51:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by rickm
I can't imagine handing my six year old a hand gun, for no matter what reason, it's absurd.
My dad kept an old single shot .22 rifle in the house, he showed me how to use it, never shot it though, but many times thought about doing it when he was away. In my oppinion it was a danger having it around because I was always so tempted.
A person can train and understand gun safety as fully as possible, but do they get training on using it in particular situations, when to pull your gun when not to pull your gun, who and when to shoot, can an average citizen assess a situation properly to make that kind of decision? If you shoot too soon an innoncent person may be killed, if you hesitate you may be killed.
I hear of hunting accidents every hunting season, a father accidentally shoots his son, a man who has hunted all his life, handled rifles all his life. Do I want these people carrying hand guns, hell no, but they do.
If someone pulls a gun on you, do you have time or the balls to pull yours.
I was taught gun saftey as a child because it works. Ignorance of firearms is far more dangerous. My father taught me to shoot a long rifle (.22) as a boy, under strict supervision. It served me well as both a child and as an adult.
As for training, I agree, rigerous programs should be given. However, it seems that you can't imagine people defending themselves. Perhaps you have a better insight then I do, but last I checked , no one is responsible for personal saftey other than the individual.
As for gun saftey and accidental shootings, the death rates are low. They occur, but are stastically minute. You are 31 times more likely to die in a car accident than to die by accidental shooting.(1997 National saftey council Accident fact book) A child under 10 is twice as likely to die from drowning in the bathtub than they are to die from an accidental shooting. (CDC)
If someone breaks into my home , I have no doubt that I would be able to shoot that intruder. I don't think the odds are likely that this even will occur, but that doesn't mean it is an impossibility. It has nothing to do with balls, and everything to do with the determination to do EVERYTHING in my power to protect my family. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 20:51:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
the only purpose of most gun control is to try to push for the eventual ban of all civilian firearms.
Then someone like Bush is free to impose more confining laws and then take over the world.
No, I'm not trying to be funny this time either. As much as @ is afraid of people with guns, I'm affraid of people like Bush. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 21:00:35 [Permalink]
|
I'm just tossing something I've noted, though I must admit I know nothing of wonkavisions background, as he's new to the forum. I'm learning that there are a lot more vets here than I thought.
It seems almost evenly split, that those of us who are for further education and less gun control measures (especially since a majority of those already on the books aren't enforced) are prior military.
As Lisa pointed out to me, those of us who are prior military are very familiar with government intrusion in our daily lives. Let's look at piss tests, if that isn't providing evidence against yourself without even being accused and no warrant, I don't know what is. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 21:05:06 [Permalink]
|
| Yea, one of the first things that happens when you are in the service is that you are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights. YOu are granted a limited form of some rights back under certain articles of UCMJ , but they are not the same as the full rights of non-military citizens. Freedom of speech, self-incrimination, standards for UCMJ actions, etc, are clearly limited. I understand the purpose of such inside the military to some extent, but it sure makes you appreciate the rights you had as a civilian. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2003 : 21:29:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
It seems almost evenly split, that those of us who are for further education and less gun control measures (especially since a majority of those already on the books aren't enforced) are prior military.
Nope, count me out. I'm a Libertarian and against most government restrictions.
I don't much care for the military, never have since protesting Viet Nam.
I do however like a man in uniform. sigh! |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:15:37 [Permalink]
|
I have to say I am more than amazed at both Kil's and @tomic's lack of historical perspective and lack of knowledge about what our fore fathers intended with this amendment. Darwin Storm did a great job of giving a little history showing why the 2nd amendment is essential for democracy and civil rights to exist.
I hope that Kil understands that there was allot of wrestling over the exact terminology that went into the Constitution and the BoR. I hope Kil understands that in order to appreciate the full meaning and intention one most look at other writings. A few quotes to demonstrate my points (again all emphasis mine)
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press." - Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776)
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
That means Kil the original intent is as I stated above. You can try to distort it all you want, but the evidence is plentiful on this issue.
quote:
And that means, while we are not busy fighting off tyraany, we can have our assault weapons with your guarantee that we will act responsibly with them.
Ah I forgot we are supposed to give up all of our weapons to the government and trust that they will act responsibly.
quote:
What is the harm in a cooling off period prior to taking home a weapon?
What harm does registration cause the buyer?
Background checks?
Proof of training, Including safety education and periodic certification?
Kil I am not against such things as long as that's as far as it goes. I think background checks and training are good things, but I am skeptical that is all they want to do. A long quote to demonstrate my point:
"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."- Mr.. Nelson T. Shields, III. "Pete" founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which became Handgun Control, Inc. quoted from July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker Interview "A Reporter At Large - Handguns", page 53.
I think training and background checks are good as I said above as in ensures the people are trained to use the weapons and not convicted felons. Registration I am skeptical of, given the above quote and the cooling off period is a farse that does nothing.
quote:
I'm with Larry on the handgun thing. I would have you visiting your handguns
at a range where they would be locked up when not being used. But I know that kind of law is not likely. What I don't understand is the resistance to gun control at all?
So the government can easily confiscate them? That would defeat the purpose of keeping the citizenry armed.
Here is a little test Kil:
Compare the original crime rates given with the number of deaths a single government has inflicted on its populace when they are unarmed. Which is the greater evil?
I was always under the impression that the majority of skeptics were logical and reasonable and followed the evidence to the best conclusion not putting their own spin on the topic at hand. I was also under the impression that they understood history and liberty better than most, but it appears that I could well be wrong.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:17:15 [Permalink]
|
@tomic,
quote:
Do you think that they invented those rights on the spot and that they didn't exist before that?
Where in the hell did I ever say that? What in the hell does this have to do with the fact that I have the right to bear arms and that right is there to make sure I can resist tyranny and protect liberty.
quote:
Do you think there could be more rights than exist in the constitution?
Possibly, but as of now the one's in the BoR are the only ones guaranteed to me and you. The government can decide to take the rest. Dismantling a single right guaranteed to us threatens the rest of the rights to such dismantling.
quote:
Other people owning guns just because some scrap of paper says they can(And that's the main reason you say you should have a gun) is a dangerous notion.
Scrap of paper? Amazing, simply fucking amazing. I agree the Constitution and the BoR are not perfect, but they are hardly mere scraps of paper. Also if you think my main reason for owning guns is simply because the Constitution says so you haven't been reading my posts too closely. Protecting my liberty from tyranny is the main reason, the BoR simply codifies this.
quote:
It puts me and my family in danger daily because you don't know if someone is going to explode with road rage and just start shooting.
Bull shit. How many times have you been shot at? In fact the odds of you getting killed by a gun are below 0.004% based on the given gun death rates above (39.7 / million) and I would bargain they are far below that since you are not probably in a situation where the rate is heightened such as in an inner city or drug gang. In fact your odds of dying in an automobile accident are nearly 3 times as high. Why are you not screaming about taking away automobiles
http://www.bts.gov/publications/nts/2002/html/table_02_01.html
quote:
This friendly neighborhood detterance game is one we are all losing every day in every city.
This is a pure fabrication at best and terrible sensationalism for someone claiming to be a skeptic. The data does not support your claim.
Finally what is more dangerous? To take the risk of the occasional violent gun death at less than 0.004% or to give up our rights and allow the government to start exacting its toll on us. If they were just to kill 1 million citizens it would by far outweigh the mere 39.7 / million rate for normal crime death.
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:18:41 [Permalink]
|
Julie Bris,
quote:
Then perhaps your government should spend less time in bed with the NRA and more time concentrating on poverty and education.
Q. WHY DO YOU NEED A FIREARM?????????????
I agree, our government should spend more time doing just those things and then we would watch our violent crime rates drop. A much more effective way than gun control as historical data shows.
I have given my reasons for owning a firearm above, but chiefly it comes down to the right to protect my liberty from tyranny.
quote:
I have such a phobia of guns and the damage they can do (when in the wrong hands).
A phobia is a terrible thing to base government policy on. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:19:57 [Permalink]
|
Dave W,
quote:
How is, for example, gun registration infringing on your right to own a weapon? Does registering to vote infringe upon your right to vote? Does the paperwork required to establish a church infringe upon one's right to pratice the religion of their choice?
then you say
quote:
It's the first step in the long, fallacious slippery-slope argument proposed by Darwin Storm: gun control has often lead to gun banning which has often lead to the "massacre of civilians by their own government." It's a crappy argument since there are plenty of countries with strict gun-control laws which show no evidence of being likely to be overrun by Hilter-like figures.
Ah I forgot because there are countries where it hasn't happened (yet) then it can't happen here. Gee how stupid of me to think that very thing. I wonder if the Germans were thinking the same thing as they watched political dissidents, Jews, and other minorities drug to the gas chambers. The history of governments killing portions of its own people is against you on this. All it takes is a little stimulus, bad economics, despair, poverty, starvation, and then a scapegoat is invented.
The slippery slope argument is valid in many historical cases, simply giving examples of where it has not happened (yet) does not mean it is a real danger that should be guarded against.
My quote above in my reply to Kil shows how registration can be used as a tool for total gun control. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 08:54:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
quote:
Other than a feeling you have, I would love to know how gun ownership infringes on your rights.
How best to put this....
I am not someone that derives their rights from a list made up by some guys over 200 years ago. Do you think that they invented those rights on the spot and that they didn't exist before that? Do you think there could be more rights than exist in the constitution? I sure do. The constitution is hardly perfect and I think my rights extend well beyond it's simplistic attempt to codify them.
Other people owning guns just because some scrap of paper says they can(And that's the main reason you say you should have a gun) is a dangerous notion. It puts me and my family in danger daily because you don't know if someone is going to explode with road rage and just start shooting. You may disagree but I think I have a right to live without thinking I need a bigger gun than my neighbor because he or she has several. This friendly neighborhood detterance game is one we are all losing every day in every city.
@tomic
@tomic,
I can understand your apprehension, but I cannot agree with the solution of removing gun ownership from all people. The Second Amendment, for all it's flaws, should be interpreted to allow gun ownership for self-defense. A great majority of weapons used in crime are obtained illegally. Further regulation removes a method of self-defense against crime.
The Declaration of Independance strikes a basic chord with me, especially with the current bent of this administration.
"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Every government needs the threat of possible rebellion to keep it in line. Complaciency breeds tyranny.
This is not to say that gun ownership should not be regulated. Training on gun safety should be mandatory for potential gun owners and background checks should be instituted to ensure that felons and mentally challenged folks don't get access to weapons. This would apply to all gun transactions including those at flea markets and gun shows.
If your neighbor owns a gun legally, you shouldn't be concerned that you need one to counter his. You need to be worried about the guns gotten illegally. Since these guns are not being effectively controlled, some people feel the need to have a deterrent piece. It explains some states concealed carry laws.
By banning handguns, how many weapons would be effectively removed from crime? The answer is not many. You merely push up the price on the black market. There is no effect on illegally purchased weapons. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 09:15:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Darwin Storm
Yea, one of the first things that happens when you are in the service is that you are no longer protected by the Bill of Rights. YOu are granted a limited form of some rights back under certain articles of UCMJ , but they are not the same as the full rights of non-military citizens. Freedom of speech, self-incrimination, standards for UCMJ actions, etc, are clearly limited. I understand the purpose of such inside the military to some extent, but it sure makes you appreciate the rights you had as a civilian.
Yup, I know. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Semper Fi |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 10:59:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
jmcginn:
I was always under the impression that the majority of skeptics were logical and reasonable and followed the evidence to the best conclusion not putting their own spin on the topic at hand. I was also under the impression that they understood history and liberty better than most, but it appears that I could well be wrong.
As I said, way back a few days ago, there are studies that support both sides of this debate. When discussing things of a political nature, that is usually the case. When discussing claims of paranormal activity, critical thinking usually leads to similar conclusions. Politics is something ells. I do my best to employ what facilities I have for skeptical thought and critical thinking in all areas. Even politics. But politics is not an exact science and my conclusions may differ from yours. Employing Skepticism does not mean that on all matters we will lock arms and step into the future, like minded and in total agreement. After due research, we are still left with what can best be described as opinion. I would be lying if I did not admit to some bias. But who looks at studies without bias? In the pursuit of paranormal claims and such, I have a skeptics bias. That does not mean I shouldn't maintain an open mind. It just means I have a bias.
There have been many debates on this site by people I consider good skeptics who take different positions on what is being argued. That's the norm in the politics and the social issues folder. If I disagree with a position, should I conclude that the person I'm debating with is not as good a skeptic as I am? Please! If that were the case I would have to wonder why everyone here is not a liberal democrat. I would have to have to wonder why critical thinking has not lead them to the same conclusions that critical thinking, about politics anyway, has lead me...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/05/2003 : 11:36:45 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
First I would like to see some studies that back up the claim that gun control reduces violent gun deaths. I have yet to see them and the data I have seen so far indicates that in the U.S. there has been little to no effect from gun control. But again I don't claim to have seen all the data, so please provide me a reference or two.
Second, my reference to your lack of critical thought on this issue has nothing to do with what side you choose, but your irrational attempt to redefine what the 2nd amendment says and what it was intended to mean. Mainly this entire bit:
quote:
OK, I get it now. We have the right to bear arms just in case we need to suddenly get together and form a regulated militia. I know it says "well regulated" but that was probably hyperbole. I mean, how "well regulated" can a militia formed on the fly be? Also, since we must be talking about our own government coming after us, because we now have a military, it would be kinda silly to invoke the exact wording of the second amendment to protect ourselves. So, we can throw the "well" part away. It would be far too inconvenient to wait for the "well" part to kick in while they knocking down our doors. Of course, the wording after the second comma of the second amendment must be taken literaly and without additions or subtractions, unless you want to own a nuke.
And that means, while we are not busy fighting off tyraany, we can have our assault weapons with your guarantee that we will act responsibly with them.
This entire quote is irrational by ignoring the history of tyrannies and the suffering of the people who did not have arms and by trying to redefine the original intentions of those who wrote the 2nd amendment.
I have given numerous quotes by those who wrote this amendment or were involved in the forming of our government and our Constitution showing that it was not their intention to keep arms only in some sort of formed militia, but in the hands of any willing person. Jefferson wrote it was our duty to bear arms not just our right.
For some reason you have ignored these points and continue to assert that the 2nd amendment does not mean this or is no longer meaningful. Do you really honestly believe that we are truly safe from tyranny in this country?
Notice also I didn't accuse of you not being a good skeptic, bot of not using logic and reason to follow the evidence at hand or provide evidence to the contrary. In this case you ignored the wording of the BoR and the writings of those who wrote it to assert your own definition as to what it means. You have also ignored a bountiful history of where armed resistance is necessary to preserve liberty and some states that have imposed gun control have done so to the detriment of its citizens.
If the only reason to control guns is to appease people under emotional hysteria and paranoia about the dangers of guns such as @tomic and Julie Bris or people wanting to scapegoat real social problems on an inanimate object then I say to the hell with them. They can continue to live in their world of fear blown out of proportion with false solutions and I can continue to enjoy my liberties and my ultimate protection from tyranny and focus on real solutions.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." [Patrick Henry]
"When the people fear the government, you have tyranny. When the government fears the people, you have freedom." [Thomas Paine] |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
