A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator

Common question/comment.
"There's no problem restricting our right to drive by requiring licensing of drivers and registration of cars. Why should guns be any different?"Driving on publicly financed roads is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the 'owners' of those roads. A 14 year-old can tool around the back 40 on their own family farm all they want in un-registered vehicles, even without a license. When the vehicle hits a taxpayer funded highway, however, those taxpayers are allowing you to use a resource that they built and paid for, and have an interest in keeping safe.If you possess a firearm, even on public land, you are not "using" a taxpayer-funded resource. The taxpayers did not build the shooting ranges and they didn't supply the gun or the ammunition. A firearm can be owned and used in any lawful manner without causing wear and tear on any public resource. Therefore, the government has no right to restrict ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.Common misconceptions:The Constitution/Bill of Rights does NOT give anyone any rights. It ASSUMES that, merely by being human, you are automatically endowed with them.The Government has NO rights, it's not a person. It is, however, granted certain POWERS by THE PEOPLE.A primary purpose of the Constituion and the Bill Of Rights are to describe and limit the POWERS of the Gov't., NOT limit the rights of the PEOPLE since it did not and cannot give them these fundamental rights in the first place.

Maybe instead of worrying about trying to limit guns as a MEANS of suicide you should focus more on the SOURCE of most suicides: depression. If a person wants to kill themself they only need find the nearest tall building, start their car in a closed garage, etc. More funding to help educate people about looking for the warning signs of depression (in both themselves and others) and what to do if they see them would go a LOT farther in reducing suicides than even if you could magically make every gun disappear. If a person doesn't want to kill themself then they won't commit suicide, guns or no guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government has a right, and I would say an obligation, to reasonably restrict the availability, and regulate the sale, safety, use, and storage requirements of these dangerous, lethal devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The government has NO RIGHTS. It only the POWER granted to it by the PEOPLE. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure this POWER did not infringe upon the RIGHTS of the POEPLE. In the opening of the Bill of Rights it even states that "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added" to the Constitution. The BOR isn't to limit the people, it is to limit the government! Trying to restrict the freedoms of one person because of the irresponsibility of another person is not the way to go.

I'm not asking this facetiously so please don't take it as such. Exactly which manufacturers are being irresponsible in the way in which they manufacture guns and which ones are not? In your example, some manufacturers are responsible and some are not so I was just wondering if you only had a problem with certain manufacturers or certain types or firearms.

That's a totally emotional arguement. If you do not want to have a gun I totally support you.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Tsk. so I just say back "no, its your argument thats emotional".
Shall we just skip the t'is y'isn't and move on?
Not only do I not want to have a gun, I also do not want to be surrounded by people with power to blow me away at any moment should the whim take them. They pose a threat to my life and freedom, and infringe that freedom.
---------------------------------------------------------------Actually, no, I have a piece of paper in the National Archives that proves I can own a gun. You only have feelings of being frightened and nothing more. Blow you away at any moment should the whim take them? It appears you think you are more civilized than those around you. I guess they are all just savages who cannot think and if you gave them a gun they would use it every time they get angry? I can't see ANY other reason you would make a statement like that. If you would not "blow someone away" on a whim why do you assume everyone else might? Of course, if you would please let me know.--------------------------------------------
They pose a threat to my life and freedom
--------------------------------------------But taking them away poses a greater threat to my life and is trampling on my freedom.We definitely see things in a different light. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like you feel comfortable letting others protect you and your family. That is your choice and I support you. But when it comes to protecting my friends and family I REFUSE to rely solely on others to do that for me. Police are great protection, but they can not be everywhere at once. I am not going to put the well being of those dearest to me up to the CHANCE that the cops will be able to get there in time to stop any harm or death. Maybe they would and maybe they would not. I am not willing to risk that. Even beyond that I cannot always be there to protect them either. Sometimes they are going to be on their own. If someone were to attack one of the female members of my family, for example, there are some things short of having a gun they could do to protect them self, but if the guy is large enough he very well may prevail in the end regardless of all the Judo chops, etc. Thus comes in the equalizer. Nay, the superior edge. With a .357 pointed at his chest said criminal would almost certainly flee. So what if the criminal had a gun too? At least they would be on equal ground, still better than before. Either way the chances that my mom/wife/sister would not be violated greatly increase. Is it guaranteed? Nothing, not even having a police officer there can guarantee it, but that never was the argument. When it comes to self-defense and the defense of those around me I want the odds stacked in my favor. So the whole point of this isn't to offer "proof" of why we need guns, but to let you know a little of where I'm coming from.OK, let's set all that I just said aside for a moment because it was all emotional anyway. The fact is that the Constitution still shows that the government should not infringe upon my right to own a firearm. Beyond personal safety this also keeps the government itself in check. I have no fear of having to remove the U.S. government any time in my lifetime, but do not think that just because we are a country that was founded by people who threw off the fetters of an oppressive government that our own government may not one day come to be that which our forefathers abhorred. The Constitution means a LOT to me. It really disgusts me to see an American burn a U.S. flag. I would probably enjoy seeing them bullwhipped over it. But you know what? I also know they have a Constitutional right to free speech that protects their right to protest in such a manner. So even though I think it's awful and makes me "feel" angry, I would NEVER support a law that would punish someone for doing it. Why? Because infringing upon even ONE of the rights that lay the very foundation of our society is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. Instead of trying to rob other Americans of our freedom why not focus on the REAL problem - reducing the number of people who would commit a criminal act or who do not understand what being a responsible adult is. There are two ways to do this. Make tons of laws and scare everyone into submission or TEACH THEM ETHICS AND MORALS that would keep them from being criminals in the first place. If you put a gun in the hands of a person with a solid sense of ethics, not only will they not use that weapon for criminal intent, they will realize the RESPONSIBILITY that comes with their right to have that firearm and will treat it with the respect it deserves. This will include not blowing you away on a whim. It’s much more effective to attack the root of a problem than the branches.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Having a bunch of people running around with fireamrs infringes my rights, IMO, both of freedom of movement and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------I hate it when my freedom of movement gets infringed. But I solve this by changing into loser clothing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR national archives, not mine. I have a piece of paper in MY national archives that says I can be protected from people with guns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Riiiiight. If you're going to deny the existance of the Constitution I don't think we'll get very far.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an excellent example of the argument to paranoia. Most women are more likely to be raped by someone known to them than by a stranger; thus this is unlikely to prove a great safety measure. Its much more likely that such a family weapon will be used by a member of your family to kill one of the women in your family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Paranoid? You're the one who thinks "everyone around you could shoot you on a whim." And you don't know my family well enough to make that last assertion. Nice scare tactic though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That question is wholly irrelevant. Your posession of a gun poses a risk to you and your family. I will not own a firearm BECUASE I wish to protect myself and my family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Your lack of a means of protecting your family poses a risk. I know you think the cops will always be there, but since you like to point out how the REAL world is let's just face the fact that in the REAL world the cops more often arrive at a crime scene that at an actual crime in progress. But if you do not feel you could safely own a firearm then, again, I agree you should not have one.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that just rendered a lot of your argument less important to me. If you are going to apply "my country right or wrong" logic, then the issue of weapon safety is less important tyo you then your perception of the ideological nature of your state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It ISN'T wrong. That was my whole point. It disgusts me but it is NOT wrong. It is a right and I recognize it as such instead of letting my emotions dictate what I believe should be policy.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Albert Einstein remarked, the patriot does not need a brain, only a spine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Benjamin Franklin remarked that they that can give up essential liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. But neither quote really proves anything does it?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are arguing your conclusion. There is no reason to believe that at all apart from ideological claims. As with Jar, your "responsible gun owner" is a moving target, and Ideal represnetation of Perfection that does not exist in the real world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------I KNOW you can't back that up. You're making huge assumptions. Do you even personally know anyone who owns a gun? If so, exactly in what ways are they not responsible as gun owners? If they are doing something you do not think is responsible then you should go and talk with them. I know plenty of "responsible gun owners" that ACTUALLY exist. Not to mention I am one myself.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have to deal with REAL guns owend by REAL people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Even if it takes away our REAL rights? The ENDS do not justify the MEANS. And truthfully, the ends of taking all the guns away would not be what you think. Because our country would still have REAL people with the intent to commit criminal acts since they never learned REAL morals or ethics because instead of focusing on social programs to help keep kids away from all those REAL problems that they face when growning up we were too worried about taking away the guns from law abiding citizens. And I say again, a person with morals and a sense of responsibility will not commit a crime, gun or no gun.

quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the point being that the US constitution pertains to the US, not contracycles country of birth. Fortunately both he/she & I are protected from your constitution in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Well, that would explain a few things. I thought that seemed like an odd statement to make, but thought perhaps contra was going for the "what that amendment REALLY means is..." angle.quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My chances of being a victim of gun crime are fractional compared to you folks. Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent in the good ol' USA. No matter what the hype.
---------------------------------------------------------------------True. I seem to recall the UK having fairly strict laws regarding handguns and thus it follows that you would have less gun violence. But the whole argument ISN'T just based on "guns make us safer." It's a common misconception that we all have guns only as a deterrent to crime, though I argue they are effective as such (there are many other posts in this thread that deal with that so I'm not going to spend time rehashing those arguments. You'll just have to make up your own mind on that one). But the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the people have a right to bear arms in order to maintain the security of a free state. This does NOT only mean from other governments, but from our government itself. Like I said, I do not see the need to overthrow our government any time soon, but things can change. There is no guarantee that we will always have the democracy we have now.quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent in the good ol' USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Since the US as a people have always had guns since our inception you can't really say that "Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent" because there has never been a time where the US had an unarmed population with which to compare it. We can try and compare different countries, as you said, and that can be somewhat useful. Of course, even then we still have to acknowledge that comparing two similar countries (i.e. both democracies) is hard because there is more than one variable. Sure you may have lower crime, but is that solely due to gun laws or do the other differences play a part? Do you do a better job (as a whole) of educating your children on what it means to be a responsible adult? Do you have better social programs that help out the less fortunate so they don't try and resort to crime? I argue that if you raise a person with a sense of responsibility and instill in them a sense of morals that it doesn't matter whether they have a gun or not, they aren't going to use it irresponsibly. If you want to know what the problem is in the US it is that there are way too many kids learning their "life lessons" from TV and movies instead of their parents. Too many parents are not willing to actually put EFFORT into raising their children, but just let them grow up on their own and hope for the best. We're becoming complacent as a nation and it's starting to show. But let me stop digressing and get back to the topic of guns. The fact is our forefathers acknowledged the RIGHT of people to own a firearm and thus limited the POWER of the government so they would not try and infringe upon this RIGHT. They did NOT give us this right, but merely acknowledged that it already existed (along with the other rights in our Bill of Rights). If we start just trying to take away even ONE of these rights then it goes against the most important principle that THIS country was founded on. That there are certain things that are above even human government. That no person should not be able to speak their mind for fear of reprisal. That no person should be forced to follow a certain religion. Etc, etc. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. That this is not just about guns, but about whether we are going to turn against those things that make us who we are.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? Please don't make yout local legal problems my problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Where do you live anyway? I guess I should inherently know these things.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't need to know your family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oh, so all families have the same likelyhood of killing each other if a gun is in a house? All people are alike. Just carbon copies of each other. Nobody has different personalities. Nobody is more responsible than anyone else when it come to evil firearms. When we get a gun in our hands we all turn into homicidal maniacs. I see your point so clearly now. Nice job of dodging my question, though.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the FACT that my life is in the hands of anothers is NOT paranoia. Someone who is armed in my presence is in fACT physically capable of killing me. That threat exists implicitly or explicitly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, the fact that you think everyone with a gun might blow you away on a whim is what makes you paranoid (reference my earlier post). People who aren't armed are physically capable of killing you too.quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And EVEN THEN, I'm more likely to survive a criminal encounter by trying to make my escape than by seeking to escalate the conflict.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Why do you ASSUME a person with a gun won't try to make an escape first too? Why do you not ASSUME they will only use the firearm as a last resort? You think everyone with a gun is trying to be a cowboy don't you? I talk with other gun owners all over the US on several bulletin boards and websites and there is one thing that is commonly discussed. How your firearm is to only be used when no other means of protecting yourself (including retreating) is available. I've talked with quite a few who got into bad situations, but were able to get away and they NEVER EVEN DREW THEIR WEAPON because it did not come to the point where they had no other option. One guy I know had a car pull in front of him while driving through a bad neighborhood and block him. Two guys got out and started running toward his car. Did he pull out his gun and shoot them? No. He backed up and drove away because even with a gun he still is able to be rational.quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bringing a device for homicide into the family domicile.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Yeah, you definately have been watching too much television. A device for homicide? Please. You're such a drama queen/king. I can tell you are so afraid of guns that nothing that ANYONE says is going to change your mind. You obviously have a preconditioned fear response that you will probably never overcome. Even the many other people in this post who are anti-gun at least approach it with rationality and I can respect that. You have your fears and your catch phrases.quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is you firearm right now?
Do you have a safe?
Where is your firearm stored at night?
Answer these questions and I can give you a meaningful response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are all in safes. Yes, the ones I keep my firearms in. In the safes. I await your meaningful response.This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-06-2004 12:58 PM

quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Although I accept the reasons for violent crime, even gun crime, are complex. It just seems silly to us outsiders to hear people defend gun ownership in the US when your chances of being murdered are something like ten times greater than anywhere (per capita)in Europe (off the top of my head, remembering a radio prog from a month back).
----------------------------------------------------------------------It is mostly the large cities where gun violence is a problem (L.A., D.C., etc.). In most rural areas there is practically NO gun violence. So it varies from place to place. But yes, there are dangerous areas that even without guns would still be full of dangerous people. And having grown up in a country with a differnt "gun culture" I can understand why you do not see things the same as we do.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
nor do we particularly feel the need to protect ourselves from our governments, we just vote them out if they piss us off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Theoretically we should always be able to do that too, but the type of government you have to worry about overthrowing isn't the type that accepts votes. It may never happen, but it's always great to keep things in check.quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A few popguns won't protect you from the material might of the US Army. Even if you had the right to bear tanks, it would just get you killed quicksharp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Small arms can be very effective in guerilla warfare. You are correct that a direct confrontation of the US army would be unsuccessful in the long run, but unconventional warfare just might.This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-06-2004 01:15 PM

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
there are several companies which produce very popular low quality handguns that are used frequently in criminal activity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Making a low cost product in and of itself isn't bad. I shop at Wal-Mart all the time. As to people misusing the product I say it is bad. But again, let's try and fix the root of the problem. Why are people committing crimes in the first place? It's not because they have a gun. I don't need to list the social problems that are plaguing many of our cities today. Fixing these social problems would cut down on ALL types of crime, including those that are non-gun related.quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Theses guns generally fail the "drop test" in which they often will discharge when dropped.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------I agree with you on this one Schraf. There is no reason a firearm should fail a drop test, especially in this day and age. Making a manufacturor produce a quality product is a very reasonable request. This particular safety standard would not infringe upon the right to own and use a firearm. But before you load up the wagon and go to town on me for saying that this doesn't mean that the government should be able to do anything it wants simply in the name of safety. Safety is a good thing. We should always strive to make all areas of our life safer, but NOT if it comes at the cost of giving up those rights that our nation was founded upon. Like I have said time and time again. Let's start looking at the roots of all these problems and come up with ways to fix them that do not take away ANY of our rights.This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-07-2004 02:49 AM

Sorry about that. Your posts kind of fell throught the cracks when contracycle started replying.

It takes planning and effort to find a tall building one can get to the top of. They can also be seen by other people and possibly stopped or distracted.

[trumpet playing]. OK, Shraf, I have to raise the flag on this one. Planning and effort to find a tall building? Distracted from killing themself? Let's not forget about bridges, cliffs, water towers, radio towers, and grain elevators (for those in the Midwest). I'm not saying there is no truth to what you said, but just so little that it can't really be used to draw the conclusion you have made. (OK, so the trumpet was a little overdramatic)

Carbon monoxide poisoning takes a long time and can be uncomfortable.

Not according to the CDC. It can be very quick. It may be nausiating, but it may not. Note that high levels (the kind you would find from someone intentionally trying to kill themself) can cause unconsciousness rather quickly (thus no more pain). Looks like 2,000 people do it every year.CDC - Page Not Found

I would imagine that the "instantaneous" part is attractive to people who don't want to feel any pain.

While it may make it more attractive as a method, that does not mean that they would not take other means if they are the only ones available.

More funding to help educate people about looking for the warning signs of depression (in both themselves and others) and what to do if they see them would go a LOT farther in reducing suicides than even if you could magically make every gun disappear. ​ Possibly.

Reducing the internal motives for suicide would ABSOLUTELY reduce the number of suicides.

Having a gun in the house makes a suicide more likely to be successful, though. There are certainly other methods, but most other methods are more likely to be survived.

Most, but not all. Remember that a suicide attempt is not always about killing yourself, but is often done as a cry for help. If a person has decided they want to kill themself and have decided to do it in a way that they cannot be stopped they don't need a gun. A gun might be one method they would choose, but certainly need not be the only one.

But if they do want to kill themselves and a gun is in the house, they are very likely to use it.

So let's stop them from getting to that point in the first place. Let's help out those who are depressed. Let's train our teachers to look for signs of depression in their students. This way people don't kill themself (with guns or by ANY other means) and the right to bear arms is not infringed.This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-07-2004 04:07 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your special circumstances - if all your family members hapopen to be saints - in no way make a general case. I am addressing the genereal case. And furthermore, I am simply not going to accept an argument that you advance based on the self-reporting of your own responsibility and competence. You would say that, wouldn't you.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I wasn't making a general case. YOU made an accusation specifically about MY family (go read your previous post) so I was simply showing you that you were wrong in your assumption. And you would READILY accept my self-reporting if I said that I was irresponsible with guns because it would support your case. You do not accept it because you do not want to hear anything that contradicts what you are asserting.quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I note you still resort to primitive character assasination, that of "paranoia".
------------------------------------------------------------------------I do recall you saying I was "arguing to the paranoia" or something along those lines. And my assessment still stands in light of reading your posts.quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didnl;t say anything about proabability or intent, only power. And if a gun had not given them that power, why did they want it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------So if people do not have the intent and the probability is low then it really doesn't matter if they have the power. So all you are really saying is that guns are able to kill people. Yes, they are. That was never an argument so let's get back on subject.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't ASSUME that, I said I'd be more likely to survive by running than by escalating. If I'm going to run, then why have a gun?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You were trying to imply that people with guns would use the guns when they could run. Your direct quote was that people shoudl run instead of "seeking to escalate the conflict." SEEKING to escalate the conflict. And there are always situations where running is not an option. That is what the gun is for.quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no assumption about what a notional gun owner would do, and is not dependant on assuming they are "cowboys". You are over-extending my argument and putting words in my mouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------You were SO trying to say that a person with a gun would use it when they could flee instead. In fact let's look at that quote one more time: "seeking to escalate the conflict." You can play all the word games you want but that was clearly your intent.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? What else does it do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It can be used for self-defense up to and including killing someone. Of course, it can be used for defense and never even be drawn. This one lady told me how she was in a parking lot and three men surrounded her. She simply lifted up the edge of her shirt to show the handle of the pistol concealed in her waist and the men suddenly decided that surrounding her wasn't such a good idea and fled. It's also good for hunting and other recreation. You were focusing solely on the killing part trying to make it seem like that's all people do with it. You were playing to your argument in order to overDRAMAtize your point. More rounds are put into targets and empty cans than into people.quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, it must have some other function, becasue only a drama queen
would describe it according to its prupose.
Maybe you use yours for gardening? Soil aeration, giving those lil' earthworms a helping hand? I knew a guy who used his pistol to make crushed ice once, is it something like they do for you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------Soil aeration? Now there's an idea!! Those worms are overworked.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you tell that? I wasn't aware you had a mind-reading machine. And if you do have a mind-reading machine, I can't see why you ewould also want a gun; after all you'd be able to tell who all the bad people are and avoid them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Or I could sell my mind reading maching on ebay and make a fortune! But it's actually your whole "nobody should have guns for any reason and all guns are evil" argument that shows me that.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats good. Where is the ammunition stored?
I note you have not specifically reported where your weapons are stored at night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry about missing that last quesiton. A small oversight. My ammo is stored in my closet. My guns are kept in a safe at night. Even if they weren't, so what? One purpose of my gun is for self defense and if I could not get to it quickly in my safe I would not keep it there at night. But after reading your argument earlier about how my "special cirucumstances" would not make a general case why do you ask? I think someone is trying to defame my character by primitive character assasination. How? You know that if I do show to be a responsible gun owner (which I am) then you can write it off as only "one instance" and not proving the general case. If I turn out to be irresponsible then you can write off EVERY argument I've made not only to yourself but to everyone else. It's just a win-win situation for you. That is indeed a crafty plot and I must say I am impressed.This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-09-2004 09:16 PM