Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can keep each person locked in a personal padded cell, doped up on drugs, immobilized. That would REALLY reduce accidental deaths. Sound good to you?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
We can keep each person locked in a personal padded cell, doped up on drugs, immobilized. That would REALLY reduce accidental deaths. Sound good to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'm totally convinced by your rationale. You should do this for a living.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe their are no news stories of young siblings killing each other with cars. Maybe thats the difference. Maybe thats why the argument that you can compare an everyday household object with a gun and say 'Look they kill by accident too' is lazy and flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aspirin is a common household object which isd responsible for may deaths per year, accidental and otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning aspirin would reduce accidental death. So if I post a news story aboyt a child's accidental overdose, it's a "fine reason" to ban aspirin? By the way aspirin also kills sometimes even when not overdosed.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to convince me that the death of this young child was worth the benefits that general gun ownership conveys then by all means try. But please don't insult my intelligence with the 'if it wasn't the gun that killed him it could easily have been a car accident or the rat poison under the sink' angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter is not what I was trying to suggest. I'm saying that looking only at costs--and especially only one incident of cost, without putting it into statistical perspective-- is inadequate, in part because it takes not benefits into consideration. Not to mention the question of rights.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason. If you want to convince me that the death of this young child was worth the benefits that general gun ownership conveys then by all means try. But please don't insult my intelligence with the 'if it wasn't the gun that killed him it could easily have been a car accident or the rat poison under the sink' angle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, I won't insult your intelligence. Maybe the correct way to view this is simply regulating dangerous products -- and restricting their use in such a way that we can minimize accidents.

--With guns, we can use gun cases and trigger locks to reduce accidents. While this does somewhat restrict their legitimate use -- the savings in life may justify it.

--Back to automobiles. We could go back to the 55 mph speed limit -- that saved lives. But I think 40,000 deaths is still too high. We should reduce it to 40 ... or better yet 30. No, make it 5 mph -- that will save all 40,000 lives!

It is within our power to do this. Picking any number higher than 5 would mean you believe there is an acceptable casualty rate as a trade-off for utility. And this can't be, since ...

[ QUOTE ]
If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I won't insult your intelligence. Maybe the correct way to view this is simply regulating dangerous products -- and restricting their use in such a way that we can minimize accidents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. My main disagreement with the pro gun lobby is this in a nutshell. I believe there should be more regulation, they believe less. The problem I have with MMMMMM's line of argument is the comparison of apples and oranges. Guns are designed to kill, cars are not. Asparin is designed to relieve a headache not the head from the body.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is within our power to do this. Picking any number higher than 5 would mean you believe there is an acceptable casualty rate as a trade-off for utility. And this can't be, since ...

[/ QUOTE ]

If some action would reduce accidental death it is a fine reason.



[/ QUOTE ]

The two statements are not incompatible. Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun. I also suspect I have lived in a lot more dangerous places than most posters on this forum. I offer three years in Johannesburg as one example.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if you're not willing to take responsibility for the defense of your home and family, who will? The police? LOL

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons off the top of my head:

1) Guns also save lives

2) Rights are worth some cost in lives. We could probably save more lives in other ways, too, if we were to give up more of our rights, but it wouldn't be worth it.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I now have the reason why this childs life was worth the lax gun laws prevalent over much of the US.


[/ QUOTE ]


Two reasons off the top of my head:

1) Guns also save lives

2) Rights are worth some cost in lives. We could probably save more lives in other ways, too, if we were to give up more of our rights, but it wouldn't be worth it

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Allowing loaded weapons to be easily accessable in a home environment does not. Quite the opposite as the news report points out apparently.

2) I agree with the sentiment. I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) Guns also save lives

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Allowing loaded weapons to be easily accessable in a home environment does not. Quite the opposite as the news report points out apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? One incident reported in one story *proves* your position?

[ QUOTE ]
2) I agree with the sentiment. I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does.

[/ QUOTE ]

So self-defense is not a right? Imposing a rule that says "we allow you to defend yourself, but not in this particular manner" is surely a restriction of self-defense.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that restricted gun ownership would infringe on your rights anymore than the law that stipulates you drive on the right does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ask this of all the shop owners and citizens in LA after the King riots, or of all the unarmed people stuck in New Orleans after Katrina.

Better yet ask the people from Luby’s café in Texas: too young to remember? Here: On October 16, 1991 at Luby's Cafe in Killeen, Texas, gun control laws had deadly consequences for 23 people who were murdered by a lone gunman. A young doctor was helpless to protect her parents from being murdered when during the killing spree she remembered that her gun was in her car because it was illegal for her to carry it in her purse.

Another example:
Gun control laws also proved fatal on the morning of August 23, 2000 for the Carpenter children who lived in a rural community in California. Even though all five Carpenter children knew how to shoot, California law requires that guns be locked away from them. The children were left defenseless against an intruder armed with a pitchfork. The doors and windows had been barricaded and the phone lines cut. The intruder started stabbing 14- year- old Anna when 9-year old Ashley drew him away. He began stabbing Ashley who died while yelling at her older sisters to go. The girls thought of the gun, but they couldn't get to it since it was locked away. The three oldest girls escaped and ran to beg a neighbor for his rifle. He said no because the government would take it away from him. Authorities were called and arrived five to ten minutes later. But it was too late for 9-year old Ashley who died from 138 pitchfork wounds and 7-year-old John William who died with 46 wounds.

Lastly: how many people in those airliners on 9/11 wished that their cell phone was a gun?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The authitarian do-gooders NEVER think they are brining tyranny.


[/ QUOTE ]

Read the post about begging the question.

Easy to sling mud. Hard to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point that you [censored] liberal idiots cannot fathom is that a government that has as much control as you so desire is by definition tyranical.

The government has no [censored] right to CONTROL our education.
The government has no [censored] right to CONTROL our health care.
The government has no [censored] right to CONTROL our retirement.
The government has no [censored] right to CONTROL us. Yet, that IS the liberal philosophy.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you willing to take an NRA course?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would I want to do that? What could I learn?

The only gun I have held in my hands is the one god(!) gave me -- it is also the only gun I want. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
the weapons they build will need to be safe,

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont mind owning a safe gun. One which cannot kill is safe enough.

[ QUOTE ]
What's so bad about minimizing costs?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. But if as a society we come to believe (soon I hope) that guns have costs over and above the cost of production (the two plus lives destroyed in the OP link for example) then perhaps we should be able to live with restrictions on the kinds of ownership, the level of training of gun owners, perhaps a registration system, etc. Plus of course a healthy fear of getting sued.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps a registration system

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean "a list of guns so we can go and get them all".

[ QUOTE ]
Plus of course a healthy fear of getting sued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Liability is a strong motivator. What else do you need?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you willing to take an NRA course?


[/ QUOTE ]



Why on earth would I want to do that? What could I learn?

The only gun I have held in my hands is the one god(!) gave me -- it is also the only gun I want.

[/ QUOTE ]


ACPlayer, that may be so, yet still you could learn a great deal. You would most assurededly benefit immeasurably from a Course of Professional Instruction, covering such topics as:


-Safety

-Cleaning, Oiling, Care and Maintenance

-Proper Aiming

-Presumed responsibilities

-Legal considerations

and last, but definitely not least (especially in your case),

-Concealment

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Liability is a strong motivator. What else do you need?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you oppose HR 800 the companion bill to S 397 that was recently passed?

brady campaign editorial quotes
S 397

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I am happy to learn about new things.

But the course better cost $0.00 as that is what it is worth to me. Unless you want to pay -- x-mas is coming up.

Is this course required for all gun owners? Seems like it should be. Specially as you are suggesting it for non-owners. I will write to Hilary soon and tell her that 6M suggests this as a good course from which the gun owners would most assurededly benefit greatly

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to learn about new things.

But the course better cost $0.00 as that is what it is worth to me. Unless you want to pay -- x-mas is coming up.

Is this course required for all gun owners? Seems like it should be. Specially as you are suggesting it for non-owners. I will write to Hilary soon and tell her that 6M suggests this as a good course from which the gun owners would most assurededly benefit greatly

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ACPlayer.

I was recommending it especially for YOU, in light of your last post. Now, go back and reread it, and consider what you might have overlooked;-)

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
;-)

[/ QUOTE ]

This could mean anything from a) 6M is serious about the preceding statement b) 6M is kidding and actually means the opposite of what the statement says c) ACPlayer is about to be banned from this forum. About normal for the analysis that usually accompanies this emoticon.

Care to elaborate on this particular use of the winky? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you willing to take an NRA course?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would I want to do that? What could I learn?

The only gun I have held in my hands is the one god(!) gave me -- it is also the only gun I want. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Because maybe, just maybe you will add some credibility to your arguments. How can you logically talk about something without having any knowledge of the subject what so ever.

We're about increasing knowledge...

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to learn about new things.

But the course better cost $0.00 as that is what it is worth to me. Unless you want to pay -- x-mas is coming up.

Is this course required for all gun owners? Seems like it should be. Specially as you are suggesting it for non-owners. I will write to Hilary soon and tell her that 6M suggests this as a good course from which the gun owners would most assurededly benefit greatly

[/ QUOTE ]

AC, I'll pay for just because I like you... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would you oppose HR 800 the companion bill to S 397 that was recently passed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because I oppose all laws enacted by the federal government.

More seriously, though, I would oppose this law also, since it's a form of corporate welfare. If someone thinks he has a winnable case, let him pursue it.

That doesn't mean I believe that gun manufacturers are liable for "defective" product when the product works as designed, but used in an undesirable manner.

Would you support a lawsuit against Louisville Slugger from someone that got beat up with a baseball bat? How about a suit against GM when a man runs over his cheating wife and her lover with his hummer?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? One incident reported in one story *proves* your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have any stats, I'd gladly reconsider my position.

[ QUOTE ]
So self-defense is not a right? Imposing a rule that says "we allow you to defend yourself, but not in this particular manner" is surely a restriction of self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong if you think restrictions don't apply, even in the most gun ho states. Are you in favor of absolutely no restrictions?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I'm sure there are countless other stories where access to a firearm may have prevented innocent death and injury. And I'm sure there are countless stories where access to a firearm has caused innocent death and injury. I still think its a civil liberty which should have restrictions placed upon it and emotional stories, regardless of how tragic they may be, and which all have a strong element of hindsight do nothing to alter my position.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly: how many people in those airliners on 9/11 wished that their cell phone was a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

I only quote this to ask, do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]

I only quote this to ask, do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?


[/ QUOTE ]

It would at least be a polite flight. No crying babies, No smoking, no little kids running up and down the pathways, No long waits at the bathroom....

-Gryph

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Now that's an argument which could sway me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? One incident reported in one story *proves* your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have any stats, I'd gladly reconsider my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

So in the absence of data, you latch on to the first anecdote you see?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So self-defense is not a right? Imposing a rule that says "we allow you to defend yourself, but not in this particular manner" is surely a restriction of self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong if you think restrictions don't apply, even in the most gun ho states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you think that I think that?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you in favor of absolutely no restrictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
emotional stories, regardless of how tragic they may be, and which all have a strong element of hindsight do nothing to alter my position.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you site such an emotional story with a strong element of hindsight as your primary source for backing your position.

[ QUOTE ]
do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the owner of the plane wants to allow it, why not?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Damn, ACPlayer. You really can be slow on the uptake at times (and at other times, not).

I was suggesting a Professional Course of Instruction for you--and your "gun".

I also have very high confidence that you would derive immense benefit from such a course.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only quote this to ask, do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?


[/ QUOTE ]
I'd feel safer if they were allowed everywhere.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd feel safer if they were allowed everywhere

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that very much.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you site such an emotional story with a strong element of hindsight as your primary source for backing your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also, at least in my own mind, have a logical argument which leads me to the conclusion that it is safer to the general public to have restrictions on the sale, accessability and use of firearms. It's the same argument that I would use to justify age restrictions and competancy tests on driving and on why 5th graders should not be allowed into casinos to gamble. A free society does not mean 'anything goes', if it did, it would soon become unfree.

[ QUOTE ]
If the owner of the plane wants to allow it, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell because the rewards are far outweighed by the risks.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I also, at least in my own mind, have a logical argument which leads me to the conclusion that it is safer to the general public to have restrictions on the sale, accessability and use of firearms. It's the same argument that I would use to justify age restrictions and competancy tests on driving and on why 5th graders should not be allowed into casinos to gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is that argument? That some people might not do what you want, so you want to oppress everyone?

[ QUOTE ]
A free society does not mean 'anything goes', if it did, it would soon become unfree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said *anything* goes? That implies no ramifications for your actions. When I said I was for "no restrictions" I meant in possession, not use.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the owner of the plane wants to allow it, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a nutshell because the rewards are far outweighed by the risks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then fly on an airline which doesn't allow passengers to bring weapons on board. Why do you want to force your personal opinion onto everyone else?

Which one do you think has a better chance of being hijacked?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what is that argument? That some people might not do what you want, so you want to oppress everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider the rules of the road oppression? It's got nothing to do with making people do what I want and everything to do with young children being in a position where thay can kill other children because they were being, well, just children.

[ QUOTE ]
Who said *anything* goes? That implies no ramifications for your actions. When I said I was for "no restrictions" I meant in possession, not use

[/ QUOTE ]

So in plain english you are OK with anyone aquiring any type of weapon and then relying on them solely to use them sensibly and safely.

[ QUOTE ]
Then fly on an airline which doesn't allow passengers to bring weapons on board. Why do you want to force your personal opinion onto everyone else?

Which one do you think has a better chance of being hijacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm ever given the chance (and I'm willing to wager it won't happen in my lifetime) it will be a major consideration in my choice of commerial airliner.

I'll take my chances of being hijacked over being on a plane full of tooled up regular Joes any day of the week.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you consider the rules of the road oppression? It's got nothing to do with making people do what I want and everything to do with young children being in a position where thay can kill other children because they were being, well, just children.

[/ QUOTE ]

The owner of the road has the right to make up whatever rules of usage that he wants. To say that "nobody can do XYZ on any road, regardless of who owns it" IS oppressive.

[ QUOTE ]
So in plain english you are OK with anyone aquiring any type of weapon and then relying on them solely to use them sensibly and safely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. I've said before that WMDs are not "weapons" in this sense of the word, and that their possession (even (or especially!) by states) is a crime against humanity.

[ QUOTE ]
If I'm ever given the chance (and I'm willing to wager it won't happen in my lifetime) it will be a major consideration in my choice of commerial airliner.

I'll take my chances of being hijacked over being on a plane full of tooled up regular Joes any day of the week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome. Choice is great, isn't it? So why advocate the removal of that choice for everyone else?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Awesome. Choice is great, isn't it? So why advocate the removal of that choice for everyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if a plane should lose control due to some 'accidental discharging of a firearm' will I have a choice where it should crash?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only quote this to ask, do you think it would be preferable to allow passengers to carry guns on planes?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not good enough.

I have lived in homes for nearly five decades and have never once felt the need to own a gun. I also suspect I have lived in a lot more dangerous places than most posters on this forum. I offer three years in Johannesburg as one example.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are tons of stats in the archives of how guns lower crime rate.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

OK. Then we are on. Next time I am back in the states, it is a gun course for me.

We can even go 50-50.

Of course considering that you believe it is positive EV for a peacenik like me [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img], perhaps it should be required for all gun owners. I will add your name to the message I send to Hilary. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I got it the first time. Does not mean I have to acknowledge it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I also derive considerable benefit from my gun already.

I think you and Gryph should go 50-50 on the NRA course. Can you guys send me the money to my neteller account? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] If some one else wants to pay 50 percent, they too can transfer the funds. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]