Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would support a right to sue and let the free market struggle in the court decide if the suit has any merit.

However, note that the pro-gun cabal on this forum has chosen to not say anything on this particular sub-thread.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would support a right to sue and let the free market struggle in the court decide if the suit has any merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent. Now, do you personally think that such a suit actually *could* have any merit?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

What I think about the merits of a hypothetical suit is irrelevant. In any case it would depend on the facts presented.

Why is it important to you whether such a suit *could* have any merit?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I think about the merits of a hypothetical suit is irrelevant. In any case it would depend on the facts presented.

Why is it important to you whether such a suit *could* have any merit?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not, I'm just curious about your personal opinion.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would support a right to sue and let the free market struggle in the court decide if the suit has any merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you support the right of the defendant to collect damages and costs if the suit was found to be frivolous?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ 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 ]

Which one do you think would have the better chance of crashing? Ya see, not all hijackers want to send the plane into a building. Some just want to blow it up.*cough*richard reed*cough*
Can I bring a shoe bomb onto a place as well?

Hey, this restaurant doesn't want to serve black people. If you don't like that rule go eat somewhere else. Don't force your opinions on me.

I don't think guns should be banned, but I also don't agree with your reasoning or how extreme you're going.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Holy Crap, Richard Reed! Can you believe they let a guy who looked like Osama Bin Laden on drugs onto a plane after Sept 11? He was even wearing Middle Eastern pyjamas and I believe the towel on his head. The only reason he was let on was out of political correctness and stupid French security.

Incidentally, I have passed through 2 International Airport security screenings in one day with 10 rounds of .40 S&W hollowpoints in my carry on bag, totally undetected. Next time I will bring a dismantled Glock as well.

And feel free to check my shoes. I usually carry C4 on my belt anyway.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which one do you think would have the better chance of crashing? Ya see, not all hijackers want to send the plane into a building. Some just want to blow it up.*cough*richard reed*cough*
Can I bring a shoe bomb onto a place as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, it's up to the owner of the airplane. I would bet that an airline that said "shoe bombers welcome here" would not get very many customers.

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, this restaurant doesn't want to serve black people. If you don't like that rule go eat somewhere else. Don't force your opinions on me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

That is a separate debate. Want to start a thread? The problem with tort in this country (if it is a problem) is a complex one. In general I would be more inclined to allow lawsuits then try to restrict them. I do not see tort as a major problem in the US -- extreme anecdotes not withstanding.

I have personal experience with civil litigation in South Africa where there are penalties for frivolous lawsuits.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

I like this quote:

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You say this is a fine reason to ban weapons, indicating you blame the firearm for the death, then you say the parents should be fried, indicating you believe the parents' negligence is behind the fatality.

Why should the parents be punished if the fatality is caused by the existence of the inanimate object?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Fry the kid...I thought children and mentally subnornmal citizens where the usual death penalty fodder in the good ol' US of A

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Negligence.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Negligence.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how does banning a weapon help to solve the "real" problem of parental negligence? Had it been a baseball bat, would you be calling for a ban on baseball bats? (and before you use the "but guns are made for killing..." argument, consider that baseball bats have long been used as a weapon)

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]


I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that we most certainly need the death penalty on this forum. If not here, obviously on OOT.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
So how does banning a weapon help to solve the "real" problem of parental negligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't but it is one less thing they can be negligent about.

[ QUOTE ]
Had it been a baseball bat, would you be calling for a ban on baseball bats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Had it been a baseball bat it wouldn't have ended tragically. They were young children playing. It wasn't their fault they were just being children. Yes the parents are to blame for their negligence and they will live with that for the rest of their lives but as a father of 2 young children myself I know how curious, ingenious and resourceful they can be when they are determined to play with a 'toy'. I don't want a complete ban, I want much stronger restrictions on where a gun may be kept. Parents are negligable, all parents, and I see nothing wrong with helping them out even if they disagree.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Pretty much where I am at.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't but it is one less thing they can be negligent about.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Just as we need to keep guns out of the hands of kids, we need to keep anything they can screw up out of the hands of the incompetent. How about starting with gambling? If we eliminate gambling, we can eliminate the suffering caused by those who neglect the economic well-being of their families by stuffing their paychecks into slot machines. They are probably drinking while they do that, so let's eliminate alcohol too. Those are some serious areas of neglect, probably a lot worse than guns. I'm sure the great minds here can come up with a host of things we can do to legislate personal responsibility. If they can't, I recommend Al Gore and John Kerry as sources.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want a complete ban, I want much stronger restrictions on where a gun may be kept. Parents are negligable, all parents, and I see nothing wrong with helping them out even if they disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the symptoms of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. I'm guessing that about half the people reading this do not see the absurdity of that quote.

Let me rephrase the concept:

1. We have restrictions on guns, especially as regards access by children.

2. Parents are negligent, and don't always follow those restrictions.

3. Therefore we need more, and stronger, restrictions.

If negligent parents are not following the current restrictions (because they are too burdensome, or they simple can't be bothered), what on earth would lead anyone to think that they would follow even stronger restrictions?

You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

Rather than controls on who has guns, it would make a lot more sense to have controls on who has children. But in this messy little country of ours, both of those things are against the Constitution.

There are more than enough laws on the books regarding gun ownership. Recent combined state and federal projects to enforce existing laws have resulted in significant decreases in crime and in gun pocession by criminals. Laws mean nothing if they are not obeyed and enforced. Passing more laws does nothing but give the law-makers and do-gooders a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Just as we need to keep guns out of the hands of kids, we need to keep anything they can screw up out of the hands of the incompetent. How about starting with gambling? If we eliminate gambling, we can eliminate the suffering caused by those who neglect the economic well-being of their families by stuffing their paychecks into slot machines. They are probably drinking while they do that, so let's eliminate alcohol too. Those are some serious areas of neglect, probably a lot worse than guns. I'm sure the great minds here can come up with a host of things we can do to legislate personal responsibility. If they can't, I recommend Al Gore and John Kerry as sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst it is true many more children are hurt by their parents inability to control themselves over personal vices it is not quite the same as a child being injured or injuring another because they found their parents 'toy'. Having said that you are making a very valid argument and I have no counter-argument. I draw a line where I believe restrictions are fair and where they are not. As far as guns are concerned I believe the laws of the US and nearly all its states fall short.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the symptoms of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. I'm guessing that about half the people reading this do not see the absurdity of that quote.

Let me rephrase the concept:

1. We have restrictions on guns, especially as regards access by children.

2. Parents are negligent, and don't always follow those restrictions.

3. Therefore we need more, and stronger, restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You presume that the current restrictions are sufficient and that further restrictions will do little to avert future tradegies. I do not.

[ QUOTE ]
If negligent parents are not following the current restrictions (because they are too burdensome, or they simple can't be bothered), what on earth would lead anyone to think that they would follow even stronger restrictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your saying that enforcement is a big part of the problem then you are right but that doesn't mean that existing laws are enough.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't try?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't try?

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation, not because it's impossible (even though it is impossible), but rather because it's unjust. The fact that it's impossible is just gravy.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as guns are concerned I believe the laws of the US and nearly all its states fall short.



[/ QUOTE ]

I am guessing that you are not from the good old US of A, and your knowledge of America and of the gun situation here comes from the media. Don't believe everything you read or see on the telly.

You say "I believe" with no evidence except anecdotal stories. Tragic as they might be, they are no logical basis for "belief" or policy.

[ QUOTE ]
You presume that the current restrictions are sufficient and that further restrictions will do little to avert future tradegies. I do not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, an opinion without facts. The fact is that current restrictions are not being fully obeyed or enforced (as evidenced by anecdotal evidence). My point is that it is irrational to say that these restrictions are insufficient when they are not being complied with. If they are complied with and prove to be insufficient, fine. Otherwise, it is complete speculation.

If you reduce the speed limit to 55 mph to save lives and fuel, and everyone drives 65 mph, you cannot draw any conclusions about whether the 55 mph limit is sufficient to save lives and fuel. Debating the impact of the current gun control laws is an exercise in futility if they are not being complied with. Passing more laws is equally pointless, because there is no reason to believe that they will be obeyed or enforced.

[ QUOTE ]
If your saying that enforcement is a big part of the problem then you are right but that doesn't mean that existing laws are enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it doesn't mean that they aren't enough either. The point is that the current legal structure and mind-set isn't working. Try something else.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.



So don't try?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try things that have been proven not to work. Our recent noble experiment with the assault weapons ban proved to be less effective than our noble experiment with the prohibition of alcohol.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light? Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right? And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light? Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right? And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to argue the point about driving on the right...I am not an anarcho-capitalist.

However...regarding your statement about doctors and other jobs with legislation and such to protect against incompetence: the free market would just as efficiently weed out the bad apples, and here's why...

Hypothetical Example:
Anyone can practice medicine. No license is required. However, most people feel that their money is better spent with the guy who has eight years of training under his belt. Therefore, the people without licenses fade away, unless they are able to make up the difference some other way. Either way, the system balances out, because people cannot afford to do otherwise.

But...I don't expect you to buy into that theory. I would like to challenge your belief that government legislation breeds competence. No entity on the planet is more incompetent or inefficient than government.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are joking, right. Is it just luck we all drive on the right? That we stop at a red light?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the certificates on my doctors wall just decoration? He has to have them to pratice, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[ QUOTE ]
And the thousands of other jobs and activities where legislation has been enacted to protect against incompetance, all just a conspiracy to make lawyers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am guessing that you are not from the good old US of A, and your knowledge of America and of the gun situation here comes from the media.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, I'm from the UK. But in my defense I've been here nearly 6 years albeit in the very liberal city of NY and safe suburbs of CT. My wife was born and raised in Oklahoma and is my main source of information of how guns are obtained and stored and generally thought off in at least that part of the US.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't believe everything you read or see on the telly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your preaching to the converted.

[ QUOTE ]
You say "I believe"

[/ QUOTE ]

Next time I will use 'In my opinion'.

[ QUOTE ]
with no evidence except anecdotal stories

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[ QUOTE ]
Tragic as they might be, they are no logical basis for "belief" or policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I believe, sorry, if my opinion is that a law/set of laws is/are flawed is their some mathmatical formula I can refer to in future to find what logic dictates. Most laws (if not all) have evolved thru the method of discussion and debate. I fail to see why the regulation of gun ownership and useage should be different.

[ QUOTE ]
And it doesn't mean that they aren't enough either. The point is that the current legal structure and mind-set isn't working. Try something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. This is promising. What? Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence. Their will be exceptions off course but 'for personal protection' won't be one of them and neither will 'I havn't got any kids'.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
However...regarding your statement about doctors and other jobs with legislation and such to protect against incompetence: the free market would just as efficiently weed out the bad apples,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why didn't it?

[ QUOTE ]
Hypothetical Example:
Anyone can practice medicine. No license is required. However, most people feel that their money is better spent with the guy who has eight years of training under his belt. Therefore, the people without licenses fade away, unless they are able to make up the difference some other way. Either way, the system balances out, because people cannot afford to do otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hypothetically, how many of these unlicensed doctors can prescribe drugs or get you a referral to a specialist?

[ QUOTE ]
But...I don't expect you to buy into that theory. I would like to challenge your belief that government legislation breeds competence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Challange away.

[ QUOTE ]
No entity on the planet is more incompetent or inefficient than government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should work where I do [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
with no evidence except anecdotal stories

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence. Their will be exceptions off course but 'for personal protection' won't be one of them and neither will 'I havn't got any kids'.

[/ QUOTE ]
How does this idea square with the idea of liberty? Or don't you believe in liberty?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car. What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?

[ QUOTE ]
Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, without government, traffic accidents would skyrocket.

Please. Private roadowners would set rules for use of their roads, including what side to drive on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car. What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet, malpractice still exists. Amazing. I thought government certification would prevent it!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?

[ QUOTE ]
Most legislators are lawyers. Among the biggest contributors to political campaigns (in the US, at least) are (you guessed it) lawyers.

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Too hard to quote this, so I'll answer each of your sections:

1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.

2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence?

3)I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
My wife was born and raised in Oklahoma and is my main source of information of how guns are obtained and stored and generally thought off in at least that part of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are basing your judgement on hear-say information from a single source. Casting no aspersions on your wife, I have relatives who are honest, well-educated, and well-intentioned who are clueless about guns, crime, and the law.

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
with no evidence except anecdotal stories



Do you believe AC's linked story is a fabrication?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no reason to doubt it. Anecdotal evidence means you are using a specific example to prove a general principle. For every example of something bad happening with guns, someone else can find an example of something very good happening. Whoever comes up with the most examples doesn't win.

But as long as we are telling stories, here's one. Some years ago in Florida, there were a large number of robberies of foreign tourists. Police eventually found many of the criminals and they were arrested and jailed. A reporter interviewed several of them after they had been convicted. They told him that one of the reasons they focussed on tourists was that Florida has recently passed laws making it much easier to buy and carry a gun. They knew that foreigners could not have guns, making them much easier to rob.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding is that this is the system back in Merrie Olde England. I claim no actual knowledge about what is going on over there, but have heard rumors of high levels of home robberies involving violence. Perhaps those with the facts might share them.

Again, your "solution" to the problem is premised on your opinions about guns. While that might or might not be appropriate or effective in England, it is not appropriate here.

First, most people here do not share your opinion.

Second, our system protects the minority against the opinions of the majority. Even if most people here shared your opinion, our founders considered certain things to be natural rights, and our Constitution protects those rights.

Third, in addition to our federal constitution, each state has a constitution. The great majority of those specifically acknowledge the right to own arms, and many of them specifically mention the right to self-defense.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's what I would do - no gun shall be allowed to be kept at a home residence. Their will be exceptions off course but 'for personal protection' won't be one of them and neither will 'I havn't got any kids'.

[/ QUOTE ]


How does this idea square with the idea of liberty? Or don't you believe in liberty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Liberty is a compromise as far as I'm concerned. I don't want to live in a society where anyone is at liberty to do anything they like regardless of the consequences to others. Have your guns, but lock them up at a gun club is all I want, if you believe I am stomping all over your civil liberties then so be it.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate stricter rules on who should be allowed to own a weapon and on how and where that weapon would be allowed to be kept and used. If I have contradicted myself somewhere in this thread I apolagize.

[ QUOTE ]
2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are not the two societies I described. They are both regulated. The difference is how they are payed for.

[ QUOTE ]
I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK argue away. Yes some laws are stupid, some have little or no relevance in todays world, but the law is not a static thing, it changes as society changes and the vast majority of laws reflect and protect society.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate stricter rules on who should be allowed to own a weapon and on how and where that weapon would be allowed to be kept and used. If I have contradicted myself somewhere in this thread I apolagize.

[ QUOTE ]
2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are not the two societies I described. They are both regulated. The difference is how they are payed for.

[ QUOTE ]
I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK argue away. Yes some laws are stupid, some have little or no relevance in todays world, but the law is not a static thing, it changes as society changes and the vast majority of laws reflect and protect society.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)My point of contention is that stricter laws regarding improper usage of guns potentially have value, because they punish the infringement of rights. Mere possession of a firearm infringes no one's rights, and hurts no one, so why should this activity be punished? It is only at the moment that the gun is used improperly that it becomes a problem.

2)Okay...fair enough. But, given the anecdotal evidence surrounding efficiency and competency comparisons of private contractors versus government programs(for instance, the Wollman Skating Rink Project in NYC, as recalled in Donald Trump's Art of the Deal ), I would be inclined to believe that private medicine would fare better due to fair market pressures than regulatory ones.

3)Well...frankly...I think we should punish action, rather than prevent it. I think that a drunk driver hurts no one until he slams into someone else. When that happens, punish him severely, moreso than if he was not drunk, because he is shirking his responsibility that is intrinsic to the freedom he has to drink. But, if nothing happens, and he makes it home safely, then no one's freedoms have been impinged. So, leave him alone.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The owners of the road make the rules not the owner of the car.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. YOU don't get to make the rules that get applied to EVERYONE. You can only tell me what to do with my gun when I'm on YOUR property.

[ QUOTE ]
What the driver does effects his fellow road users which is why he has rules to follow. A gun owner has rules to follow for the same reason. When and where he discharges his weapon, where he keeps it, how he safeguards against its misuse can have consequenses for other people. I am of the opinion that those rules should be more stringent than they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rule is "don't initiate violence." What else do you need?

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think it is prevented? An interesting experiment - two societies, one with regulation over medical matters and one without - which would be healthier? Where would you rather live?

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter. No doubt.

[ QUOTE ]
And from this you deduce that most laws are frivolous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not from that alone, but yes, most laws are frivolous. Really, all you need is "thou shall not kill" and "thou shall not steal." Everything else is pretty much BS.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you are basing your judgement on hear-say information from a single source. Casting no aspersions on your wife, I have relatives who are honest, well-educated, and well-intentioned who are clueless about guns, crime, and the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

She is quite knowlegable but I accept you only have my word for that. When we visit her family and friends there I have been out shooting with her best friends husband. He has a powerful hunting rifle (I don't know what its called) and is very knowlegable and safety consious, they have two young children (8 and 12 I think) who also know how to use and respect the weapons. I still think he should not be allowed to keep it on top of the wardrobe in the bedroom as he is legally allowed to now.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no reason to doubt it. Anecdotal evidence means you are using a specific example to prove a general principle. For every example of something bad happening with guns, someone else can find an example of something very good happening. Whoever comes up with the most examples doesn't win

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to prove a principal. I think the laws concerning guns generally in the US are lax. I would rather they be stiffer. I thought this before AC's linked story and I will think it after, unfortunately, the next.

[ QUOTE ]
But as long as we are telling stories, here's one. Some years ago in Florida, there were a large number of robberies of foreign tourists. Police eventually found many of the criminals and they were arrested and jailed. A reporter interviewed several of them after they had been convicted. They told him that one of the reasons they focussed on tourists was that Florida has recently passed laws making it much easier to buy and carry a gun. They knew that foreigners could not have guns, making them much easier to rob.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it wasn't the only reason. Tourists are top of the list regardless of the gun laws.

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that this is the system back in Merrie Olde England. I claim no actual knowledge about what is going on over there, but have heard rumors of high levels of home robberies involving violence. Perhaps those with the facts might share them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too would love to see some facts and for the record I was burgled 3 times and had a car stolen 4 times. None of these incidents involved violence as I was neither in my home or my car at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, your "solution" to the problem is premised on your opinions about guns. While that might or might not be appropriate or effective in England, it is not appropriate here.

First, most people here do not share your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean they are right [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Second, our system protects the minority against the opinions of the majority. Even if most people here shared your opinion, our founders considered certain things to be natural rights, and our Constitution protects those rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of its laws not because the minority are tooled up.

[ QUOTE ]
Third, in addition to our federal constitution, each state has a constitution. The great majority of those specifically acknowledge the right to own arms, and many of them specifically mention the right to self-defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

So. It's the 21st Century. It doesn't take 3 weeks to get a message to the next town anymore. You have a police force. You don't live in Dodge anymore. The Constitution can (and has) been changed. It's not the word of God. If change is beneficial do it. I accept that you think my changes are not beneficial and that's fine, but tell me I'm full of crap rather than throw that tired 'it's in the constitution' argument.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want to live in a society where anyone is at liberty to do anything they like regardless of the consequences to others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me either. I believe in responsibility for your actions.

[ QUOTE ]
Have your guns, but lock them up at a gun club is all I want, if you believe I am stomping all over your civil liberties then so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're concerned with consequences for others, why would you care if I have a gun in my house? How does that have any consequences for you (assuming you're not a thug trying to rob me)?

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
1)My point of contention is that stricter laws regarding improper usage of guns potentially have value, because they punish the infringement of rights. Mere possession of a firearm infringes no one's rights, and hurts no one, so why should this activity be punished? It is only at the moment that the gun is used improperly that it becomes a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

My main problem with the laws as they stand are the 'how' and 'where' weapons are kept. But restrictions on 'who' are still important. You seem to advocate shutting the gate after the horse has bolted?

[ QUOTE ]
3)Well...frankly...I think we should punish action, rather than prevent it. I think that a drunk driver hurts no one until he slams into someone else. When that happens, punish him severely, moreso than if he was not drunk, because he is shirking his responsibility that is intrinsic to the freedom he has to drink. But, if nothing happens, and he makes it home safely, then no one's freedoms have been impinged. So, leave him alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong.

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

Well...first of all, humans are not horses, so that's not even a fair analogy. But...what I am saying is that there is no harm in someone merely owning a gun. Explain to me who is harmed by ownership of a gun. And, the reason the "who" does not need to be restricted is because everyone has a choice. Punish those who make a poor choice to discharge the firearm into someone else, not someone who simply likes firearms.

Look, I know that my drunk driving analogy is a radical way to look at it, but after all the meaningful discourse we've had on this thread, I think you can do better than "You are wrong."

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
They are probably drinking while they do that, so let's eliminate alcohol too.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want to eliminate the problem of alcoholic parents drinking while taking care of their children?

-ptmusic

Re: A fine reason to ban weapons
 

[ QUOTE ]
I accept that you think my changes are not beneficial and that's fine, but tell me I'm full of crap rather than throw that tired 'it's in the constitution' argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to be civil, something that does not come naturally to us in the colonies, so I will cut to the chase. Yes, you are full of crap.

The reason is that you are trying to impose your view on others without justification. Abortion is a major issue here, also with people trying to impose their views on others. The pro-life people who are trying to impose their views on others at least have the justification or excuse that they believe that they are morally correct, and that abortion is morally wrong.

People who would ban guns don't even try to justify it on moral grounds (because they can't make any case for it). They just say that they don't believe that people should have guns, or it is their educated opinion, or that they would feel safer, or there would be fewer accidental shootings, or etc., etc.

Which gets us to the bottom line, which is that my guns are none of your business. Nothing personal, but if what I do in my house does not have any impact on you except to increase your paranoia, and if I am not breaking any laws, then it is none of your business. (I will ignore the issue of victimless crimes for now.)

There is nothing moral or immoral about a gun. It is a tool, an inanimate object. The only possible moral issue is in its use, which is a function of the decisions and actions of the owner. My use of a gun, to the extent that it affects you, is certainly your business. My ownership of a gun is my business, and your opinions and beliefs are irrelevant.