A fine reason to ban weapons

[superleeds]

[ 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.

[superleeds]

[ 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.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[superleeds]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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)?

[superleeds]

[ 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.

[coffeecrazy1]

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."

[ptmusic]

[ 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

[benfranklin]

[ 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.