6 people shot to death in AL. This would not happen with gun control

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Regardless of how many people use firearms inappropriately, that has nothing to do with me, and I should not be penalized for it. Once someone breaks the law, they should certainly be punished, but they should not be punished in advance through the stripping of property rights.

OK, we'll try a different tact then: Why do you need a gun?

And, given your statement that inappropriate use of firearms has nothing to do with you, can you tell us with 100% certainty that it is impossible for a criminal or misguided person to steal your gun and commit crimes with it? Because this happens all the time...

[David Floyd]

OK, we'll try a different tact then: Why do you need a gun?

What's it matter? Why do you need a computer? Or a car?

And, given your statement that inappropriate use of firearms has nothing to do with you, can you tell us with 100% certainty that it is impossible for a criminal or misguided person to steal your gun and commit crimes with it? Because this happens all the time...

I agree, but again, this does not affect my basic right to own a gun. It simply says that some people commit crimes. Surprise surprise. But my point is that regardless of the criminal activities of others, I should not be punished in an attempt to stop them.

And quite frankly, if I'm incompetent enough to let a burglar break into my house, steal my gun from right beside me, and use it on me, then I'm pretty much an idiot.

[Akka]

Regardless of how many people use firearms inappropriately, that has nothing to do with me, and I should not be penalized for it. Once someone breaks the law, they should certainly be punished, but they should not be punished in advance through the stripping of property rights.

Following this logic, there should be no driving rules. After all, if you drive at 160 mph in the middle of a city, as long as you've still not killed anybody, you should not be punished in advance, right ?

[David Floyd]

Different situation. I don't own the road, therefore I can't dictate what rules should or shouldn't be there.

I DO own myself, my gun, and my property, and therefore no rules should be placed upon me within that context.

If a city wants to pass an ordinance against walking down Main Street toting a light machine gun, fine, I can deal with that because it doesn't restrict my rights. People or organizations have the right to make rules about what others do on their property, and a public road, regardless of who owns it, certainly isn't mine.

In a perfect world, roads would be privately built and maintained, and in that context, whoever built the roads would have a say on what rules applied to them.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not sure what your point is about research. I've frankly never much cared what the research proves, because it is irrelevant to my belief on the subject.

Regardless of how many people use firearms inappropriately, that has nothing to do with me, and I should not be penalized for it. Once someone breaks the law, they should certainly be punished, but they should not be punished in advance through the stripping of property rights.

Should you also have someone tell you how to build your house? Should the government not wait until your home bursts into flames and burns down your neighborhood before they penalize you?
Should you be forced to have your carr inspected? Should the government not wait for your brakes to fail and cause you to plow into that school bus before penalizing you?
What right has the government to force you to get a license to drive? What right do they have to examine your suitability to drive your possession.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by David Floyd


What's it matter? Why do you need a computer? Or a car?

It matters because the utility of guns to society is vastly lower than the utility of computers or cars.

If all you could do with a computer was post to Apolyton, say ( ), and several thousand people died annually due to this use, do you think that computers wouldn't be banned?

And quite frankly, if I'm incompetent enough to let a burglar break into my house, steal my gun from right beside me, and use it on me, then I'm pretty much an idiot.

Why should my life be in danger from an armed criminal who stole your gun? In my book, I'd rather not stake my life on your competency, or anyone's. I'd rather the risk was zero.

As I said long ago in this thread, there is no way to tell whether a gun owner is 100% competent. Even he's 99% competent, even if he is a splendid, well meaning guy, there is a chance his gun could fall into the wrong hands. Why take that risk? No guns, no risk.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And quite frankly, if I'm incompetent enough to let a burglar break into my house, steal my gun from right beside me, and use it on me, then I'm pretty much an idiot.

No, you're just drowsy, having been just awoken, while he is wide awake.

[David Floyd]

It matters because the utility of guns to society is vastly lower than the utility of computers or cars.

I dunno about that. Your computer won't help you if someone breaks into your house. A gun could though.

If all you could do with a computer was post to Apolyton, say ( ), and several thousand people died annually due to this use, do you think that computers wouldn't be banned?

No, I don't think they would.

Why should my life be in danger from an armed criminal who stole your gun? In my book, I'd rather not stake my life on your competency, or anyone's. I'd rather the risk was zero.

Again, criminals commit crimes. That's why they're called criminals. It isn't my fault if a criminal steals my car and runs over you with it, so don't hold me responsible if a criminal steals my gun and shoots you with it.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

The problem I have with gun owners is that they assume that their right to own a gun doesn't put anyone's life in danger. And that's what I have an issue with.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Sure they do, because what's at stake here are competing natural rights, the right of one group to own dangerous objects and the right of another group to live.

Sorry, the acts of criminals do not fall under the right to own "dangerous objects". Your attempt to associate them is nothing more than a cynical attempt to exploit people's emotions so they'll gallop over to your side.

The simple fact is that in America many more people are killed by guns each year than are saved by them.

The lowest estimate (not by Kleck, btw) is 80,000 via the National Crime Victimization Survey. Which is the number of reported defensive gun uses.

Or were you using another way of counting saved lives?

The fact that you really seem to be completely untouched by the vast amount of suffering caused by your so called right to own a mere piece of metal ought to cause you some concern David.

The fact that you presume that someone who doesn't jump on your bandwagon must not care makes you look rather contemptible. But hey, it might fool someone into thinking your opponent is somehow less than human so you'll run with it, right?

Some people might actually blame the person responsible (you know, the one who committed the crime) instead of trying to launch a culture war against people who haven't harmed anyone.

A few years back one of the nurses at the clinic I work at was killed in the parking lot by her boyfriend. The gun he used had been bought legally sometime back at a private gun sale. In Virginia private gun sales do not require the background check that gun stores are required to make. The man who killed her had been released from prison shortly before meeting her. he had been convicted of assaulting another woman. The truly pathetic thing about this affair was that the girl's brother had been killed by a gun during an argument with a friend of his a few years before. Her death left her parents childless.

So now you must punish all gun owners for this crime?
Anyone else you'd like to collectively punish?

A few years ago coworker of mine was murdered by her husband, who then committed suicide. AFAIK, he had no criminal record. I blame him for the crime.

[David Floyd]

The problem I have with gun owners is that they assume that their right to own a gun doesn't put anyone's life in danger. And that's what I have an issue with.

The act of me owning a gun DOESN'T put you in danger. The act of someone stealing my gun does. There's a big difference.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Lars-E
How can widespread distribution of tools for destruction lead to less destruction if you have a lot of them available to almost everyone, instead of a very limited number?

Lack of easy victims.

Must be why the crime rates are higher in US cities where it is difficult for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun... and why the panicky predictions of "blood in the street" didn't materialize when laws allowing concealed carry in state after state.

[Akka]

Different situation. I don't own the road, therefore I can't dictate what rules should or shouldn't be there.

Exact same situation, you own the car and are using it dangerously. Due to it's nature, a gun is ALWAYS dangerous. Banning guns is just a way to ban dangerous situations, just like banning excessive speed.

I DO own myself, my gun, and my property, and therefore no rules should be placed upon me within that context.

You do own your car though. I do own my flat too. I still don't have the right to put some explosive in it, or to set it on fire. Because it's dangerous for others.

In a perfect world, roads would be privately built and maintained, and in that context, whoever built the roads would have a say on what rules applied to them.

You're completely obessed by the idea of possession, aren't you ?

[Akka]

The act of me owning a gun DOESN'T put you in danger. The act of someone stealing my gun does. There's a big difference.

Yeah, the act of driving like a mad does not put you in danger. It's only if you're on the way that it does.

[David Floyd]

Exact same situation, you own the car and are using it dangerously. Due to it's nature, a gun is ALWAYS dangerous. Banning guns is just a way to ban dangerous situations, just like banning excessive speed.

It's different because what I do on property I own is my business, and what I do on property I don't own is up to someone else.

I still don't have the right to put some explosive in it, or to set it on fire. Because it's dangerous for others.

No, you don't have the right to blow up or burn down your house IF that explosion or blaze damages someone else's property. You can blow up YOUR property all you want, you just can't let it extend to someone else's.

You're completely obessed by the idea of possession, aren't you ?

It's called property ownership, actually.