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

[David Floyd]

But without the gun it would not be possible (or at least harder) for the person to commit the crime! So ban the ***** guns!

But me owning a gun has nothing to do with murder. Why should I be punished for the past or future criminal actions of someone else?

[Akka]

Ah, so you are the same Akka from CivFanatics. Same pompous dismissal of people who disagree with him.

I'm not dismissive with people who disagree with me, I'm dismissive with people who don't understant a simple reasoning. They are free to disagree as long as they get what I mean.

When you state that you are removing someone's properties based on what he or she might do with it you are certainly destroying presumption of innocence. Worse, you aren't even bothering with a trial or the usual due process of law. When you cite crimes as the reason why you are also smearing them with the acts of others. (That and your "they might" excuse is nothing more than that: an excuse. You don't apply the same logic to things you don't have a problem with. Just icky awful guns and those horrible people who insist on owning them.)

Ok. So I will again use the big ol' argument : what about making atomic bombs available to anyone ? You can call it a red herring, it still is a perfect example of something which is not accessible for the average Joe for security reasons. Which is, according to you, destroying presumption of innocence.

It's a simple culture war. You don't understand anything about gun owners, so you seek to villify them, blame them for crimes they don't commit and eventually disarm them out of pure paranoia. Then you get all shocked when gun owners and icky sympathizers like me take you to task for your little crusade, so you do your best to further denigrate me (and others) by saying we simply are too dumb to comprehend your oh-so-lordly only-people-with-brains-can-see-your-noble-vestments views. Well so sorry for studying the issue, comparing and contrasting and coming with a very different conclusion. Not. Guess what? I used to support the Drug War too.

I do agree it's a culture war. I do agree that I don't understand what happens in the head of a gun owner. I disagree that I'm the kind of sick sissy paranoid you decribe, though. I just don't consider that the right of one people to own a gun outweight the right of others to be endangered by proliferation of weapons.
YOU obviously don't understand what happens in the head of an anti-gun either, BTW.

Or in short: Yes I understand English, Yes I understand your concept, I just don't agree with you. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem.

You were the one speaking of the idea of putting people in prison 'preventively'. Not quite thoughtcrime, but I'll give it credit for effort.

Well, too bad that the second paragraph contradict the first.
The goal of the example was to tell that we DON'T know in advance who will commit a crime. Because it's impossible. It was used to show how absurd is the sentence "You don't have anything to fear from my gun, because I'm not a criminal".

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Sinapus

Paranoid is more fitting for you. No one has to submit to your inability to live in the real world.

I would say it's common sense to want to reduce one's chance of getting killed by someone with a stolen gun.

On the other hand, I would characterize your insistence on owning guns despite the risk that poses to others, as incredibly selfish to the point of being uncaring. That seems 'fitting' for you, since we're trying on labels.

Your willingness to persecute people based on what might happen, for the actions of others is sickening.

Not being able to own a gun is persecution?
Tell that to someone who's really been persecuted, and see how it flies.

No one "needs" to answer the question. "Need" isn't a valid question, except to control freaks like yourself.

A rational society needs limits on what its members can and can't do. If there's a compelling reason to own a gun despite the obvious risks to the others in society, then guns should be permitted. The fact that nobody has tried to answer my question suggests that guns serve no real purpose that would justify the attendant risks.

And by the by, namecalling doesn't make your arguments any better. Frankly, someone with a temper like yours shouldn't own a gun

[Sava]

It's pointless to argue with righty's on this subject. They don't care about safety. They don't care about murder rates. They only care about their own selfish "rights". What's sad is that it would probably take upwards of one million deaths per year to get these sickos to change their minds.

They are even against scenarios of gun control that would make it much harder for criminals to get guns with minimal interference for law abiding citizens. It's so difficult to argue a moral topic with blatantly immoral people.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sinapus


Ah, I see. So we don't know if they were going to be killed since the criminal didn't succeed. How nice.

I never met her husband. If he didn't have a gun he still could have killed her. Either way, your attempt to restrict people based on what might happen is anaethma to a free society.

If my aunt hadn't smoked she might still be alive so does that mean I should desire to ban tobacco?

Here's a link to an article that covers these points:
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/dgu .

In the disscussion of the number of lives saved by DGU it is pointed out that certainly not each use saves a life. Most of the incidents involving DGU reported fit into the category of robberies, for which there is a 0.35% expected victim death rate. Many other incidents would be classified as burglaries, trespass, or etc. The author calculates that a mere 200 lives are saved by DGU each year. In contrast about half of the 13,000 homicides are committed by people without prior criminal record, about whom the garbage slogan "when guns are banned only criminals will have guns" obviously doesn't apply. One could argue then that unrestriced access to guns saves 200 lives/year while costing 6500 lives/year.

I suffer from asthma. Some people's so called right to smoke causes me to be ill whenever I go to places where people smoke, i.e., amusement parks, outdoor festivals, etc. Tobacco should be banned!

[Sava]

Whoa, wait a minute Doc... tobacco should be completely illegal, or just banned from public places?

IMO, guns shouldn't be banned, stricter screening processes should be implemented and enforced.

[KrazyHorse]

I think people should have to demonstrate a valid reason to keep guns in their place of residence. "Protection" won't cut it, either, except in specific areas (I'm thinking of isolated places, far from tthe nearest police station).

[KrazyHorse]

Occasional hunters should have to check their rifles in and out, etc.

What it comes down to is that people on farms should be allowed to keep their guns. City folks shouldn't.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava
Whoa, wait a minute Doc... tobacco should be completely illegal, or just banned from public places?

IMO, guns shouldn't be banned, stricter screening processes should be implemented and enforced.

Ban tobacco now.

Regarding guns lets start by actually licensing gun users. Make them take courses on the responsibility of gun use, educate them on the tragic effects of improper gun use (yes, gorey movies ala driver's ed), give them training on the proper care and handling of a weapon, and even make them demonstrate a minimum proficiency.

The guns themselves should be registered, part of the process of which chould include test firing and the retention of a ballistic sample by the police. The guns and their safety devices should be periodically inspected too.

[David Floyd]

What's sad is that it would probably take upwards of one million deaths per year to get these sickos to change their minds.

Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and one little point Dr Strangelove. The National Guard and the militia are totally separate. The Guard was created by an act of Congress, while militias, according to US law still on the books, consist of every able bodied and willing male. So even if you argue that the right to bear arms only extends to the militia, it won't get you very far.

Militia? EVERY able bodied and willing male? What if you aren't willing? Would they still make you go?

Isn't that slavery?

[David Floyd]

Militia? EVERY able bodied and willing male? What if you aren't willing? Would they still make you go?

Isn't that slavery?

I believe that the original law states able-bodied AND willing. Even if it didn't, though, a law like that can't extend to violating the Constitution, so of course they could not force me to serve.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually the amount of deaths is irrelevant to me in the context of whether or not guns should be banned. The number of people shot is an irrelevant emotional argument that has nothing to do with the right to own property.

So is a free market in radioisotopes still cool with you, David?

[Asher]

Gun control is necessary -- get over it.

[David Floyd]

So is a free market in radioisotopes still cool with you, David?

I already said I'm not going off into a minefield that you guys will use to bait-and-switch away from the main point of gun control. I'm not stupid, come on.

Gun control is necessary -- get over it.

Necessary for what?