It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-22-2007, 09:01 PM   #301
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Why else have a loaded gun within reach at night, like this man did? The only reason is fear. And if you're that fearful, you are fucking paranoid.

If the gun isn't loaded, then why have it? It can't "save your life" if you can't shoot it at will.
The gun owners I know to my knowledge are not sitting around with loaded weapons within arms reach. I know plenty who do not own handguns, and hunt, use it for protection out at night on their farms, and take care of coyotes which happen to be a problem in the area I live.

So I guess I have a different view of gun owners. I unterpreted your statement to be a blanket statement about gun owners. If it was directed at the specific case I misunderstood.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:03 PM   #302
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Yes it will. People are killed in gun accidents in their homes all the time. And by people, I mean children.
People are killed by accidents other ways as well.

The people who are killed in "accidents" in their homes argument would lead me to believe that they are not taking care of their weapons in the manner they should. If that is the case, then lets legislate against stupidity, because stupid people are likely to kill again, by doing something stupid.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:28 PM   #303
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I know plenty who do not own handguns, and hunt, use it for protection out at night on their farms, and take care of coyotes which happen to be a problem in the area I live.
Completely different situations.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:40 PM   #304
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
No...lets get rid of booze and cars. Then there would be no problem. See drunk driving laws and speed limits, do not regulate. That is the point of this thread, no? That gun control laws do not work, so we must prevent people from owning them. Therefore, the same thing should apply to cars, since prohibition failed once already, lets ban cars, get the horse and carriage and ride. Personally I like reverse cowgirl.


Actually that's not a bad point...there is something a little absurd about defending the right of car owners to buy alcohol while arguing for a blanket ban on buying guns for self-defense. 17,000 drunk driving fatalities a year--OK; 10,000 gun homicides a year--not OK. Although, the number of car owners who also drink is probably higher than the total number of gun owners.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:53 PM   #305
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
The people who are killed in "accidents" in their homes argument would lead me to believe that they are not taking care of their weapons in the manner they should. If that is the case, then lets legislate against stupidity, because stupid people are likely to kill again, by doing something stupid.


but if we are taking care f the weapons in the manner that they should, then we are defenseless against the intruders who are breaking into our houses to rape our wives.

it's kind of a Catch-22 here.

it is a conundrum. i agree that the sudden banning of handguns isn't remotely practical, and i understand the ideology behind the 2nd amendment, and am more sympathetic to that than your typical gun control advocate.

but i think it's quite clear that widespread gun ownership causes far, far more deaths than they prevent.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 10:56 PM   #306
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland


Actually that's not a bad point...there is something a little absurd about defending the right of car owners to buy alcohol while arguing for a blanket ban on buying guns for self-defense. 17,000 drunk driving fatalities a year--OK; 10,000 gun homicides a year--not OK.
I really can't disagree with you more here.

Especially given that this is area of law I am actually working in for the summer (MADD). It isn't acceptable, not socially or otherwise and laws in the area are rapidly changing. Maybe you aren't necessarily aware of them, but I don't believe that you can actually reasonably say that anyone thinks drunk driving fatalities are okay.

ETA: I think maybe this impression exists because VT is huge and shocking and all over the TV now. But individual shootings or individual drunk driving accidents are never publicized to the same extent. That does not mean that they are not dealt with or don't exist. But generally, a drunk driver will take out another drunk driver or most tragically a family, but a drunk driver won't take out 33 20 year old students and will never get the TV coverage or the level of political discourse regarding drunk driving. And that is the only difference.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 11:04 PM   #307
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:53 AM
I was being sarcastic, but Dread is correct that drunk driving laws don't prevent drivers from buying alcohol, so the amount of actual "regulation" they achieve (as opposed to after-the-fact-penalty deterrents) is minimal at best. Why allow anyone who drives to purchase alcohol at all? Does drinking have benefits which justify those kinds of incidentals? If we're concerned enough about preventing law-abiding citizens from ending their lives or someone else's in a moment of stupidity with guns to advocate banning them altogether (at least for self-defense, which is not in itself a criminal act), then why not with alcohol for drivers?

I'm not seriously advocating a ban on alcohol sales to drivers. But if I were arguing for a total ban on gun ownership as opposed to much tighter restrictions, I'd find the discrepancy uncomfortable.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 12:42 AM   #308
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


Because for every story like this, we all know stories of children who got hold of a gun their parents kept for "safety" and accidentally shot themselves or another child.
Which raises the question of which story is "more powerful"--Indra's friend or the kid who shoots his friend accidentally.

Both stories are equally valid, but for both a person can take the approach "yeah, well that won't happen to me" to justify their stand on gun control.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 12:52 AM   #309
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
My Minority Report comment was about the direction the thread was taking. Everyone who owns a gun has become a potential killer ect.
Not quite. In Minority Report, intent was established. No one is arguing that everyone who purchases a gun has an intent to kill someone and thus should be punished just for ownership.

My belief is that anyone "can" be a potential killer regardless of gun ownership. Owning a gun just makes the killing easier should the potential killer change to active killer.

It seems a lot of of your argument is based on these clear cut difference between the evil bad-guy criminials and the law-abiding citizens. I don't think that difference is always so clear-cut. As I've said before my concerns with gun ownership have less to do with the career criminals and more to do with those who were law abiding citizens until the moment they pulled the trigger in anger.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Everyone who drives a car after a beer is a potential killer too, yet somehow people get home from cookouts, and barbacues, and Christmas parties after a few glasses of beer and wine.
And yet they shouldn't be "somehow getting home." Driving under the influence is absolutely unacceptable whether you get lucky and make it home or not.

Are there statistics that would indicate that the anti-drunk driving laws have had no impact whatsoever on drunk driving fatalities and that speed limits have no impact whatsoever on highway deaths. Somehow I doubt it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 12:59 AM   #310
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But it's kind of a contradicting point that gun owners have. They all try and convince you they need this gun for protection, therefore it has to be in a place that's easy and fast to get to when they are awakened in the night by the bad guy. Yet they all try and convince you they are responsible enough to lock them up and keep them out of reach of their children...
Yes, AEON or Dread could you please explain this. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 01:19 AM   #311
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



No different than speeding laws prevent speeding.
No different than drinking and driving laws do not prevent drinking and driving.

To me, it is the same thing.
But it so totally is not. This is such a terrible analogy. Or then again maybe it's not. . .but I bet it's not the anaolgoy you're meaning to draw.

Is there such a thing is "responsible" speeding? We shouldn't have speed limits because those of us who "know how to speed responsibly" shouldn't be prevented from doing so?

Is there such a thing as "responsible" drunk driving? We shouldn't have drunk driving laws because some of us can handle our liquour just fine behind the wheel?

Is there such a thing as "responsible" gun ownership? I would actually argue that there is--and additonal legislation would create MORE genuinely responsible gun owners, but your analogy is implying that there isn't.

I'll tell you that the appeal of all three of the above is a kind of macho "I don't need no government telling me what I can and can't handle" which is usually a sign of exactly the kind of immaturity that indicates some sort of government intervention might be necessary.

And of the three, I'll admitt that I speed. . .but at least I'm not disingenuous or cocky enough to pretend that I'm not taking a risk when I do.

Likewise someone like Aeon needs to be willing to admitt that he's damning the statistics and going with his gut to gamble that his kids are as responsible as he's taught them to be so that he can be sure he has a gun in case the torturer/rapist bursts into his home.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 01:24 AM   #312
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje
I cannot believe what my mom told me today. Actually, knowing the person, I can, but still...my friend got pregnant and ended up marrying her boyfriend. He's pretty much a lazy ass dumbass who does NOTHING all day but spend money they don't have while she works and takes care of their kids. I won't get into that....So my mom told me he went out and illegally bought a handgun. He bought it from a friend, so he has no license to own or purchase such a gun. Then my mom said that he was letting his three year old daughter play with it and fire it!!!!!!!!! He has done some of the dumbest things you could think of, but good God this one takes the cake! If I knew more details, I'd seriously report him to the police.

Guns aren't inherently dangerous, yeah, right..... You see why we need tighter restrictions? Because dumbasses like this can just decide out of the blue to buy and carry a handgun that a three year old now has access to.
But the guy is "law-abiding" as far as we know, right? In other words there is no reason this fool wouldn't have been prevented from purchasing a gun by legal means under current laws?

And his buddy, was he some dark underworld figure, or did he perhaps buy his gun legally? Because that kind of lawbreaking. . .shoot, I saw that happen all the time as kid. My friends bought and sold legally obtained weapons amongst themselves. That's about as criminal as something like. . .speeding.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 01:29 AM   #313
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


Two things that are common in the hunting community I would add - mandatory "safety" classes and requirements for how and where the gun can be kept. There are requirements as to how people can keep certain exotic pets in their homes, so it's not a stretch to ask that people be required to keep their guns in locked cases that meet certain regulations (would have to be determined).
I'd be happy with such legislation. Again, I don't think an outright ban is practical, but much stricter legislation, I'm all for.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 01:39 AM   #314
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 03:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Of course it's speculative, but I wonder if the fact that we have such a high rate of handgun possession in the absence of conscription might not be symptomatic of a tendency towards an impulsive, looking-out-for-me-and-mine attitude towards gun possession that's more conducive to reckless use (and indifference to extensive training) compared to the relationship to guns which hunters, trained law enforcement or security personnel, and current or former soldiers tend to have.
And if indeed some sort of societal "attitude" in America makes gun deaths more of a liklihood in the U.S., shouldn't the U.S. of all countries have the most stringent gun laws since apparently we're least capable of "handling" the responsiblity.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 03:52 AM   #315
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
My post was directed at AEON, yet you responded so defensively. What nerve did I hit?

If I have never known anyone who this has happened to, how does your argument hold up? I wonder at the actual statistical chances I have of this happening to me or someone I know?


Yet he keeps a loaded gun within reach?
I don't think I responded particularly defensively. Certainly no more so than your "I'll take my chances, thank you" comment. AEON's entire post was in reference to my post, so you saying you were only responding to him is disingenuous at best.

The statistical chances of something like this happening to you are about the same as they were to him. You are free to not have a weapon -- no one is saying you must have one. You are, however, saying that he shouldn't have one, despite him never being any kind of threat to you. You obviously don't know him or care whether he lived or died, but I'm glad he did have a gun that night. I personally don't know anyone who's had a child find a gun and shoot itself or anyone else. So why should I give a flying fuck about that argument either? (I do by the way, and think that anyone with children who cannot or will not properly secure any weapons should not have them.) Do you only care about something that is likely to happen to you or someone you know? If so, you are a mighty callous person.

As for his gun being stored loaded -- I'm not sure it was. I didn't ask and he didn't say. You just assumed it was loaded. It's entirely possible he retrieved and loaded it when he heard the guy breaking in. If you know what you are doing loading a gun only takes a few seconds.

I find your willingness to brand a person you do not know "fucking paranoid" because of something you assume (ie., that he stored his gun loaded) obnoxious and not nearly as tolerant as you'd like people to believe. Or does tolerance only apply when you agree with the person?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com