The Right To Bear Arms

[ironlung]

.....I think the heaviest rules and registerings are when it appears someone is going to carry/pack heat, and that's good, but anyone can walk into a convenient store with a pistol from Wal-Mart as it is now, or use a pistol that's been in the family for 100 years....but, the saturation of handguns among the citizenry in these United States is so great, how could you wipe that out, except door-to-door, which ain't likely....maybe the laws are about all they can be....or could the selling of new handguns anywhere, get much tougher and more restrictive?....there's been some great posts in this thread, imo.....

I think I have seen some NRA propaganda video where the authorities were going door to door (in the UK or Australia I believe) collecting shotguns and rifles. Taking beautiful over under 12ga with wonderful engraving and exotic wood stocks (think family heirloom) and running them through a chop saw and melting them for scrap.

 

[mulester7]

I think I have seen some NRA propaganda video where the authorities were going door to door (in the UK or Australia I believe) collecting shotguns and rifles. Taking beautiful over under 12ga with wonderful engraving and exotic wood stocks (think family heirloom) and running them through a chop saw and melting them for scrap.

.....mercy, Ironlung, that's definitely taking it too far getting hunting guns from people probably in the country also....I think those who make the laws in this land of the free, feel it is best to let the public keep handguns in their homes as few will be used improperly....and a door-to-door in the US would be pretty tough....I'd hide mine, would you?.....

.....edit....I'd wrap my handguns in cloth and bury them if I had to.....

 

[sploo]

Who cares about stats. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If I want to smash my face against my windsheild and/or impale my internal organs on my steering wheel...as Bobby Brown once said "It's my prerogative".

Why do you care if I die in an accdent?

Seatbelt use should be a checkbox on insurance forms like tobacco user is. NOT A LAW! By the way I do wear my seatbelt and it has nothing to do with what the law says.

Careless gun owners hurt their friends and familys. Guns just don't go off all by themselves.

Whilst I have no desire to see anyone die in an accident, even due to their own negligence (not wearing a seatbelt), if they did, then it would largely be their own fault. As you say - it's the personal responsibility of the indvidual.

When someone's got a gun that means the rest of us have to trust that they are responsible.

There's a big problem in some areas of London right now, where so many young men have guns that any difference is resolved with a firearm. Feel someone's disrespected you? - shoot him. Feel someone's on your turf? - shoot him. Argument over a PlayStation game (yes, really)? - shoot him.

A boy with a gun thinks he's a man - generally he's a fool.

 

[algernon]

When they refused to sell Levi's jeans in communist Russia, they were sold on the black market for hundreds of dollars. That's a good lesson for anyone who wants to outlaw handguns. You'll never take them out of the hands of criminals. They'll find a way to get them. Heck, every search the net?

I found a use for a pump action BB gun this morning. Blew a nut right out of a squirrels mouth who has found refuge in my attic. He's driving the family nuts - particularly myself. I won't shoot a deer, but I luv knocking off cute domestic squirrels.

ROTFLMAO

That's it. Let's ban BB guns, squirrels and Buckeye.

Seriously though, I think my 4 yo daughters pre-k school is brainwashing her with anti-gun rhetoric. Today in the car after school I had to listen to what she learned.
never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, never, ever, ever touch a gun. Went on for minutes.

 

[shokhead]

ROTFLMAO

That's it. Let's ban BB guns, squirrels and Buckeye.

Seriously though, I think my 4 yo daughters pre-k school is brainwashing her with anti-gun rhetoric. Today in the car after school I had to listen to what she learned.
never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, never, ever, ever touch a gun. Went on for minutes.

And thats wrong?

 

[mike c]

Seriously though, I think my 4 yo daughters pre-k school is brainwashing her with anti-gun rhetoric. Today in the car after school I had to listen to what she learned.
never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, never, ever, ever touch a gun. Went on for minutes.

i think thats good. when she grows up, it will be easy to teach her how to shoot and defend herself and stuff (if you want). but right now, you DO need her to never, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never, never, ever, ever touch a gun.

 

[majorloser]

This is my rifle
This is my gun
This one's for fighting
This one's for fun

Now drop and give me twenty you grabbastic piece of amphibian sh it!

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Now drop and give me twenty you grabbastic piece of amphibian sh it!

Ah the drill Instructor. I remember watching Full Metal jacket and being scarred sh!tless. Then when I actually enlisted the guy was pretty sad. Stuttered, couldn't pronounce anyones name right, Lost major face when he failed to perform a basic Judo-throw on a recruit.

The good ol' days when there was no war.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I Just read this today, I think it's appropiate to the thread.

http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_19_05_JS.html

 

[chicagomd]

Ironlung,

"A bowling ball on a high shelf is more likely to cause a head injury"

Please show me a link or give me a reference if you are going to use this to dispute something in my post. You can come up with all kinds of possible senarios, but you need to have data to back it up if you want to make a good arguement out of it.

There is not a serious political body in this country that is advocating for the removal of firearms and the total disarming of the American public. If you can find one let me know, I will be more than happy to disagree with them. What is needed is more regulation not only of the gun industry, which recently got a huge political blow-job from the US Congress, but also better control over gun ownership. (Removal of loop holes in the law for gun shows, etc)

-Should responsible gun owners have their weapons taken away? Of course not.
-Should there be standards by which we measure who are responsible guns owners? Yes.
-Should loaded weapons be kept in the home where there are children? Study after study has shown that your weapon is more likely to kill or hurt someone you love than someone trying to rob you.
-Should the manufacturing of devices whose only purpose is to take the life of another human being be the LEAST REGULATED INDUSTRY IN THE ENTIRE USA? No. Not only that, but thanks to the afore mentioned blow-job, they are now protected from almost all litigation from any future negligence claim.

The NRA wants you to think ANYONE advocating for ANY type of gun control is "just trying to take your guns away". It is easy to take a position against this, but why don't you take the time and look at what the other side is actually talking about before you blast people for their views?

Keep your guns if it makes you feel better, God knows I don't want them. But don't kid yourself into thinking you have made your home a safer place because of them. The evidence just does not support it.

 

[ironlung]

Ironlung,

"A bowling ball on a high shelf is more likely to cause a head injury"

Please show me a link or give me a reference if you are going to use this to dispute something in my post. You can come up with all kinds of possible senarios, but you need to have data to back it up if you want to make a good arguement out of it.

There is not a serious political body in this country that is advocating for the removal of firearms and the total disarming of the American public. If you can find one let me know, I will be more than happy to disagree with them. What is needed is more regulation not only of the gun industry, which recently got a huge political blow-job from the US Congress, but also better control over gun ownership. (Removal of loop holes in the law for gun shows, etc)

-Should responsible gun owners have their weapons taken away? Of course not.
-Should there be standards by which we measure who are responsible guns owners? Yes.
-Should loaded weapons be kept in the home where there are children? Study after study has shown that your weapon is more likely to kill or hurt someone you love than someone trying to rob you.
-Should the manufacturing of devices whose only purpose is to take the life of another human being be the LEAST REGULATED INDUSTRY IN THE ENTIRE USA? No. Not only that, but thanks to the afore mentioned blow-job, they are now protected from almost all litigation from any future negligence claim.

The NRA wants you to think ANYONE advocating for ANY type of gun control is "just trying to take your guns away". It is easy to take a position against this, but why don't you take the time and look at what the other side is actually talking about before you blast people for their views?

Keep your guns if it makes you feel better, God knows I don't want them. But don't kid yourself into thinking you have made your home a safer place because of them. The evidence just does not support it.

Chicago MD,

Would you accept a Tom and Jerry cartoon as my sited source. I was not blasting you at all. If it came across that way I apologise. I was trying to use a little dark humor to show where a lack of personal responsibility could end up.

I notice that you deleted the knife, baseball bat, and many alternative methods of suicide that I mentioned. I was trying to point out that where there's a will there's a way. If someone wants to kill or die they will figure it out somehow. Regardless of how many laws are on the books.

As for the gun industry being protected from negligence law suits, I don't see how Smith & Wesson is responsible if a weapon they produce is used for a crime/suicide. Is Whustoff (sp) cutlery responsible if I slit someones throat or my own wrists? If I'm driving by the farmers market and see my highschool bully and I turn my Chevy into the crowd and flooring it killing him and 40 more innocent men women and children on purpouse is GM responsible? Should McDonalds pay me millions if I spill coffee purchased there in my own lap?


I don't kid myself into thinking my house is safer with guns in it. Anything can happen when a criminal breaks in including getting my head blown off with my own gun. I'd like to give myself at least a small chance of evening up the odds if the intruder is armed.


I can just see the scenario:

Excuse me Mr. Robber will you please wait 5-15 minutes to kill me and rape my wife while I call the police and they get here.


I'll stand by what I have said earlier. Education and personal responsibility is where it's at. The last thing America needs is more legislation. Punish criminals not everyone.

 

[Tsunamii]

What should really be outlawed is Ted Kennedy's car. It’s more lethal then my gun has been.

 

[Tomorrow]

you need to have data to back it up if you want to make a good arguement out of it.


Keep your guns if it makes you feel better, God knows I don't want them. But don't kid yourself into thinking you have made your home a safer place because of them. The evidence just does not support it.

Yes, one should have data to back it up. So I wonder why you are ignoring all the data that has been placed in front of you by research, and by the people in this thread. Could it be that you have your very own bias as to what is good data and what is not?

You hammer on about the "political blow-job" as you call it. That's data? No sir. That's bias. You ignore the data that shows that there are 100,000 people KILLED in hospitals every year in the U.S. because of malpractice vs. 17,000 by gun violence (which includes cop shootings of criminals). Where is your intolerance for those "medical murders"? You ignore the data that shows that right to carry states have less violent crime by firearm than other states. You tell us that guns in a home are more likely to be used against the owner. But you ignore that so are knives. In fact, so is every implement that can be used to attack a person. But you single out guns. It's the people involved, that you ignore. As is always said and is true. It's people who kill people, not the tool (read gun/knife/bat/car/poison/scalpel/alcohol/cellphone/whatever). You rail that we should have strident, draconian gun laws because of all these 17,000 deaths per year. And in fact, repeated studies have shown that restrictive gun laws do NOTHING to diminish violent crime or crimes using firearms. Nada. And I haven't heard one thing from you about auto crash killings. Why don't you take your enthusiasm and righteousness out into the prevention of the hundreds of thousands of killings and maimings of innocent people because others feel they have the right to use an automobile? Which is the most dangerous implement of murder? Car or gun? (Doctor or gun?)

And finally, I have a question for you. How do you believe this country became a free country and how do you think each of us remains free from despotic rule? Well, we sure didn't/don't talk 'em to death by using ill-conceived logic, biased/incomplete data, and political diatribe.

 

[Tsunamii]

chicagomd, the problem with your argument is that it is in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment. The idea was that everyone who could carry a firearm should be able to.
I will say that short of a felon you should have the right to bear arms. What we have now is not a right to bear arms but a privilege that local municipalities unevenly decided who should have that right. That to IMHO is a violation of my rights as the Framers intended.
A drivers license is a privilege, the 2nd Amendment is not.

 

[Tomorrow]

A friend of mine came up with an ingenious idea. He suggested that phone books all be modified to include a gun symbol. You get a symbol next to your name, number, and address if you own a gun. You don't get one if you don't own a gun. (Can you see where this is going?) Hmmm, I wonder where the crooks will go.

Suddenly I like non-gun owners more than ever before!

And chicagomd, you're interested in the total political banning of guns...it's happening in Berkeley and San Francisco. They don't even need phone book symbols there. Yes, political groups DO want to ban private ownership of all guns.

 

[chicagomd]

Ironlung,

Tom and Jerry? Source accepted.

And I believe that everyone agrees that education and responsibility are key. The problem is, and this is where politics come into play, that there are no standards for education and responsibility. You have a gun in your home, you say you are responsible and educated. How do I know? Should I believe that you hold yourself to a high standard of gun saftey? Should I trust my kids to play at your house? I should be able to look you in the eye, shake your hand, and trust you. That is not our reality.

The main issue that gun control activists have with the recently passed legislation is that it provides a legal shield to an already under-regulated industry.

The article referenced by jeffsg4mac is a good example of why the gun industry needs to be looked at a little closer. Why is it so simple for criminals to "buy their guns illegally and easily"? The sad truth is that industry, without at least some regulation, will do what is best for the bottomline of the company, not what is best for the population it serves. If you disagree with this talk to anyone who as ever lived in the shadow of a powerplant. Again the point of regulation is not elimination...it is regulation.

As far as suicide is concerned:
There are other methods to kill yourself beside using a gun, but a gun is much more effective. Here is an interesting fact for you: Men are better at killing themselves than women. You know why? They are more likely to use guns. (I use this example with my wife when she says that women always do a bettter job than men. She never finds it funny.)

 

[majorloser]

A friend of mine came up with an ingenious idea. He suggested that phone books all be modified to include a gun symbol. You get a symbol next to your name, number, and address if you own a gun. You don't get one if you don't own a gun. (Can you see where this is going?) Hmmm, I wonder where the crooks will go.

Suddenly I like non-gun owners more than ever before!

And chicagomd, you're interested in the total political banning of guns...it's happening in Berkeley and San Francisco. They don't even need phone book symbols there. Yes, political groups DO want to ban private ownership of all guns.

Can we get Roman numerals next to the gun symbol that shows how many we own? Or little bullet symbols?

I guess that means I have to get a listed number again.

 

[chicagomd]

Yes, one should have data to back it up. So I wonder why you are ignoring all the data that has been placed in front of you by research, and by the people in this thread. Could it be that you have your very own bias as to what is good data and what is not?

You hammer on about the "political blow-job" as you call it. That's data? No sir. That's bias. You ignore the data that shows that there are 100,000 people KILLED in hospitals every year in the U.S. because of malpractice vs. 17,000 by gun violence (which includes cop shootings of criminals). Where is your intolerance for those "medical murders"? You ignore the data that shows that right to carry states have less violent crime by firearm than other states. You tell us that guns in a home are more likely to be used against the owner. But you ignore that so are knives. In fact, so is every implement that can be used to attack a person. But you single out guns. It's the people involved, that you ignore. As is always said and is true. It's people who kill people, not the tool (read gun/knife/bat/car/poison/scalpel/alcohol/cellphone/whatever). You rail that we should have strident, draconian gun laws because of all these 17,000 deaths per year. And in fact, repeated studies have shown that restrictive gun laws do NOTHING to diminish violent crime or crimes using firearms. Nada. And I haven't heard one thing from you about auto crash killings. Why don't you take your enthusiasm and righteousness out into the prevention of the hundreds of thousands of killings and maimings of innocent people because others feel they have the right to use an automobile? Which is the most dangerous implement of murder? Car or gun? (Doctor or gun?)

And finally, I have a question for you. How do you believe this country became a free country and how do you think each of us remains free from despotic rule? Well, we sure didn't/don't talk 'em to death by using ill-conceived logic, biased/incomplete data, and political diatribe.

-My comment about evidence was directed at bowling balls, not about every other post in this now 10 page thread. There have been some very good points made, I was just contining my discussion with Ironlung.

-The "political blow-job" comment was bias, and was presented only as an example of the political power the gun lobby in this country can level.

"You ignore the data that shows that there are 100,000 people KILLED in hospitals every year in the U.S. because of malpractice vs. 17,000 by gun violence (which includes cop shootings of criminals."-Medical malpractice deaths have nothing to do with a converstion on gun control. On a side note, there is no legislation protecting hospitals and physicians against malpractice like there now is for the gun industry, but I digress...

-"You tell us that guns in a home are more likely to be used against the owner. But you ignore that so are knives. In fact, so is every implement that can be used to attack a person." Having spend a fair amount of time in an ICU and an Emergency room, I am well aware that guns are not the only means of assult. This thread is a discussion of gun control, and I thought it best to stick to the issue at hand.

-"And I haven't heard one thing from you about auto crash killings. Why don't you take your enthusiasm and righteousness out into the prevention of the hundreds of thousands of killings and maimings of innocent people because others feel they have the right to use an automobile?" Again, we are talking about gun control. I don't think I have said anything that warrents a response like this. I am sorry if I offended you.

-"How do you believe this country became a free country..."-Violence and politics.

-"...and how do you think each of us remains free from despotic rule?"-Voting and political action.

If you would like to have a conversation about how to save the most lives each year in the USA, then we can talk about diabetes, obesity, and smoking. Feel free to start another thread.

EDIT: "Which is the most dangerous implement of murder? Car or gun? (Doctor or gun?)" I was going to let this go since it is so clearly placed to get a rise out of me. So here I go taking the bait:
-You cannot compare the two, becuase a gun is an implement of murder and doctors are not. A physician, as an autonomous being, is capable of commiting murder. (I suppose there could be a few hitmen out there that are doctors, in which case they could be impliments of murder, but my guess is there is not that many. Pure speculation on my part, I admit.)

 

[Tomorrow]

Chicagomd,

You have missed my point entirely. The issue I raised and is the focus of any gun discussion is its use or misuse...and NOT the implement...as I was trying to describe (and apparently failing) with examples of hospital, automobile, knife, etc, use/misuse. (If a gun is buried in the desert, does it need your controls and restrictions? Nope. It's not the gun. It's the use.) It's not 'gun control' you want. It's people control.

And speaking of on-topic, you still have not acknowledged the facts as stated, nor, I believe, intend to because of your bias. Want a quick summary of a couple?
1. More gun control laws = higher crime rates.
2. Right to carry states = lower crime rates (including murder by firearm).
3. Firearms are 3 times more likely to be used to ward off an attack as to be used in one.
4. The Constitutional framers clearly intended for the universal ownership of firearms to preserve the people from unjust and unrepresentative governance. (From some things you've said, I'd guess you would prefer that we were still under the thumb of the Monarchy.)

Chicagomd, there are more gun laws in this country than traffic laws and more ownership restrictions of firearms than of automobiles. Your statements about rampant, uncontrolled gun industry is absolutely false. My aside point to you was to suggest that perhaps more of your concern and effort (as an md?) be directed toward the MUCH MORE DANGEROUS activity of driving to work each day or your cohorts' mistreatment of patients.

 

[Matt34]

EDIT: I'll wait till I get home to respond to this one.