Guns

[CatholicsAreKewl]

It's not about practicality, it's about doing what's morally acceptable. It's not morally acceptable to make preemptive strikes. Even if one votes to write down rules for the preemptive strikes.

You sound like an expert on this topic. 

[havok579257]

I've never said the world would be perfect. I reject preemptive strikes. You don't.

 

Ah, the conjectural damage done by non-aggression.

 

 

ah, the fantasy world that says a known mass murder would have no intent to harm anyone if we allowed him to have any and all weapons he wanted and that a terrorist who says they want to kill.  Of course they would do nothing if he got his hands on nuclear weapons.  Ah to live in fantasy and not reality. 

[Winchester]

Define preemptive strike. 

 

Would me shooting someone that is pointing a gun at my son be a preemptive strike? Where is the the line between preemptive strike and protecting loved one? Is it the moment the aggressor is in the action of aggression toward the would-be victim/innocent?

 

You don't think pointing someone pointing a gun at your son (presumably unprovoked) is an act of aggression?

[Winchester]

ah, the fantasy world that says a known mass murder would have no intent to harm anyone if we allowed him to have any and all weapons he wanted and that a terrorist who says they want to kill.  Of course they would do nothing if he got his hands on nuclear weapons.  Ah to live in fantasy and not reality. 

 

You accidentally quoted me in your response.

[Winchester]

You sound like an expert on this topic. 

 

I am an expert on the motivation behind my personal beliefs, yes. As you likely are for yours.

[Socrates]

1) As I see it, the most central issue in the "gun control" debates is the right of people to self-defense (which, for you Catholics on here, is a right taught by the Church).

Laws restricting the right of citizens to own and bear arms (as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) restrict the ability of people to defend themselves against aggressors.  This is true of laws which arbitrarily restrict the capacity of magazines.  In a firefight, plenty of bullets don't hit their targets.  In a situation with multiple armed attackers, or in a situation of a general breakdown of order (riots and such) high-capacity magazines may be quite reasonable for persons to protect themselves and others.  Yes, currently such situations are comparatively rare, but they do occur.  It's not the place of government to determine for everybody what arms and how many rounds per magazine they need for defense.

 

2) There is no need for additional laws when existing laws are not effectively being enforced.  Many criminals obtain their weapons illegally.  Drugs and guns illegally cross the border all the time.  Those intent on murderous violence will find ways to either obtain guns illegally, or else find ways to kill without firearms.  

(The two biggest mass-murders on American soil in recent decades - 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing - were committed without guns, as was the recent Boston Marathon bombing.)

 

Anti-gun legislation does nothing but needlessly criminalize law-abiding citizens.

 

3)  Gun safety and accidental gun deaths have nothing to do with the horrific slaughters in Newtown and elsewhere, which were done quite deliberately.  In my experience, the most "hard-core rabid gun-nuts" are also the most hardcore rabid about gun safety.  Many more people die in motor vehicle, industrial machinery, and boating/swimming accidents, than by gun accidents, yet I don't see the same urgency that the government step in with more intervention in these areas.  Yes, safety is important, but there's no horrible epidemic of gun accidents desperately requiring more government meddling in the affairs of citizens.

If we wanted so badly for the government to prevent every possible tragedy, we should ban knives, matches and gasoline, and confine everybody to a padded cell.

 

Of course, our so-called "liberals" do tend to see more government busy-bodiness as the cure to all that ails us.

[havok579257]

1) As I see it, the most central issue in the "gun control" debates is the right of people to self-defense (which, for you Catholics on here, is a right taught by the Church).

Laws restricting the right of citizens to own and bear arms (as guaranteed in the Second Amendment) restrict the ability of people to defend themselves against aggressors.  This is true of laws which arbitrarily restrict the capacity of magazines.  In a firefight, plenty of bullets don't hit their targets.  In a situation with multiple armed attackers, or in a situation of a general breakdown of order (riots and such) high-capacity magazines may be quite reasonable for persons to protect themselves and others.  Yes, currently such situations are comparatively rare, but they do occur.  It's not the place of government to determine for everybody what arms and how many rounds per magazine they need for defense.

 

2) There is no need for additional laws when existing laws are not effectively being enforced.  Many criminals obtain their weapons illegally.  Drugs and guns illegally cross the border all the time.  Those intent on murderous violence will find ways to either obtain guns illegally, or else find ways to kill without firearms.  

(The two biggest mass-murders on American soil in recent decades - 9-11 and the Oklahoma City bombing - were committed without guns, as was the recent Boston Marathon bombing.)

 

Anti-gun legislation does nothing but needlessly criminalize law-abiding citizens.

 

3)  Gun safety and accidental gun deaths have nothing to do with the horrific slaughters in Newtown and elsewhere, which were done quite deliberately.  In my experience, the most "hard-core rabid gun-nuts" are also the most hardcore rabid about gun safety.  Many more people die in motor vehicle, industrial machinery, and boating/swimming accidents, than by gun accidents, yet I don't see the same urgency that the government step in with more intervention in these areas.  Yes, safety is important, but there's no horrible epidemic of gun accidents desperately requiring more government meddling in the affairs of citizens.

If we wanted so badly for the government to prevent every possible tragedy, we should ban knives, matches and gasoline, and confine everybody to a padded cell.

 

Of course, our so-called "liberals" do tend to see more government busy-bodiness as the cure to all that ails us.

 

 

1. Your first arguement really has no leg to stand on.  People have the right to bear arms for self protection.  Just because the government does not allow someone to own a military grade machine gun does not mean they would not be capable of defending themselves.  If they denied them any gun use then yes I can see your point.  Although to say because the government does not allow citizens to own any and all guns made in human history denies you your right to self defense is a weak arguement at best.

 

2. I also don't like this logic either.  So because current laws do not do a good job at controling drug trafficing and drug use and death we should just not make any new laws?  That's like saying, hey rape happens and the laws don't stop it so why try to punish it or prevent it anymore by passing new laws.  Mine as well just let it happen since current laws and punishment don't deter rapists.  This also is a weak arguement.

 

3. And the motor vehicle industry has been cracked down on hard and its been pushed hard that they continue to improve vehicle saftey which has happen incredibly since the first motor vehicle was created.  The government has stepped in the motor vehicle industry way way more than they ever have the gun industry.  I would like to see where you got these numbers that more people die by industeral machinery and boating/swimming than by accidental deaths.  Do you have facts to back this claim up?

 

4. Sorry but children dying from people doing stupid things with their guns is an epidemic if even one child dies.  Although not just one child has died from so called accidental shootings.  Parents have accidently shot tehir children because they thought they were someone breaking in, they were cleaning/reloading their gun in fron of their child, they left their gun out so a child could get easily.  Maybe some people on here have no problems with children dying from so called accidental deaths but I have a problems with it.  SImple solution to the problem, if  you do something stupid that gets your child shot you lose your right to bear arms and are charged with their murder.  (Yeah winchester I do advocate force here because to me a child's death is more important than the right to act like an idiot with a gun.).   

[havok579257]

 

You don't think pointing someone pointing a gun at your son (presumably unprovoked) is an act of aggression?

 

 

you don't think someone owning a weapon and saying they are going to use it to kill people is an act of aggression?

[Winchester]

you don't think someone owning a weapon and saying they are going to use it to kill people is an act of aggression?

 

Are you talking about the DEA?

 

Or is such a threat only bad when it's not the gubbmint?

[Winchester]

4. Sorry but children dying from people doing stupid things with their guns is an epidemic if even one child dies.  

 

Let's redefine "epidemic" using our emotions!

[havok579257]

Let's redefine "epidemic" using our emotions!

 

 

let's actually care about children dying ok.

[havok579257]

Are you talking about the DEA?

 

Or is such a threat only bad when it's not the gubbmint?

 

 

yet in your case as long as its not the government doing the threatening then its a-ok.

[Winchester]

let's actually care about children dying ok.

 

I don't think it's necessary to hyperventilate and redefine "epidemic". Take a slow breath. Cut the straps on your corset. Have a snack, or something.

 

 

yet in your case as long as its not the government doing the threatening then its a-ok.

 

Nope. Non-aggression principle.

[Socrates]

1. Your first arguement really has no leg to stand on.  People have the right to bear arms for self protection.  Just because the government does not allow someone to own a military grade machine gun does not mean they would not be capable of defending themselves.  If they denied them any gun use then yes I can see your point.  Although to say because the government does not allow citizens to own any and all guns made in human history denies you your right to self defense is a weak arguement at best.

 

2. I also don't like this logic either.  So because current laws do not do a good job at controling drug trafficing and drug use and death we should just not make any new laws?  That's like saying, hey rape happens and the laws don't stop it so why try to punish it or prevent it anymore by passing new laws.  Mine as well just let it happen since current laws and punishment don't deter rapists.  This also is a weak arguement.

 

3. And the motor vehicle industry has been cracked down on hard and its been pushed hard that they continue to improve vehicle saftey which has happen incredibly since the first motor vehicle was created.  The government has stepped in the motor vehicle industry way way more than they ever have the gun industry.  I would like to see where you got these numbers that more people die by industeral machinery and boating/swimming than by accidental deaths.  Do you have facts to back this claim up?

 

4. Sorry but children dying from people doing stupid things with their guns is an epidemic if even one child dies.  Although not just one child has died from so called accidental shootings.  Parents have accidently shot tehir children because they thought they were someone breaking in, they were cleaning/reloading their gun in fron of their child, they left their gun out so a child could get easily.  Maybe some people on here have no problems with children dying from so called accidental deaths but I have a problems with it.  SImple solution to the problem, if  you do something stupid that gets your child shot you lose your right to bear arms and are charged with their murder.  (Yeah winchester I do advocate force here because to me a child's death is more important than the right to act like an idiot with a gun.).   

 

 

1)  No, it’s your “argument” that has no leg to stand on.  The Second Amendment says “the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It makes no exception regarding “military grade” weapons.  In fact, the 2nd Amendment was made specifically to protect “military grade” arms, as that is what was used by members of the state militias – weapons capable of fighting armed soldiers.  The right to own and bear arms becomes pretty meaningless if the government can simply ban citizens from banning whatever kind of arms it wants to.  Any restrictions on gun type or magazine capacity are ultimately arbitrary – why not restrict legal gun ownership to Red Ryder bb guns?

 

 

2)  Your “logic” here is even more nonsensical.   Rape is against the law.  So is murdering people (with a gun or anything else).   If you want to talk about rape, “gun-control” laws would be analogous to criminalizing non-rapists simply for possessing a functioning penis.

 

 

3)  I wouldn’t give the government primary credit for improvements in automobile safety (actually, environmental measures pushing for smaller, lighter vehicles have made cars less safe), but that’s another debate.  Most gun deaths aren’t caused by defective guns (a gun wouldn’t last long on the market today if it randomly blew up in people’s faces or whatever), but by improper or careless use.  Approximately 42,000 people die in this country yearly from auto accidents, compared with only about 600 from gun accidents.

 

I may have been mistaken concerning industrial deaths (couldn’t find yearly stats on those), but the top six causes of accidental death are:  motor vehicle accidents (42,000 yearly), poisoning (39,000), falls (25,000), fires (2,700), choking (2,500), and drowning (2,000).  Each of these dwarfs the number of accidental gun deaths (600).  (http://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top-5-causes-of-accidental-death-in-the-united-states.html)

 

4) A child’s accidental death from a gun is no more or less horrible than one from any of those other causes, and there is nothing uniquely evil about an accidental gun death requiring more government meddling. 

If someone accidentally causes the death of another, he can be charged with manslaughter and punished accordingly if found guilty.  Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent person.  Let’s charge people with the crimes they actually commit.  No need for new laws.

 

By your own logic, we should charge parents of children who accidentally drown, choke, or burn to death with murder, and ban them forever from going near water, owning small objects, or lighting a fire.

If you're really so concerned about children's safety, shouldn't we focus more on those things, rather than singling out gun owners for exceptionally harsh punishment?  After all, gun deaths are only a tiny fraction of all accidental deaths.

 

Or heck, since even one death is an “epidemic” which the government urgently needs to stop, let’s just ban all those things altogether, along with all cars, so not one child will die from those things.

 

If you oppose any of that, you don’t care about children dying!!!!

[Winchester]

You clearly don't care about children. Everyone who cares about children wants the government to run an approval system, and punish anyone who doesn't follow the rules they set up. This will save children. The only thing that puts children in danger is people not following the wise rules written by people like George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Sheila Jackson Lee.