High in Gun Ownership, Low in Homicides


dennislmay

Recommended Posts

I have few clues about firearms. I have only a childish emotional feeling that they do not belong in my country in the hands of civilians.

So if someone wants a gun, they should either become a police or join the military?

What would most likely qualify them for these positions besides their apparent obedience?

I understand the idea that democracies keep the government in check by making sure the powers are used to the ex ante desires of the majority; however, it is impossible not to assign certain people to caretaker positions. We cannot vote on everything, because there is simply too much to decide. Power is going to be assigned to certain individuals no matter what, in a democracy (or any form of State for that matter).

The reason I bring this up is that there is no realistic way for the government to be kept in check aside from alternatives. And since we cannot keep the government in check (while playing by the rules they make themselves), there is no way to ensure "bad people" will not eventually be translated into "everybody".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why, among 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, is there never a distinction drawn between gun control and gun prohibition?

Why does no one recognize that "We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" does not automatically translate to "They're coming to take my guns away!!!"

What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?

If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right".

In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?

"What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?"

I answered that question in depth in comment #39.

"If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right"."

Me either.

"In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?"

What does her right have to do with her responsibility? Thank you sir, for confirming my thesis - that you recognize no relationship between the two, and cannot imagine why one would depend on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They control medication. They control gasses. They control explosives. They control poisons. They control nuclear fission. Many dangerous things are controlled by government regulation because they are recognized as being dangerous in the hands of people who either will not, can not, or don't know how to use them responsibly.

So the government already recognizes that the sale and possession of dangerous items needs oversight. This is generally not disputed by anyone until you bring up guns.

Have you heard anyone complain that there are controls in place that govern the distribution and possession of cyanide? Anthrax vaccines? Nuclear warheads? Nitrous Oxide? Codine? Of course not - we all recognize that these things are best handled by experts who know how to handle them. So no one complains.

KacyRay:

Solid arguments which can be opposed with rational argumentation. However, they do not apply to "arms," and, the right of "the people" to bear them.

The failure of your argumentation in equating "arms" [guns] with other "dangerous" items is that pesky Second Amendment and the reason that the Second Amendment was vital to the creation of this limited Constitutional Republic.

None of the other dangerous items you mentioned are mentioned in the Bill of Rights and this places arms in a distinct and separately protected class along with speech, press, assembly, safety from search and seizure, safety from self incrimination, jury trials and the other specific rights in the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html <<<<From the Cornell Law website which gives some of the key points, references and links to pieces of the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf <<<This is the entire 157 pages of Decision and Dissents from the Supreme Court website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller <<<< Wiki did an excellent job on this decision. Also, FYI, this was only the second case on the 2nd Amendment that ever got decided by SCOTUS. The first was in 1939 and did not deal with the actual meaning of the right of "the people" to bear arms. It dealt with the interstate sale of machine guns if my memory serves me correctly.

Hope this helps.

A...

Thanks... but I'm not sure what help you think I need here.

What, exactly, is your point of contention? You seem to be trying to convince me that, In America, there are laws in place - and judicial decisions that reinforce those laws - that protect the right of every citizen to buy and trade guns with no consideration to how dangerous they are and the gravity inherent in gun ownership.

You need not convince me of that. I'm convinced. I'm making points on why that should change. Do yo have any comments on those points I was making?

Do you have an argument to make on why the right to own a gun should have no connection whatsoever to the gravity inherent in the responsibility of gun ownership?

No need to keep trying to convince me that the law is on your side right now. That's not germane to this conversation.

I know what the laws are. I'm discussing the way I believe things ought to be. I'm discussing the way in which I see things as "broken", and how I believe they ought to be fixed. That's the discussion I'm having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, among 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, is there never a distinction drawn between gun control and gun prohibition?

Why does no one recognize that "We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" does not automatically translate to "They're coming to take my guns away!!!"

What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?

If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right".

In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?

"What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?"

I answered that question in depth in comment #39.

"If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right"."

Me either.

"In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?"

What does her right have to do with her responsibility? Thank you sir, for confirming my thesis - that you recognize no relationship between the two, and cannot imagine why one would depend on the other.

You actually didn't answer it--in depth or at all.

Are you saying that because a 5-year-old shot a 2-year-old, a law should be passed that could prevent these types of mothers from buying guns? How would it do that; and how would it distinguish between these types of mothers and others?

Her right to buy cleaning agents does not depend on her responsibility to not give them to children--that is a more general right of being free. If, for example, someone gave dangerous chemicals to children, it is not specifically the right to buy those chemicals that should be restricted to them (because that would be ridiculous to enforce) but their right to be free.

I think any sort of preventative measures that infringe on individual rights (e.g. a mentally unstable person) should at least have some objective criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, among 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, is there never a distinction drawn between gun control and gun prohibition?

Why does no one recognize that "We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" does not automatically translate to "They're coming to take my guns away!!!"

What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?

If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right".

In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?

"What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?"

I answered that question in depth in comment #39.

"If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right"."

Me either.

"In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?"

What does her right have to do with her responsibility? Thank you sir, for confirming my thesis - that you recognize no relationship between the two, and cannot imagine why one would depend on the other.

You actually didn't answer it--in depth or at all.

Are you saying that because a 5-year-old shot a 2-year-old, a law should be passed that could prevent these types of mothers from buying guns? How would it do that; and how would it distinguish between these types of mothers and others?

Her right to buy cleaning agents does not depend on her responsibility to not give them to children--that is a more general right of being free. If, for example, someone gave dangerous chemicals to children, it is not specifically the right to buy those chemicals that should be restricted to them (because that would be ridiculous to enforce) but their right to be free.

I think any sort of preventative measures that infringe on individual rights (e.g. a mentally unstable person) should at least have some objective criteria.

I did answer it.

As I've said - it isn't a matter of the government coming in and telling people they don't have the right to buy guns. It's a matter of requiring individuals who want to buy guns to demonstrate that they will are responsible, law-abiding citizens who are proficient with a dangerous weapon and understand the full gravity inherent in gun ownership before they can own one.

Just like with other dangerous items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, among 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, is there never a distinction drawn between gun control and gun prohibition?

Why does no one recognize that "We want to ensure that only the right people have guns" does not automatically translate to "They're coming to take my guns away!!!"

What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?

If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right".

In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?

"What objective criteria can qualify "the right people"?"

I answered that question in depth in comment #39.

"If someone ever was in the position where they could benefit from the rightful use of a gun, but had been denied the right to own one, I don't think that is "right"."

Me either.

"In the case of the 5-year-old being given a gun, that is clearly negligence. But what does the mother's right to buy a gun have to do with her responsibility to not give it to a 5-year-old?? The poison analogy is the same case... Should she need a license to buy cleaning agents, too?"

What does her right have to do with her responsibility? Thank you sir, for confirming my thesis - that you recognize no relationship between the two, and cannot imagine why one would depend on the other.

You actually didn't answer it--in depth or at all.

Are you saying that because a 5-year-old shot a 2-year-old, a law should be passed that could prevent these types of mothers from buying guns? How would it do that; and how would it distinguish between these types of mothers and others?

Her right to buy cleaning agents does not depend on her responsibility to not give them to children--that is a more general right of being free. If, for example, someone gave dangerous chemicals to children, it is not specifically the right to buy those chemicals that should be restricted to them (because that would be ridiculous to enforce) but their right to be free.

I think any sort of preventative measures that infringe on individual rights (e.g. a mentally unstable person) should at least have some objective criteria.

I did answer it.

As I've said - it isn't a matter of the government coming in and telling people they don't have the right to buy guns. It's a matter of requiring individuals who want to buy guns to demonstrate that they will are responsible, law-abiding citizens who are proficient with a dangerous weapon and understand the full gravity inherent in gun ownership before they can own one.

Just like with other dangerous items.

The government is "law-abiding"?

"The blood of tyrants."

If you cannot base your arguments on or against the Bill of Rights and human rights you'll end up with a de facto statist foundation for everything you posit respecting laws and politics.

--Brant

the 2nd Amendment is about the preservation of freedom and freedom itself and the supremacy of the individual over the state and that is the implicit-explicit purpose of the Constitution no matter how imperfect even though Hamilton knew he had won and Jefferson had lost with its adaptation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

KacyRay...I hope he is still safe out there on that ship...

 

At any rate, here is one of my favorite communicators...

 

A...With bullets and ballots we shall overcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now