Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[Brainwalter]

yep slick, we're just crazy, better not ever come over here, just stay in your own country and mind your own business. (the last part is important)

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
3) You keep talking about the need to protect yourselves from complete mayhem and anarchy, as if it was imminent. Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one said they're imminent, but in the case of complete mayhem I will be glad I was smart enough to have an AK-47 around. Just because YOU think it isn't worth preparing for unlikely events gives you no right to prevent ME from donig so.

I do think it's fair to say that distrust in government is due to American history and culture. You ever heard of Washington, Jefferson, et al? But I wouldn't call it paranoia considering that our government has disavowed any duty (and showed little ability) to protect us, and repeatedly abused their constitutional powers.

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt that strict gun control works very well in other countries.

[/ QUOTE ] You're right, no one has posted in this thread about high British crime rates, or anything else that would make Americans doubt that it "works" there or would work here. There is no doubt your position is the correct one, anyone who disagrees is crazy!

[revots33]

Question for gun-rights people: do you think a man who has threatened to kill his girlfriend or ex-wife, and has a police restraining order against him, has the right to buy a handgun? How about an ex-felon who served 20 years for killing a store clerk in a robbery?

Because these are the types of people that gun regulations are trying to address. A law-abiding citizen has no problem getting a gun under any of the proposed regulations to my knowledge (except for outright banning of all guns which is never gonna happen in the US anyway).

In fact, even if I carried my own gun, I'd still rather it be more difficult for criminals to get them, because it would decrease the chance I'd ever have to use my own in self-defense.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
People against gun control:

Do you agree or disagree that the problems with gun control in USA are caused by the American history and culture?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "problem with gun control"? Do you mean "opposition to gun control"? Because I certainly don't see that as a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I am getting more and more convinced of this, here is why:

1) "Because the weak would have no defense against the strong."

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you deny this?

Twenty-year-old male vs. eighty-year-old female.

What are the chance of the woman surviving if they both have baseball bats? Knives?

Guns?

[ QUOTE ]
2) You keep talking about how it is "my right to own a firearm". While I completely disagree that one should have a right for something like this, it isn't what this discussion is about. A society needs certain regulations, and we're discussing if gun control is one.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? How can the right to own guns (more accurately: the *lack* of a right for *you* to prevent *others* from possessing them) *not* be "what this discussion is about"? If you have no right to restrict others thusly, then "gun control" *cannot* be one of the regulations that "society needs" (if there even are any such regulations, which isn't at all obvious to me).

[ QUOTE ]
3) You keep talking about the need to protect yourselves from complete mayhem and anarchy, as if it was imminent. Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who *oppose* oppression are the ones you *don't* want having guns?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please explain how I can violate your rights without interacting with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am claiming that you are interacting with me. If you get to define when you are and are not interacting with me, then you can just come and take all my property and say "I'm not interacting with you. Sorry, you don't get to contest that assertion."

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how me having or not having a gun is interacting with you. You don't even *know* if I have one or not.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for gun-rights people: do you think a man who has threatened to kill his girlfriend or ex-wife, and has a police restraining order against him, has the right to buy a handgun? How about an ex-felon who served 20 years for killing a store clerk in a robbery?

[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, no. These people do not have the right to buy a handgun. Neither do law-abiding citizens. This would imply that there *must* be someone who will sell it to these people. I certainly do not think anyone should be compelled to do so. I certainly wouldn't sell either of these people a gun.

You have no right to *forcibly prevent* these people from obtaining one. Different ball of wax.

[ QUOTE ]
Because these are the types of people that gun regulations are trying to address. A law-abiding citizen has no problem getting a gun under any of the proposed regulations to my knowledge (except for outright banning of all guns which is never gonna happen in the US anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

And criminals have no problems getting a gun under any of the proposed regulations, either. In fact, they probably have an easier time than law-abiding citizens.

Good intentions are not sufficient for good law.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain how me having or not having a gun is interacting with you. You don't even *know* if I have one or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a gun you are increasing my chance of being shot by you from zero to something greater than zero. You want the benefit of having owning a gun (whatever you perceive that to be) but you want to externalize part of the cost (the cost of assuming the risk of being shot) to me. I don't see why I can't consider your choice to externalize cost to me by obtaining a gun to be an aggressive interaction with me. I am not choosing to be party to this transaction.

Now, I acknowledge that it is possible to interpret it as not being an aggressive interaction that needs to be prevented. I understand that opinion. But that difference in opinion needs to be resolved.

[Brainwalter]

revots that's a background check, ok whatever, so where do the waiting periods, bans on certain types of rifles etc. come from, and why are people in this thread questioning the right/need to own a gun at all? Have you read this thread? People aren't just trying to keep guns out of the hands of convicted murderers and the like, some people are attempting to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own guns for self-defense.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Question for gun-rights people: do you think a man who has threatened to kill his girlfriend or ex-wife, and has a police restraining order against him, has the right to buy a handgun?

[/ QUOTE ]
Already illegal and a felony

[ QUOTE ]
How about an ex-felon who served 20 years for killing a store clerk in a robbery?

[/ QUOTE ]
Already illegal and a felony

[ QUOTE ]
Because these are the types of people that gun regulations are trying to address.

[/ QUOTE ]
These are the types of people who don't obey laws

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
f you have a gun you are increasing my chance of being shot by you from zero to something greater than zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Depends on what he does with it, and where the two of you each spend your time.