Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felons can't legally possess fire arms, and I don't think the legally insane can either, what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

But they can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked. Nice loophole. If it's illegal for felons to have guns wouldn't it be a good idea to check to see if they are a felon BEFORE selling them a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me a list of states where this loophole exists, because I know it DOESN'T here, and we area very gun-friendly state in general.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felons can't legally possess fire arms, and I don't think the legally insane can either, what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

But they can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked. Nice loophole. If it's illegal for felons to have guns wouldn't it be a good idea to check to see if they are a felon BEFORE selling them a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got no problem with that,maybe others do but I don't see that as infringing on someone's rights. I think it should come down to violent felons not being able to possess firearms. In the eyes of the law, if you steal anything worth over $500 it becomes a felony. So I'd be barred from purchasing a firearm for stealing 2 pairs of shoes?

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be much more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the obvious follow-up: Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the weak would have no defense against the strong.

The people would have no check on the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ignorantly wrong. You already have no check on the government, other than voting. If the government decides to put you away you will be gone forever, no matter how many guns you have. The only difference is that you might kill a few cops before they kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was referring to the people as a collective, I think you COMPLETELY misunderstood what he was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, so you're envisioning some kind of future where you manage to organize a civilian army with their handguns to try to battle the US army and police forces? Why not just give yourself up and submit to the will of this future tyrannical US empire? Isn't that better than getting destroyed by the army?

haha...what is wrong with me, why am I arguing with gun people? Next I'm going to go to a Tobacco company and try to convince them that cigarettes kill people. Or maybe I'll have a constructive argument with Dubya about global warming. Perhaps I'll even have a debate with Christians about the existence of God while I'm at it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be much more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the obvious follow-up: Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the weak would have no defense against the strong.

The people would have no check on the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ignorantly wrong. You already have no check on the government, other than voting. If the government decides to put you away you will be gone forever, no matter how many guns you have. The only difference is that you might kill a few cops before they kill you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that's what the British thought. Yes, government force can easily overwhelm any one individual. But there are 300,000,000 people in this country. If even just a fraction are armed, government force could not take them all out without destroying the entire nation. On the other hand, if the population is forcibly disarmed, a tiny number of people can *violently* oppress *huge* numbers with very little effort.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a right to self defense. mosdef does not have a right to have a perfect world where nothing can ever go wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read through the sequence of posts again. The key point I am trying to make is that pvn (or anyone else) doesn't get to decide if their action is violating my rights. This appeal to their own rights is inherently flawed because it creates a situation where two people are at odds with each other as to who's rights are being violated.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument actually being advanced is that gun laws are obeyed at a higher frequency by the law-abiding, and therefore they prevent more defensive uses than offensive ones

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument assumes that gun laws somehow prohibit law-abiding citizens from buying a gun, which to my knowledge they don't. A regulation such as a background check will not prohibit a lawful citizen from buying a gun (although it might be a minor inconvenience). Yet these are the type of regulations the NRA and the gun lobby gets all worked up over and fights to defeat.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that it should be up to the individual gun dealer? I disagree and I suspect a vast majority of Americans would as well. If I had a daughter being stalked I'd like it to be as difficult as possible for her stalker to get a gun, and I'd rather rely on the law than on the good judgement of some anonymous gun dealer.



[/ QUOTE ]

So this guy just stroll into the local police station and says:

"Excuse me officer, could you please tell me if it is legal for me to purchase, own, and/or carry a gun... here are my personal circumstances"

and then when the cop explains that "No, you can't becaue your a convicted felon, etc" he says "thank you" and forgets the notion of acquiring a gun?

This is your strategy to protect your daughter. Oh yeah, you can call the cops to report when you find her corpse as well so they can fill out a report and look for suspects.

That is what 'relying on the law' amounts to.

I will rely on my own judgement and take actions to assist my daughter in protecting herself. I will utilize everything in my power, including the utilization of a network of friends and family to do my best to ensure my daughters safety.

And while we are on the subject, I would advise you to dump your plan and consider adopting a plan that at least loosely resembles mine.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think the "criminals break laws anyway" argument is useless and defeatist. It assumes enforcement and punishment can't deter criminal behavior at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This argument might make sense if there were not already laws against this sort of behavior. It's *already* illegal to shoot up a school full of kids. How is making actions associated with it "extra illegal" going to deter anyone? The killer probably tied his shoes that morning. Would a law making it illegal to tie your shoes before shooting anyone have helped?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Felons can't legally possess fire arms, and I don't think the legally insane can either, what are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

But they can go to a gun show and buy a gun no questions asked. Nice loophole. If it's illegal for felons to have guns wouldn't it be a good idea to check to see if they are a felon BEFORE selling them a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]
How many times does it need to be explained to you folks that gun shows are not a source of guns for criminals that is significant?

One more time:
[ QUOTE ]
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for <u>fewer</u> than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I've already pointed out several times that I did not claim this. Are you going to persist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is the problem. On the one hand, you insist that you are not saying that individual rights are disputable (because they have to be objectively evident to be rights), but on the other hand your whole argument is based on the fact that if I disagree with your definition of rights then I'm just "wrong".

I will try one more time. If I say something is my right (for example, the right to not be endangered by your gun), and you say it not my right, what does that mean? Is it not my right because disagreement means that it is not objectively definable as a right? Does the disagreement automatically disqualify it as a right? Yes or no, please.