Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
For some set of criteria to be a right, it has to be objective.

This does not mean that which criteria are rights and which are not is objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I think I know where you're coming from. Please let me know if I have it right:

You are saying that since it is only my opinion that my chance of being harmed has gone up due to your gun, I can't claim that it is violating my rights. If you shot me, I could say that you violated my rights because I could point at the wound and say "there it is, I'm harmed" and that would be objectively observed. I would be appealing to my right to not be harmed by you, and I would be able to objectively demonstrate it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

We already have background checks, and that's not all people in this thread are advocating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Additionally, there are HUGE disparities among the various states, and even cities and towns within states as to who is allowed to own guns and who is not. Who is allowed to carry guns and who is not. HUGE disparities.

[revots33]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

According the the Brady Campaign web site , the following 17 states have closed the gun show loophole:

"California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa (handguns only), Maryland (handguns and assault weapons only), Massachusetts, Michigan (handguns only), Missouri (handguns only), Nebraska (handguns only), New Jersey, New York, North Carolina (handguns only), Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island."

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if the population is forcibly disarmed, a tiny number of people can *violently* oppress *huge* numbers with very little effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad logic. If the population is forcibly disarmed, the powerful force that disarmed the population would by definition be capable of preventing the oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also by definition, no OTHER force could prevent THEM from perpetrating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what's your point? The person you were responding to wasn't worried that if our government disarms us, some outside force could come in and oppress us against our government's will. The context was oppression by our own government. So what the hell does your comment have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

pvn was stating a possible contingent outcome as a necessary guaranteed outcome in order to bolster his point of view. I don't think that's valid and I am expressing my dissatisfaction.

[TomCollins]

The biggest thing I have taken away from this thread is, as f'd up as this country is, I am damn glad I don't live in Canada or Europe.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Well if no civilians in the US had guns then it would be a safer country to live in. This can never be proven factually

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it's false.

Again,

80-year-old lady vs. 20-year-old man.

Is the woman safer if both have guns or if neither has a gun?

Also, why the qualification of civilians???

[ QUOTE ]
but to me and many other logical people it is quite obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain the logic.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as a stupid example, making poker illegal would help cut down on problem gambling, to at least some extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unbacked assertion.

[ QUOTE ]
But I like playing poker so I don't want to ban it. You like having guns so you don't want to ban them, even though there would be less shooting deaths if handguns were illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Less shooting deaths (even if you could prove this) does NOT equal "safer".

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

According the the Brady Campaign web site , the following 17 states have closed the gun show loophole:

"California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa (handguns only), Maryland (handguns and assault weapons only), Massachusetts, Michigan (handguns only), Missouri (handguns only), Nebraska (handguns only), New Jersey, New York, North Carolina (handguns only), Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island."

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe this is accurate, because I know for a fact no such loophole exists in Florida, and it's not on your list. Or maybe the phrasing is just (intentionally) misleading, perhaps Florida has not CLOSED the loophole because it never existed. In either case I don't think you've satisfied my request. I still think only a handful of states have such a loophole.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
80-year-old lady vs. 20-year-old man.

Is the woman safer if both have guns or if neither has a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the man intended to do nothing to the woman in the first place, they're both worse off. The chances of being accidentally shot with no guns is smaller than with guns.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can this guy even concretely describe what circumstances he is talking about when he mentions the 'gun show loophole'? I dont think he even realizes that the vast majority of dealers at gun shows are professonal dealers who take the info and all steps as required by law. It is the rare circumstance where some lady whose husband died and she wants to sell his guns so she does so at a gun show.

And regardless, criminals steal guns and buy guns from people who steal guns. Guns are not hard to get for criminals. Guns are hard to get for some americans, especially those that live in states with restrictive laws. And especially hard to get a right to carry concealed in states that only let the rich or politicians do so.

It's not hard to get a rifle or shotgun but it is hard to legally acquire a handgun in many states.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I agree with both of these but that doesn't mean we can't try to make it harder for bad human beings to injure or kill good human beings. In my mind, laws that allow the good human beings to have guns while making it more difficult for the bad ones make sense. Gun advocates seem to be overly worried about the rights of criminals... I thought that was the liberals' territory?

[/ QUOTE ]

In what states is it legal for felons to have guns?