Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

Freedom does not mean everyone gets to do whatever they want with zero rules or regulations in place.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what freedom means. The only "rule" should be that I do indeed have a right to do whatever I want, provided I don't initiate force or fraud against another person.

[ QUOTE ]

I suppose that speed limit laws are, in a way, taking away your freedom to drive as fast as you want. And drunk driving laws restrict your freedom to drink and drive if you want to. And a law requiring a license to practice medicine is taking away the freedom to practice any profession you choose without govt interference.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your supposition is incorrect. I don't have the right to do whatever I want on someone else's property. Since the government owns most of the roads, government-imposed traffic laws on public roads do not represent a "violation" of my liberty in the slightest. On private roads, the property owner should be able to set the speed limit, or enforce none at all. Same with polices against drunk driving.

As far as medical licensing goes, doctors should be free to practice medicine without a license, provided they do not commit fraud and represent that they actually have one. Again, most of these things can be legally handled by reference to whether there is a violation of property rights, and/or an initiation of force or fraud. (Which still may be a complex issue.)

[ QUOTE ]
But there's a difference between commonsense regulations that aim to protect people, and taking away your rights as an American.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, the old appeal to "common sense" regulations, which is the universal appeal to every proposed violation of liberty.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

-- William Pitt

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old appeal to "common sense" regulations, which is the universal appeal to every proposed violation of liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think a criminal background check on a potential gun buyer is a violation of liberty?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The othere extreme would be to require everyone to pack. Isn't this similar to the situation that obtained in the proverbial "Wild West"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There was no requirement to carry guns.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know if the view of the Wild West we have from movies is accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, we know. It wasn't accurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/25/opinio...nyt&emc=rss

[ QUOTE ]
Were there places where virtually everyone carried a gun and were those places consequently more or less safe than they otherwise would have been?

[/ QUOTE ]

No control group. Impossible to tell what would have been.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old appeal to "common sense" regulations, which is the universal appeal to every proposed violation of liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think a criminal background check on a potential gun buyer is a violation of liberty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet it seems that guns are not really essential to the workings of the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are cigarettes, twinkies, swimming pools, beaches (shark attack OH NOES).

[/ QUOTE ]

Each of those things has some utility outside of the ability to mortally wound. This is an important distinction between "dangerous" items and guns that shouldn't be glossed over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this distinction important? I mean, if it's important to you, that's fine, don't buy a gun.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the old appeal to "common sense" regulations, which is the universal appeal to every proposed violation of liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think a criminal background check on a potential gun buyer is a violation of liberty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet it seems that guns are not really essential to the workings of the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are cigarettes, twinkies, swimming pools, beaches (shark attack OH NOES).

[/ QUOTE ]

Each of those things has some utility outside of the ability to mortally wound. This is an important distinction between "dangerous" items and guns that shouldn't be glossed over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this distinction important? I mean, if it's important to you, that's fine, don't buy a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

The distinction is important because when you don't acknowledge it then you are making a false and misleading generalization.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yet it seems that guns are not really essential to the workings of the modern world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither are cigarettes, twinkies, swimming pools, beaches (shark attack OH NOES).

[/ QUOTE ]

Each of those things has some utility outside of the ability to mortally wound. This is an important distinction between "dangerous" items and guns that shouldn't be glossed over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this distinction important? I mean, if it's important to you, that's fine, don't buy a gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

The distinction is important because when you don't acknowledge it then you are making a false and misleading generalization.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's misleading? Things are dangerous. Things can be used to hurt other people. What difference does it make if there are uses that *you* consider "legitimate" or "useful" outside of that? If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one. You think there's no use for a gun outside of the ability to mortally wound, but most times guns are used, people are not mortally wounded. Maybe I use one to prop open a door. What difference does it make?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this help a shooting victim?

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If *you* don't like object XYZ, don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this help a shooting victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the point? How does the fact that guns are illegal help the shooting victim? How does gun control do anything but restrain the innocent?