Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous? - Page 9

runner4life7 · #81 04-18-2007, 04:16 PM

I only read the first 20ish posts, but everyone saying that if people want to do damage they will, this is just a terrible statement, please rethink it. This nutjob from VT in my opinion would have had a very hard time finding a gun if he couldnt buy it this easily. He had like no friends, no connections, no anything. So if this isnt a perfect example to support gun control, then I don't know what is. Stop humping the 2nd amendment and look at this rationally. There is no reason that people need to have guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

pvn · #82 04-18-2007, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that people need to have guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't need lots of things. That doesn't give you any right to take them away.

Do the police and military need to have guns? They're people, right?

runner4life7 · #83 04-18-2007, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that people need to have guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

People don't need lots of things. That doesn't give you any right to take them away.

Do the police and military need to have guns? They're people, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes they do, because it is their job to protect people, not yours. I think the government has a right to take things away that are a danger to society.

bluesbassman · #84 04-18-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that people need to have guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

I need a gun to protect myself from people who think the above is a valid argument.

As long as there exist people who claim to know what I "need," and are willing to impose that by force, I will make sure to remain very well-armed.

adios · #85 04-18-2007, 04:52 PM

VT Killer Ruled Mentally Ill by Court; Let Go After Hospital Visit

First of all it's amazing to me that someone would state that the 32 people that were massacred didn't need a gun. Second of all if why do we have any faith that government can do any kind of "gun control" effectively? From the article:

A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and dangerous. Then, the state let him go.

In 2005, after a district court in Montgomery County ruled that Cho was either a danger to himself or to others -- the legal criteria to obtain a detention order -- he was evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care

Mentally ill and dangerous yet he can purchase guns legally with impunity? If this isn't yet another example of dysfunctional government, I don't know what is. I realize that even if he wouldn't have been able to purchase a gun legally, he could have obtained one illegally. Your statement seems to indicate that since he had no social skills more or less he would not have been able to find the means to obtain a gun illegally. Maybe, maybe not. Anyway there is no reason to believe that governments in the U.S. could effectively confiscate all guns IMO and stating that since their are nut cases that will abuse the right to own a gun then we should take them away from everyone seems to be way over the top to me.

mosdef · #86 04-18-2007, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying don't buy a gun if you don't like me shooting you. I'm saying that if you don't like guns don't buy one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I also don't like you having a gun. And it's not just because I don't want you to have one. It's because I don't like the implication that you having one has on me.

Think of it this way. There are two possible environments in which I have to live - the environment where you own a gun and the environment where you don't own a gun. You don't have the right to force me to live in the environment where you have a gun any more than I have a right to tell you not to have a gun. Our rights are in conflict. This situation cannot be resolved by an appeal to basic rights because that tells us we are both right and both wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Me owning a gun is not an interaction with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bull. Everything you do is an interaction with me and everything I do is an interaction with you. Different people have different opinions about what is an acceptable interaction and what is not. Ideally, we would have no rules and therefore everybody would do whatever they want and no one would find the actions of others unacceptable. Unfortunately it is not the case that everyone would be satisfied.

[ QUOTE ]
You have no grounds for legitimate objection. Me shooting you IS interacting with you. The fact that you'd perfer that I not have a gun is irrelevant, since you have no right to have others conform to your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I have to live with the impact of your decision on me? What's the difference between me telling you that you can't have a gun and you telling me that I just have to live with the risk of being shot by your gun?

[ QUOTE ]
Your desire for me to not have a gun is frankly no different than a desire for someone to give you $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is different. I don't feel that someone failing to give me $100 is a violation of my rights. I do think that being endangered is a violation of my rights. You think that it is not a violation of my rights. This difference needs to be resolved. The default resolution is not "too bad for me" any more than it is "too bad for you".

[ QUOTE ]
And the mere fact that the chance you will be shot is increased is not necessarily "aggression" against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is. It is a violation of my rights for you to endanger me. It is also a violation of your rights for me to tell you not to have a gun. Where do we go from here?

[ QUOTE ]
My neighbor has some gasoline and matches in his house; this increases the chances that my house will be burned to the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your neighbor poured his gasoline all over his house and started playing with matches would you complain? Or would you say "it's not a problem until my house is burned down"?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have to do anything. You're not entitled to an explanation from me for my actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even when your actions endanger me? When do I get an explanation? After your actions have resulted in my death?

Jetboy2 · #87 04-18-2007, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
'free state'.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free state" in the constitution clearly refers to freedom from English rule (when you read their source material at least). The founders didn't envision anything like the world we live in today.

I could very well be for a well regulated militia. I tend to think that "well regulated" means that guns are not freely available though.

PLOlover · #88 04-18-2007, 05:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How does this help a shooting victim?

[/ QUOTE ]

"he shoulda armed himself"

from the movie unforgiven lol, right after clint eastwood shoots a guy who raises his arms and says hes unarmed.

PLOlover · #89 04-18-2007, 05:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so have there been any good studies to figure out why? can't think its just the culture.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also the israelis. although sometimes they do go crazy and shoot up the palis.

PLOlover · #90 04-18-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But if you possess a gun and it changes the chance that I will be shot that's an act of aggression against me. So it's not sufficient that I not buy one for myself. Using your reasoning if I punch you in the face and you say "hey, you don't have the right to punch me in the face" then I can say "if you don't like being punched in the face then don't make a fist".

If your argument in support of gun ownership is that you should be able to endanger me

[/ QUOTE ]

such a childish view of reality. why don't you just never leave your mommys side in case things dont go your way