Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>whoever owned the gun should be jailed for negligent homocide<< That's exactly right.
Originally Posted By Mr X >>>Except... the HUGE difference between us and them? The murder rates. Why? Because they don't have guns. We do. Period.<<< I respect that argument, but I think it's a little simplistic. You'd really have to factor in stuff like population size, urban/low income areas, etc...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Read it again with that in mind, and pay careful attention to the exact wording." Read mine again, that's what I said. "...colonists to defend their homes."
Originally Posted By Mr X The point is, the 2nd amendment really is the cornerstone of true freedom, as it for the first time in history (or since, I believe) gives the citizens power over the government in a meaningful way. One of the first things Hitler did was take away everyone's guns. Of course, in this day and age of tanks, stealth bombers, and nukes...the amendment is pretty meaningless. But symbolic nonetheless.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I’m personally opposed to guns. I’ve never owned one and don’t anticipate that I ever will. But I am not at all convinced that Gun Control laws have any real impact on crime rates. I looked at the homicide rank for the five states with the strictest gun control laws and the five states with the weakest gun control laws. The average homicide rank of both groups was virtually identical. Top Five Gun Control States 1) Massachusetts #35 2) Hawaii #37 3) California #10 4) Connecticut #36 5) Maryland #3 Average Homicide Rank of the Top Five Gun Control States: 24.2 Bottom Five Gun Control States 50) Maine #50 49) Louisiana #2 48) Texas #16 47) Montana #32 46) Kentucky #18 Average Homicide Rank of the Bottom Five Gun Control States: 23.6 Gun Control Source: <a href="http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport_Chart1.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.soros.org/initiativ es/justice/articles_publications/publications/gun_report_20000401/GunReport_Chart1.pdf</a> Homicide Source: <a href="http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_and_non_man_percap-murder-nonnegligent-manslaughter-per-capita" target="_blank">http://www.statemaster.com/gra ph/cri_mur_and_non_man_percap-murder-nonnegligent-manslaughter-per-capita</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Interesting, RT. As far as state laws go, though, it just ain't that tough to carry a gun from one state to the next...no border patrol.
Originally Posted By barboy Both opposing factions concerning gun ownership/control need to get realistic. The hypersensitive NRA crowd, scared women joggers who want to pack some heat and/or the separtists are paranoid. The arguments they put up to justify the possession of guns, the proliferation or availablity of gun ownership is off the mark even to the point of being laughable. And the pro gun controllers out there are straight up naive. If they think that illegalizing guns for private citizens is going to significantly stop gun deaths and gun violence they are sorely mistaken. The problem of gun violence and violence in general in the US is unworkable at this time because of who we are as a society- law or no law.
Originally Posted By barboy >>whoever owned the gun should be jailed for negligent homocide<< Not so fast. I don't know the circumstances but what if the gun owner routinely locked up the firearm and hid the key only to have the 11 year old find the key.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The problem of gun violence and violence in general in the US is unworkable at this time because of who we are as a society- law or no law.>> Sadly that is probably true. We could totally eliminate guns and knives and we would probably still have the world's highest murder rate from people throwing rocks at each other.
Originally Posted By barboy I know I am drifting from the topic but I want to ask anyway. Is keeping a firearm locked up only to have someone find the key which leads to violence more reprehensible than a motorist who is doing her makeup and cel phone talking while driving which leads to a violent collision involving a child. I say the driver is far more culpable than the gun owner who locks his firearm but yet I'll bet most people are more appalled at the gun owner. I say we have an even greater responsiblity to drive safely than keeping our guns safeguarded. Why? An injury from a firearm in the hands of a curious child almost always is one and only one person being injured whereas an irresponsible driver can take out an entire carload or multiple motorists and pedestrians.
Originally Posted By gadzuux But no one is suggesting that we make cars more difficult to get, because the purpose of a car is to transport people - not to kill them. The purpose of guns is to shoot living things with the intent of killing them. Whether that's a bear in the woods or a teller in the bank is entirely up to the person holding the gun. When the woman in the car kills or injures someone, it's due to not operating the vehicle correctly. When the gun owner kills or injures someone, the gun is working perfectly, and doing the job it was designed to do.
Originally Posted By barboy " The purpose of guns is to shoot living things with the intent of killing them" way, way too narrow gadzuux Some people collect guns for their historical or artistic value; others use firarms for marksmanship and tournaments; and still some have used guns to intentionally wound and not kill.
Originally Posted By gadzuux A gun is a gun - even if it's "historical" and/or "artistic". Guns shoot projectiles at high velocity. Guns are weapons, not art. Target shooting is "practice" and is not the purpose of virtually all guns. And "intentionally wound"? That's a crime too.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Whether that's a bear in the woods or a teller in the bank is entirely up to the person holding the gun. << And there are laws designed to hold the person holding the gun accountable in both of those instances. Trying to rid the country of all guns would work just about as well as trying to rid the country of illegal drugs has. I'd rather the bad guys not know for sure which home in the middle of the night has a gun, and which doesn't, thank you very much.
Originally Posted By barboy "Guns are weapons, not art." Once again very narrow- it depends on the application. Guns are very commonly weapons. Guns can be displayed as a showpiece(art) permanently over fireplaces too and used for conversational pieces. And thousands use guns at shooting ranges every day looking to hit nothing but non live targets and you know this so why are you being so stubborn?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Target shooting is practice, and trying to improve aim. That's not the purpose of the gun, it's an exercise. And you know this too. And yeah, some people like to display their guns, whether above the fireplace or in elaborate glass and wood cabinets, giving them prominent display in their home. Tells me pretty much everything I need to know about that person in that one choice of decor.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 To further muddle the waters, let's remember that the purpose of most sensible pieces of gun control I've seen proposed is not, despite what the NRA would have you believe, to rid the country of guns. That would be well near impossible in any case, and I've never seen it proposed. That doesn't mean you can't have sensible controls on how they are obtained. I also think that, like a car, one should have to demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency in order to have one.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I also think that, like a car, one should have to demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency in order to have one.<< That's true. Like having licensed drivers, it wouldn't stop all accidents. But if more gun owners were taught how to properly shoot, store and care for their weapons, stories like the one that this thread is built on would be fewer.
