Knife control?/Gun control

[teamturner]

Of course not all violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness. I'm sorry that it came across that way. I think in my initial post I included evil people among those that commit violent crimes such as the ones involving many victims. I highlighted the mental illness factor because somewhere in my reading of more gun regulations in light of Virginia Tech, someone wrote of the need to keep mentally ill people from getting guns. Well our individual mental health status doesn't seem like something that we want government keeping track of, do we?

 

To your point, I think most violent crimes are committed by the evil people among us.

[Laurie4b]

I'll tell you what I would like to see that I believe would signficantly reduce this problem: a voluntary agreement by the media not to create celebreties out of mass murderers.

 

The media have already agreed voluntarily not to publish the names of sexual abuse victims. There is no law that makes them do that. They do it because they were persuaded that they did harm to victims when they published their names.

 

I doubt if we would have so many copycat type of actions if the Columbine killers hadn't had their photos all over the place. What if when a mass murder happened, there was the barest of info about the killer (young adult, mentally ill, loner) and NO PHOTO (I think that is critical) and then photos of the victims, the details about their lives, etc. The victims would be the ones getting the press attention.

 

I believe that voluntary action would actually be effective in the long run, though currently, the Columbine cult is too widespread to get rid of with google cache, etc.

 

I don't think gun bans affect this type of situation at all.

 

It's also very possible that you'd have it reduced more by regulation of the violent video game industry than by banning guns. Something like the sale of cigarettes: you're not allowed to sell them to minors. Why not violent video games be sold to adults only?

[clwcain]

Frankly, just getting rid of the media would go a long way to improving the quality of life for most people.

 

We generally only think things are as bad as they are because the press tells us so. And since the press has the attention span of a gnat, and about the same degree of historical awareness, anything considered "news worthy" is by the newsman's definition novel.

 

So we now have a "problem" with weapons, or pollution, or literacy, or voter apathy, or whatever, in a way that we didn't before. Not true, objectively speaking, and a cursory reading of history (through primary sources) will disabuse a person of such a notion. But casting it that way sells papers and ad time. And most people have no interest in history, or knowledge of any kind.

 

Remember the Yellow Journalist's motto: "Just send me the d*mn pictures. I'll provide the war."

[teamturner]

I'll tell you what I would like to see that I believe would signficantly reduce this problem: a voluntary agreement by the media not to create celebreties out of mass murderers.

 

The media have already agreed voluntarily not to publish the names of sexual abuse victims. There is no law that makes them do that. They do it because they were persuaded that they did harm to victims when they published their names.

 

I doubt if we would have so many copycat type of actions if the Columbine killers hadn't had their photos all over the place. What if when a mass murder happened, there was the barest of info about the killer (young adult, mentally ill, loner) and NO PHOTO (I think that is critical) and then photos of the victims, the details about their lives, etc. The victims would be the ones getting the press attention.

 

I believe that voluntary action would actually be effective in the long run, though currently, the Columbine cult is too widespread to get rid of with google cache, etc.

 

 

 

:iagree: You are so right about this! The guy in Japan who just stabbed those people after running them down with a car said that he wanted to be famous. He was basically lonely and never got noticed and this was his way to finally get some attention. Yes, the media needs to stop making celebrities of these people.

[Fourmother]

Frankly, just getting rid of the media would go a long way to improving the quality of life for most people. ...

 

Remember the Yellow Journalist's motto: "Just send me the d*mn pictures. I'll provide the war."

 

There's a difference between journalism and yellow journalism. Good, responsible media enhance people's lives. They say that guns don't kill people; people kill people. One could also say Fox News doesn't make people hysterical, people do that to themselves. As much as I personally dislike living in a society filled with guns, I would dislike a society without media even more. I trust myself and my fellow citizens to be intelligent and responsible with their use of the media. Just like you trust them with guns. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out for either of us.

[Phred]

The UK has ALWAYS had a lower crime rate than the US...except...now that it's just about impossible for a citizen to own a gun, rates of violent crime have been rising steadily so that the UK has overtaken the US in most areas. Planned home invasions are almost unheard of here, but they are commonplace in the UK because the invaders know that the homeowners CAN'T defend themselves. Other patterns of crime are very much following suit. The weak and old suffer the most, of course. But I suppose that's the price you have to pay for a "Safe" society. (insert sarcasm here)

 

I think we need a return of the Hue and Cry laws and a deprofessionalization of community policing--not to get rid of the professionals we have but to make enforcement EVERYONE'S responsibility, as it used to be.

I'd like to inject something here. The increase in crime in the UK is primarily due to the influx of immigrants. Muslim immigrants. Take from that what you will.

[Reya]

Even the rate of home invasions is explained entirely by gun control, the murder rate in the US (0.042802 per 1,000 people) is much higher than that in the UK (0.0140633 per 1,000 people) and Canada (0.0149063 per 1,000 people).

 

Let me explain again...

 

The murder rate has ALWAYS been higher in the US. As in, in 1800, it was higher. This has to do with culture, not guns. UK's rate has been climbing relative to the US since instigating the more draconian gun laws.

 

Additionally, suicides and homicides and some suspicious-looking accidents are classified in the same lumped group in the US, while in the UK (dunno about Canada), the murder rate is from post-inquest data only--no suicides and no accidents. The REAL difference is hugely smaller.

[Joanne]

I have heard people who have Mental Illness called crazies or crazy people and that is really a source of stigma for people who are suffering from a horrible illness.

 

I have also heard some misquoting of statistics. People think all crimes that happen with guns are committed by "the crazies" or people with mental illness. This is not the case, the statistics are that only 3 percent of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness. http://http://psychservices.psychiat.../full/52/5/654

The rest of the violent crimes, 97 percent are committed by perfectly normal people, it is just the media blows up every incident that has anything to do with a person who has a mental illness. The truth is, people with mental illness are way more likely to have a violent crime commited against them then to commit any crime. http://http://pn.psychiatryonline.or.../full/40/17/16

 

Mental illness covers a broad spectrum, and is not always used in the clinical sense.

 

In the context in which I used it, I truly believe that ANYONE who kills others in a rampage of violence is mentally ill. Not criminally insnane, not incompetent to stand trial, not unaware of their actions - but most definitely mentally ill.

 

That does not mean, of course, that mentally ill = violent. But violent, IMO, always means mentally ill.

[Phred]

I could easily kill someone with an insulin overdose - are we going to outlaw that?

I could kill someone with silk stockings - are we going to outlaw that as well?

Do you practice with your insulin aiming at a target shaped like a man? Silk Stockings? We all know and admit that a pistol has one primary use. It's a tool made to kill another human being. It's not for hunting, it's not primarily for target practice. It's for killing. Since this is the case let's stop with the analogies that aren't relevant. We all know what handguns are and what they are made to do. Kill human beings. Once we admit that, then we can have a reasonable discussion about them without the drama.

 

Our constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Militia is a group of people who can be called up from the civilian population to serve as armed forces. During the revolution militia played a key role as the revolutionary forces couldn't maintain a standing army large enough to stand against the British and their mercenaries without the use of militia. It was thought that, even though the federal government was to be allowed to raise a standing army (post 1787) that the militia would be able to slap it down should any federal government get ideas that the states didn't like. This, since everyone was armed and could stand against and overwhelm such and army.

 

Of course, this is no longer the case. Our federal government has a standing army that could eradicate the population of the US even if we were all armed. The concepts that the amendment was based upon no longer hold true. So now we turn to our modern-day Supreme Court to interpret for us what this means in this day and age. Currently there is a case in front of the court about this very thing. Washington D.C. has banned all handguns. Or maybe all guns... I'm not sure. Anyway, we'll see if the ban holds up.

 

Anyway, we need to realize that the 2nd amendment was meant to relate to arms as they helped us contribute to a militia. It really doesn't have anything to do with owning guns for personal protection. It also doesn't really relate to the modern form of weapons that we see today. Nor does it address whether a state can ban guns, certain types of guns or what.

 

That said... personally I don't own a gun. I do remember my thoughts on guns being formed by my father when we found one in my Uncle Leonard's toolbox. A gun is a tool. A hundred years ago it was a tool for killing snakes and critters. But it was a tool just like a hammer or a saw. As a kid you didn't touch it just like you didn't touch any of your father's other tools. And, like any tool, your father had to be careful how he put it away so you didn't play with it and hurt yourself by accident. Of course, I'd never expect my father to carry a hammer to Costco, nor would I expect him to carry a gun. But that's just me.

 

Then we saw Katrina and how quickly things broke down. When the electricity dies things stop working in a hurry. At that point we considered getting a gun to protect what we have from those who might not have thought ahead long enough to have something for when the electricity stops. Not saying it's going to... but remember the East coast a few years back? What if that happened but longer? Three days and people in the cities are going to be hungry and leaving. I might be glad of a little friend designed to kill people. Just sayin'...

 

Anyway... I don't think the constitution guarantees us the right to own any weapon at all. I don't think we have the right to carry those weapons anywhere we choose. I think we can and should be regulated in our ownership and use of these highly deadly tools. I'm not sure if handguns should even be owned by the population at all.

 

Here's what I am sure of. If you commit a crime with a handgun... wave it in someone's face... you should go to prison for a very long time. 25 years or so. Until you're old and not able to commit crimes like that at all. No more messing around. If you want to end gun violence, end gun permissiveness. End the practice of these cheap automatic weapons that get onto our streets. I don't care who makes money from them. If our military doesn't use them then stop making them. People like you and I aren't using them... so just end the practice. Make them illegal.

 

End gun permissiveness. No more gun dealers who just sell and look the other way. No more inner city $20 specials. No more gun shows that sell without background checks. The second amendment doesn't give us the right to treat guns like toys.

[homeschool2boys]

Of course not all violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness. I'm sorry that it came across that way. I think in my initial post I included evil people among those that commit violent crimes such as the ones involving many victims. I highlighted the mental illness factor because somewhere in my reading of more gun regulations in light of Virginia Tech, someone wrote of the need to keep mentally ill people from getting guns. Well our individual mental health status doesn't seem like something that we want government keeping track of, do we?

 

To your point, I think most violent crimes are committed by the evil people among us.

 

I agree with you, a persons mental health status is not something that I would want the government keeping track of. Especially since at least 20 percent of the population suffer from some type of mental illness when you count depression.

 

Also there is the right to privacy. HIPPA laws should protect everyone and apply to everyone. Its discrimination to allow access to one persons medical history and not everyones. Think about it this way, if you ever went to a doctor for depression that information could be publically available for anyone who has access to a government computer to do with what they will. Think if the health insurance companies got ahold of that information. People could be denied medical coverage.

 

Also there was some talk of making a persons mental health status available to universities. Talk about violation of civil rights. People could actually be denied to enter a university because of their medical condition, denied because of a disability. People would be outraged if someone was denied admission because they were in a wheel chair, but where mental illness is concerned, people think its a great idea. It just goes to show the level of stigma attached to mental illness. There is more discrimination and stigma attached to people with mental illness than almost any other group.

 

I also dont agree that everyone who commits a violent crime is mentally ill. Mental illness is a real disorder, and not a convient excuse to get away with something. I think most people who commit violent crimes are just evil. They are completely aware of their actions but choose to do evil things. There has always been people who do evil things from the beginning with Cane and Able and there probably always will be.

[Storm Bay]

brought up in our class, however, was that the MASS shootings, malls, schools, post office (in our hometown years ago)etc. ----ALL were in areas where carrying a gun or concealed weapon was prohibited.

It's not responsible people who are running around wild killing people, it the crazies!! :)

.

 

Actually, there have been cases where someone attempted to do a mass shooting and it was stopped by a regular citizen carrying a licensed weapon. There was one in a fast food restaurant for example, and there have been others. We don't hear nearly as much about those in the news, however, because they don't build a case for tighter gun control.

 

I suspect that they were being very careful about what they told you in your course due to liability. It is dangerous to try and stop a shooter. The FBI, for example rely on their training--no time to stop and think when you're in the thick of a shoot out.

[newbie]

Do you practice with your insulin aiming at a target shaped like a man? Silk Stockings? We all know and admit that a pistol has one primary use. It's a tool made to kill another human being. It's not for hunting, it's not primarily for target practice. It's for killing. Since this is the case let's stop with the analogies that aren't relevant. We all know what handguns are and what they are made to do. Kill human beings. Once we admit that, then we can have a reasonable discussion about them without the drama.

 

Our constitution reads as follows:

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Militia is a group of people who can be called up from the civilian population to serve as armed forces. During the revolution militia played a key role as the revolutionary forces couldn't maintain a standing army large enough to stand against the British and their mercenaries without the use of militia. It was thought that, even though the federal government was to be allowed to raise a standing army (post 1787) that the militia would be able to slap it down should any federal government get ideas that the states didn't like. This, since everyone was armed and could stand against and overwhelm such and army.

 

Of course, this is no longer the case. Our federal government has a standing army that could eradicate the population of the US even if we were all armed. The concepts that the amendment was based upon no longer hold true. So now we turn to our modern-day Supreme Court to interpret for us what this means in this day and age. Currently there is a case in front of the court about this very thing. Washington D.C. has banned all handguns. Or maybe all guns... I'm not sure. Anyway, we'll see if the ban holds up.

 

Anyway, we need to realize that the 2nd amendment was meant to relate to arms as they helped us contribute to a militia. It really doesn't have anything to do with owning guns for personal protection. It also doesn't really relate to the modern form of weapons that we see today. Nor does it address whether a state can ban guns, certain types of guns or what.

 

That said... personally I don't own a gun. I do remember my thoughts on guns being formed by my father when we found one in my Uncle Leonard's toolbox. A gun is a tool. A hundred years ago it was a tool for killing snakes and critters. But it was a tool just like a hammer or a saw. As a kid you didn't touch it just like you didn't touch any of your father's other tools. And, like any tool, your father had to be careful how he put it away so you didn't play with it and hurt yourself by accident. Of course, I'd never expect my father to carry a hammer to Costco, nor would I expect him to carry a gun. But that's just me.

 

Then we saw Katrina and how quickly things broke down. When the electricity dies things stop working in a hurry. At that point we considered getting a gun to protect what we have from those who might not have thought ahead long enough to have something for when the electricity stops. Not saying it's going to... but remember the East coast a few years back? What if that happened but longer? Three days and people in the cities are going to be hungry and leaving. I might be glad of a little friend designed to kill people. Just sayin'...

 

Anyway... I don't think the constitution guarantees us the right to own any weapon at all. I don't think we have the right to carry those weapons anywhere we choose. I think we can and should be regulated in our ownership and use of these highly deadly tools. I'm not sure if handguns should even be owned by the population at all.

 

Here's what I am sure of. If you commit a crime with a handgun... wave it in someone's face... you should go to prison for a very long time. 25 years or so. Until you're old and not able to commit crimes like that at all. No more messing around. If you want to end gun violence, end gun permissiveness. End the practice of these cheap automatic weapons that get onto our streets. I don't care who makes money from them. If our military doesn't use them then stop making them. People like you and I aren't using them... so just end the practice. Make them illegal.

 

End gun permissiveness. No more gun dealers who just sell and look the other way. No more inner city $20 specials. No more gun shows that sell without background checks. The second amendment doesn't give us the right to treat guns like toys.

 

Bravo,

 

Very nicely put.

 

Just a thought, if they are not accessible, its not possible. Ie: The shooting of the grandmother. They shot her after an argument. If they did not have it. It may not have happened.

 

Jet

[clwcain]

There's a difference between journalism and yellow journalism. Good, responsible media enhance people's lives.

 

There we disagree. All journalism is a form of propaganda at this point. Was it always so? Probably, since I don't think people change, but I don't know for certain.

 

Responsible use of media is a different thing from journalism. And as history continues to testify, ideas are infinitely more dangerous than weapons.

 

People handle weapons responsibly every day. Not so with ideas.

[Peek a Boo]

We all know and admit that a pistol has one primary use. It's a tool made to kill another human being. It's not for hunting, it's not primarily for target practice. It's for killing. Since this is the case let's stop with the analogies that aren't relevant. We all know what handguns are and what they are made to do. Kill human beings. Once we admit that, then we can have a reasonable discussion about them without the drama.

 

Our constitution reads as follows:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Militia is a group of people who can be called up from the civilian population to serve as armed forces. During the revolution militia played a key role as the revolutionary forces couldn't maintain a standing army large enough to stand against the British and their mercenaries without the use of militia. It was thought that, even though the federal government was to be allowed to raise a standing army (post 1787) that the militia would be able to slap it down should any federal government get ideas that the states didn't like. This, since everyone was armed and could stand against and overwhelm such and army.

 

Of course, this is no longer the case. Our federal government has a standing army that could eradicate the population of the US even if we were all armed. The concepts that the amendment was based upon no longer hold true.

 

Anyway, we need to realize that the 2nd amendment was meant to relate to arms as they helped us contribute to a militia. It really doesn't have anything to do with owning guns for personal protection. It also doesn't really relate to the modern form of weapons that we see today. Nor does it address whether a state can ban guns, certain types of guns or what.

 

 

 

i agree that we need to realize clearly the purpose of a gun. And "yeah, it can be used for hunting" BUT people have successfully hunted for THOUSANDS of years w/o the use of guns.:001_smile:

 

i disagree w/ your opinion of the second amendment.

the entire point of the Bill of Rights was --IS-- to secure personal liberties, not establish some temporary situation "until our government and technology catches up." lots of early debate in whether to include it [boR] at all, including concerns that those listed would be interpreted as "the only" personal rights people have. [which is why i stand behind the Supreme court ruling on an INHERENT right to privacy].

 

One of the biggest concerns for including the second amendment was so citizens could protect themselves from their own government.

 

for anyone interested, more on both views here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

and i ABSOLUTELY agree that we need to be enforcing the laws we already have and setting some serious consequences for breaking them.

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

The same argument that people use for gun control is the same when someone says that we can't home school because of one home school parent abusing a child.

 

 

Exactly what I was thinking. I believe using the mentally ill as a catalyst, like the woman in D.C., and saying we need more home schooling regulation, is the same as using Columbine to increase gun control. When someone is ill, or criminal, they'll find a way (see post on soda cans and bottles; see Japan and knives)

 

It's not about gun control. It's about moral decay.

[Fourmother]

Responsible use of media is a different thing from journalism. And as history continues to testify, ideas are infinitely more dangerous than weapons.

 

People handle weapons responsibly every day. Not so with ideas.

 

I should not be getting into this debate. I have so much laundry to do. This is irresponsible use of the internet medium on my part. :lol: But...

 

 

 

 

No. People do actually handle ideas responsibly everyday. Someone had the idea of connecting millions of computers together across the planet to share information, ideas and even media. We wouldn't be having this conversation without that idea or the media we used as children to learn to read and write. I also think there had to be some ideas about weapons floating around in someone's mind, then on clay, then stone, then paper, then on disc. Whether or not all those ideas have been used responsibly is apparently still up for debate. :001_smile:

 

OK, when I read your first get-rid-of-the-media comment, I assumed you weren't actually serious. Just using hyperbole to make a point. So please let me understand. Are you actually arguing that the ignorant masses who can't, in your view, be trusted with the New York Times or the evening news should be allowed firearms? Are you opposed to all forms of media? Or just newspapers, television and internet. If we followed your suggestion and disposed of "media" how would human beings share information? Shall we go back to the oral tradition and smoke signals? Could my kids still read Highlights or The Hobbit?

[clwcain]

I should not be getting into this debate.

Neither should I. ;)

 

No. People do actually handle ideas responsibly everyday. <snip>

Are you actually arguing that the ignorant masses who can't, in your view, be trusted with the New York Times or the evening news should be allowed firearms? Are you opposed to all forms of media? Or just newspapers, television and internet. If we followed your suggestion and disposed of "media" how would human beings share information? Shall we go back to the oral tradition and smoke signals? Could my kids still read Highlights or The Hobbit?

 

To keep this brief, as it is moving off topic and we both have work to do.

 

Some ideas are good. Some ideas are so pernicious that they should be stamped out whenever they have the temerity to flare up. Most ideas are innocuous enough to be ignored safely.

 

That's separate, in my mind, from the news media and journalism. I don't believe there is any "good" journalism. It's all, in one form or another, muckraking and I do believe civil society would be better off without it. It has nothing to do with trusting "the masses". It has everything to do with not trusting journalists, and opposition to journal-ism. The three pillars of society (those who govern & fight, those who pray, and those who labor) functioned very well for centuries before the advent of muckraking journalists and the wannabe-intellectuals whose boots they lick.

 

My opposition, and this might clarify more than the preceeding comments, is to professional newsmen, their daily output, and the net impact (always deleterious) to civil society. G.K. Chesterton, himself a veteran of Fleet Street, had a lovely statement on the injurious irrelevance of news reporting, but I cannot locate it at the moment.

 

The medium is problematic for different reasons, but I take issue with the message and the messenger, first and foremost.

 

It might be worth starting a different thread if you want to keep working through all of this, but I have a deadline to meet.

 

Ciao!

 

HTH

[Krista in LA]

One of the biggest concerns for including the second amendment was so citizens could protect themselves from their own government.

 

Yep.

[DIY-DY]

I just hope that your dd can be on alert 24/7 against any accidents or mishandling of her weapon, at home, at school, during sleep. Nieces, nephews, curious people, ignorant people in her life might not have the gun training that she's had, but she will still be responsible for every shot from that gun. That to me is too high a responsibility to carry, every day, in every way.

 

If someone steals my identity, and I've practiced due diligence in making it clear that it was not *I* who did what the thief did with my identity, then I am not responsible for their actions. Conversely, if I were to do the same thing to someone else, I would be wholly responsible for what *I* did.

 

If someone steals my car and goes on a DUI rampage, I am not culpable for their actions. If someone takes my prescription drugs from my unlocked medicine cabinet and OD's on it, or poisons someone with it... no, still not on me. Again, if, however, *I* am the one who commits the crime, or abuses one's private property, the responsibility falls on me, regardless of whose property, tools, or money I used to commit the crime.

 

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that if someone were to take a pitchfork from my barn and stab the neighbors with it, that it'd be my fault. It completely ignores the fact that somebody took my private property (illegal) and commited a crime with it (again, illegal) of their own volition (hence, not on my head, thanks).

 

I am responsible for any shot fired from any firearm (mine or someone else's) which is done by my hand, and my hand alone. Regardless of whether someone is "educated" in the use of firearms, if someone were to steal my property and cause harm with it, then the responsibility falls on the person who did it, not on the owner of the item in question.

[Catherine]

A car wouldn't be used for the primary purpose of killing, as a gun would. You do not own a car so that you can kill people with it, as you would a gun. A car's purpose is transportation. Theft of a car and theft of a gun are seen differently under the law, for good reason.

 

If gun owners cannot be held responsible for the unauthorized use of their weapons, then who is responsible for the accidental killing when kids use a parent's weapon? It is simply not true that owning an object which has only the purpose of killing other human beings is comparable to owning prescription medications that are for keeping one healthy, or vehicles that are for traveling from one place to another. Gun ownership carries much more responsibility.

 

I know that if my child was killed or unjured by another's gun, I would feel they were responsible, whether they fired the shot or their child did.

[DIY-DY]

A car wouldn't be used for the primary purpose of killing, as a gun would. You do not own a car so that you can kill people with it, as you would a gun. A car's purpose is transportation. Theft of a car and theft of a gun are seen differently under the law, for good reason.

 

If gun owners cannot be held responsible for the unauthorized use of their weapons, then who is responsible for the accidental killing when kids use a parent's weapon? It is simply not true that owning an object which has only the purpose of killing other human beings is comparable to owning prescription medications that are for keeping one healthy, or vehicles that are for traveling from one place to another. Gun ownership carries much more responsibility.

 

I know that if my child was killed or unjured by another's gun, I would feel they were responsible, whether they fired the shot or their child did.

 

I will readily admit that I do not work under the assumption that the "purpose" for owning a firearm is "to kill people", which is the logical extrapolation of this definition I keep seeing posted as the sole "purpose" of a firearm. So, that said, I do understand that we may not ever agree on this topic.

 

Accidental deaths are also treated differently under the law than intentional deaths, and pre-meditated deaths, as you say, for good reason.

 

I own, train with, and keep on my person, my firearms, not in order to kill someone, but in order to exercise the protection of my inalienable rights. I have the right to life. If someone were to attempt to take that from me, they would have two options: coercion or force. It's safe to say that it's not going to happen that someone will be able to convince me to give up my life by reasoning me into it. Therefore, they'd have to use force. If I have the right to continue living my life, and if that right is inalienable, yet there are those who would use force to remove that right, then I must have the means to protect that right. Same thing goes for my children, my family. My firearm is not within arm's reach in order to kill someone. It is within arm's reach to provide me with the means, should I ever need them, to protect my family.

 

That -- protection of my family, my property, my home -- is my "sole purpose", but as long as the definition of a firearm is limited by such a term, and as long as you insist that I'm carrying it just to kill someone - which you claim can be the only reasonable purpose for such a tool - any significant discussion stalls.

[SheilaZ]

I could kiss you Dy.:001_wub:

I've stayed away from this thread until I just noticed that you had posted.

 

 

Thank you for posting this very well expressed piece.

[Himfirst]

There are SOO many posts that I had to quit reading- need to be getting ready to leave .

 

Just have to say... Has anyone pointed out that...

The Bad guys ALWAYS find a way!!!!!!!!!!

(The problem is not the fact that we can bear arms, the problem is that criminals know that the actual odds of them getting in trouble are very slim)

 

And for the record- If the media was always honest that would be great! But, I surely we all are intelligent enough to know that "Honesty doen't sell."

[teamturner]

A car wouldn't be used for the primary purpose of killing, as a gun would. You do not own a car so that you can kill people with it, as you would a gun. A car's purpose is transportation. Theft of a car and theft of a gun are seen differently under the law, for good reason.

 

Actually, I can't remember how long it's been but there was a student at UNC in Chapel Hill, NC that took an SUV and plowed into a bunch of people with the sole intent on killing them. Also, with the guy in Japan with the knife attack recently. He first ran into the crowd with a car before jumping out and stabbing them. According to the news report, his goal that day was to kill as many people as he could. The reason I started this thread is because it seems like no matter what you outlaw, the people who wish to harm others will find a way to do it.

[Catherine]

in your house to harm or kill someone?

[Catherine]

You are suggesting that an object is defined by the possible end result of its use, and I, by the function that it does. While both are true, I argue that at minimum, an object's basic function is what it "is for", and the end result is what you *hope* it will accomplish.

 

As an example: define what a house is- shelter. That is its basic function. A place where one lives with one's family in happiness and safety. The end result, maybe, of home ownership, but maybe not. Or define the basic, intended function of a kitchen knife. For cutting up veggies, right? Calling it a "thing that provides us with delicious salad" may or may not be true.

 

I argue that the function of a gun is similar. Its basic, irreducible function is to kill or harm. One hopeful result of that function is protection of one's family, but that is not a guaranteed result of killing with the gun-it could be mishandled by a child, and the killing it accomplishes a tragedy rather than a protective act.

 

I believe it's vital in discussions like this to be honest about definitions. I suggest "to protect one's home and family" is euphemistic, and avoids the truth of what firearms are for-killing. Yes, you hope that by killing or harming a criminal, you will accomplish your purpose of protection, and I hope so too! But to define an object by the result you hope will come from owning it simply doesn't make sense.

[SheilaZ]

Who would be responisble in your house if they used a kitchen knife to kill someone?

Or a baseball bat.

Or a table leg

Or the post off the bed

Or a hammer

Or a bowling ball

Or a nail gun

Or a corkscrew

 

My minors have been taught since they have been able to walk, that a gun is not a toy and is only to be used under adult supervison.

They aren't going to touch a weapon that happens to be sitting out at someone else's house. (We don't have guns sitting out at our house.)

 

And don't say that they can't learn that. My father kept a loaded shot gun behid his bedroom door for all of my life. I never touched it. I knew better.

[newbie]

in your house to harm or kill someone?

 

The gun owner is responsible because it is in your house. Just like if someone gets hurt on my property, it is my responsibilty. If there is alcohol served to minors(we dont drink, just example), again my responsibilty.

 

I dont think the point is whether or not criminals or mad people can get a hold of weapons. I think, but dont have statistics, most are family members or children getting a hold of something.

 

Whether it be tools, medication or god forbid a weapon. I believe it is gunowners responsibility. It is also the owners responsibility to keep all things well locked up so the aforementioned cant get a hold of it.

 

I am sorry and might get lots of kumquats thrown, no tomatoes please. But, I dont think children can handle any kind of gun control,even for safety or hunting issues. They dont give license til 16 and 21 drinking. I think 16 too young for a car. But thats just my opinion.

 

 

Okay, start throwing.

Jet

[newbie]

One more thing, isn't thou shalt not kill one of the commandments.

 

Jet

[clwcain]

One more thing, isn't thou shalt not kill one of the commandments.

 

Jet

 

Only in English.

[newbie]

Only in English.

 

LOL

 

 

Jet

[KathyJo]

A car wouldn't be used for the primary purpose of killing, as a gun would. You do not own a car so that you can kill people with it, as you would a gun.

 

But what you seem to be saying here is that the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill people. Since there are far, far more gun owners in this country than the number of murderers, or even the number of people who kill in self defense, then it is incorrect to say that the primary purpose of owning a gun is to kill people. Plus, when you use the word "purpose" in this way, you are implying knowledge of why individuals possess guns. Our "purpose" is not to kill people, but to protect people. I might have to protect my family by firing at another human with the intent to kill. But if an assailant was trying to get into my car, I would also have no qualms about trying to run over him with my car with the intent to kill.

 

You are suggesting that an object is defined by the possible end result of its use, and I, by the function that it does.

 

The first definition of gun in the dictionary is "[a] weapon consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory." The applicable definitions of weapon are "[a]n instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword" and "[a] means used to defend against or defeat another" [emphasis added]. Nothing in either definition says that the purpose of a gun is to kill people. How we feel about something may have us define it in a different way, such as your description of what a house is. But we need to be clear that "defining" words in that way is, at the very least, inaccurate.

 

In the past six months, my husband has killed two raccoons with a handgun. Both shots would have been impossible, or at least dangerous, with either a rifle or shotgun. Our guns are tools, and their purpose is protection for both our family and our livestock.

 

Jet, please go research the statistics at the CDC. The number of unintentional gun deaths among children per year is very small. It's tragic, of course. It's always tragic when a child dies, and even more so when it's an accident that we feel could have been prevented.

 

For ages 0-14, unintentional drownings claim twice as many lives as firearm deaths of all intents, and eleven times as many lives as unintentional firearm deaths.

 

I become frustrated when people continually point out how dangerous guns are to children. Yes, they can be, but so are many things, including swimming and riding in a car. But once these are pointed out, suddenly the danger in and of itself is irrelevant because then we're told we have to look at the purpose of the gun. Why? If the danger is the point, then there are a whole host of things that should be outlawed. As for that purpose, I think I've already covered that.

[Mamagistra]

But what you seem to be saying here is...

 

Hey! My barbecue sista is back! ;) Howdy and great to 'see' you 'round! :001_smile:

[KathyJo]

Hey! My barbecue sista is back! ;) Howdy and great to 'see' you 'round! :001_smile:

 

Yo, Debra! I stumbled upon your blog the other day. I was wondering if you were *my* Debra in Texas. After I saw the, "Ron Paul, Y'all," post, I decided that I wanted you for my very own friend either way. ;)

[Mamagistra]

Yo, Debra! I stumbled upon your blog the other day. I was wondering if you were *my* Debra in Texas. After I saw the, "Ron Paul, Y'all," post, I decided that I wanted you for my very own friend either way. ;)

 

That was me, Bloggus somedayus! ;)

[Jugglin'5]

Hey I'm a Ron Paul gal! Who knew there were so many Texan WTM's Paulnuts?;)

[Krista in LA]

One more thing, isn't thou shalt not kill one of the commandments.

 

Jet

 

I've always learned it as thou shall not murder. There is a bit of a difference between murder and kill.

[Storm Bay]

For ages 0-14, unintentional drownings claim twice as many lives as firearm deaths of all intents, and eleven times as many lives as unintentional firearm deaths.

 

I become frustrated when people continually point out how dangerous guns are to children. Yes, they can be, but so are many things, including swimming and riding in a car. But once these are pointed out, suddenly the danger in and of itself is irrelevant because then we're told we have to look at the purpose of the gun. Why? If the danger is the point, then there are a whole host of things that should be outlawed. As for that purpose, I think I've already covered that.

 

Yes. The odds of dying in a car accident are less than 1 in 6000, but I have forgotten the exact number now. Far, far higher than firearms deaths in the US, and yet how many of us are crying out to ban cars due to the high death rate?

[clwcain]

I've always learned it as thou shall not murder. There is a bit of a difference between murder and kill.

 

And Thomas Aquinas has lots to say on the subject. :)

 

Natural Law is a beautiful thing.

[newbie]

And Thomas Aquinas has lots to say on the subject. :)

 

Natural Law is a beautiful thing.

 

:iagree:Good point.

 

And on the commandments , sorry I learned from KJV version. And I think I stated I didnt have stats. on children and guns, I also dont have stats on gun incident by relations.

 

Jet

[Phred]

Just a thought, if they are not accessible, its not possible. Ie: The shooting of the grandmother. They shot her after an argument. If they did not have it. It may not have happened.

That's right Jet. And most murders in the US happen not as cold-blooded planned events but as acts of passion. The gun is there and it is used. And it's not a rifle that is used, it's a handgun. Let's be clear, we say "gun" and "firearm" but what we mean most of the time is "handgun".

 

i agree that we need to realize clearly the purpose of a gun. And "yeah, it can be used for hunting" BUT people have successfully hunted for THOUSANDS of years w/o the use of guns.:001_smile:"

But they hunt so much more efficiently WITH guns.

 

i disagree w/ your opinion of the second amendment.

the entire point of the Bill of Rights was --IS-- to secure personal liberties, not establish some temporary situation "until our government and technology catches up." lots of early debate in whether to include it [boR] at all, including concerns that those listed would be interpreted as "the only" personal rights people have.

But in this specific instance there is debate about what exactly the framers meant. Even to the point that the capitalization between what the House and Senate approved and what was sent to the states differs. And I do think that we have to take into account that there are arms too dangerous for a person to have as an individual. Surely you're not saying that the second amendment guarantees us the right to own nukes? If not, where is the line drawn? And by whom?

 

[which is why i stand behind the Supreme court ruling on an INHERENT right to privacy].

I'm shocked to read this. Roe v. Wade is based upon this inherent right to privacy.

 

One of the biggest concerns for including the second amendment was so citizens could protect themselves from their own government.

I agree. But that was when both sides could muster up a cannon or two and go at it pretty much equally armed. But now? Where are we going to get an F-22? Heck, where am I going to get all the equipment the local police have? I can't protect my home against a SWAT team, much less against the government. I would have to depend upon their good nature and my getting enough warning to get the media there. Otherwise, like Elian Gonzalez... I don't stand a chance. That's reality. A reality we have to be cognizant of when we consider the second amendment. Does the ability to murder anyone we choose outweigh the right to stand up to our own government?

 

Sure... murder can happen anyway. Of the 17,000 or so murders last year a little over 8,000 were firearms related. Do we care that some of those were kids sitting in their living rooms who were innocent victims of drive-by shootings with guns that are illegal to make, import and use yet were made, imported and used anyway? Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

A buddy of mine has a $20 .38 special under his spare tire. Just in case he has to change his tire in a bad neighborhood. He bought it as easy as you please at a gun show. No ID... nuthin. Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

for anyone interested, more on both views here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

and i ABSOLUTELY agree that we need to be enforcing the laws we already have and setting some serious consequences for breaking them.

It's not about gun control. It's about moral decay.

Well... yes and no. Controlling guns we do need to do. At least so that we can't buy them as easily as buying a remote control airplane.

 

But moral decay? Comon... that's just a buzzword for "Everyone else sucks but me". It's not moral decay. It's too many people. It's the evolution of a society that we should have seen coming. We want lower prices. We want goods and services that cost less. But we also want more money for the jobs we do. Only one way that's gonna happen. We have to work more hours. That means what used to be three jobs is now two jobs. Two people make more money, one doesn't, he's laid off. Prices can be lower because two people cost the company less. But now most people end up with the husband and wife working to make ends meet because eventually everyone ends up laid off here or there. With no parents at home or parents divorced because they're never together... the kids grow up in a way we've never dealt with before. Who has time to sit down with the kids and discuss guns or sex or drugs? I gotta get the lawn mowed and the dry cleaning in and OMG it's father's day this weekend!

 

/rant

 

You may call it moral decay. I call it the evolution of a capitalist society. What's next? I dunno but now you got me thinkin'...

[Peek a Boo]

A car wouldn't be used for the primary purpose of killing, as a gun would. You do not own a car so that you can kill people with it, as you would a gun. A car's purpose is transportation. Theft of a car and theft of a gun are seen differently under the law, for good reason.

 

If gun owners cannot be held responsible for the unauthorized use of their weapons, then who is responsible for the accidental killing when kids use a parent's weapon? It is simply not true that owning an object which has only the purpose of killing other human beings is comparable to owning prescription medications that are for keeping one healthy, or vehicles that are for traveling from one place to another. Gun ownership carries much more responsibility.

 

I know that if my child was killed or unjured by another's gun, I would feel they were responsible, whether they fired the shot or their child did.

 

Good rebuttal thoughts posted already by others.... I'll add that while *I* agree the PRIMARY purpose of a gun is to kill people, I ahave to allow for the fact that not everyone thinks like me :) Guns are very often used to maim someone to keep them from fleeing or disable them from attacking.

 

 

We COULD take a look at the similarities and differences between theft of a car and theft of a gun --neither implicate the owner as "irresponsible" unless the owner WAS acting irresponsibly. The law does not make the same immediate conclusion as you do [which is why we have more than one person on juries ;) ]

 

 

Your opinion is that a gun is too much responsibility for you, and that's ok. But --like the discussion on morality-- most people do NOT see responsible ownership of an item as "too much" or issue an automatic indictment against an innocent party when some wacko decides to take matters into their own hands thru illegal actions.

 

So where do YOU draw the line between ownership of an object designed to be used to kill someone vs an object that isn't usually used to kill someone? The distinction really is irrelevant --people die in accidental and intentional situations whether there are guns or not --back to the OP. If you focus on the object and not the action, you will lose your case everytime. You need to reach deeper to the real issue. Putting a bandaid on it by blaming the object will only result in an infected, puss-ridden society.

[Peek a Boo]

But they hunt so much more efficiently WITH guns.

 

well sure! killing is much more efficient w/ guns --thus their popularity.

 

 

But in this specific instance there is debate about what exactly the framers meant. Even to the point that the capitalization between what the House and Senate approved and what was sent to the states differs. And I do think that we have to take into account that there are arms too dangerous for a person to have as an individual. Surely you're not saying that the second amendment guarantees us the right to own nukes? If not, where is the line drawn? And by whom?

 

I'd say the evidence for personal liberties is overwhelming in this "debate." Especially considering the original intent of where to place the clause :)

Constitutionally speaking... where does it give Congress or the states the right to limit what "arms" an individual can bear? what I believe and what the constitution protects are two different things --as we've seen/ probably will see w/ the gay rights issue :)

 

 

I'm shocked to read this. Roe v. Wade is based upon this inherent right to privacy.

 

don't be shocked --I'm convinced the Roe v Wade case can become null and void [but still retain the right to privacy] by declaring ALL humans -regardless stage of development-- have the right to life. You have no "right' to kill another for convenience. i have more thoughts on that through discussing the future of medical technological advances, but that's another discussion :)

 

I agree. But that was when both sides could muster up a cannon or two and go at it pretty much equally armed. But now? Where are we going to get an F-22? Heck, where am I going to get all the equipment the local police have? I can't protect my home against a SWAT team, much less against the government. I would have to depend upon their good nature and my getting enough warning to get the media there. Otherwise, like Elian Gonzalez... I don't stand a chance. That's reality. A reality we have to be cognizant of when we consider the second amendment. Does the ability to murder anyone we choose outweigh the right to stand up to our own government?

 

Your inability to carry through w/ a personal liberty does not make that personal liberty null and void -- you still have the option of exercising it, and the Constitution is there to protect it. you don't have the LEGAL ability to murder anyone you choose.

 

 

Sure... murder can happen anyway. Of the 17,000 or so murders last year a little over 8,000 were firearms related. Do we care that some of those were kids sitting in their living rooms who were innocent victims of drive-by shootings with guns that are illegal to make, import and use yet were made, imported and used anyway? Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

The second amendment doesn't protect murder. The Constitution itself doesn't say anything about killing anyone --that's up to the states. and I certainly care --I'd like to see those criminals convicted to the fullest extent of the law. That has nothing to do w/ the second amendment or Constitutional law.

 

A buddy of mine has a $20 .38 special under his spare tire. Just in case he has to change his tire in a bad neighborhood. He bought it as easy as you please at a gun show. No ID... nuthin. Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

again, the second amendment guarantees the right of the people to BEAR arms. It leaves the USE of those weapons up to the states -and the people, respectively.

 

 

happy father's day weekend to all you guys :)

[Peek a Boo]

I've always learned it as thou shall not murder. There is a bit of a difference between murder and kill.

 

not much of a difference tho. especially when it comes to self defense vs an accident w/ an ax. i tend to hold to the following explanation, tho it is a bit harsh for some :)

 

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/#self

[DIY-DY]

You are suggesting that an object is defined by the possible end result of its use, and I, by the function that it does. While both are true, I argue that at minimum, an object's basic function is what it "is for", and the end result is what you *hope* it will accomplish.

 

As an example: define what a house is- shelter. That is its basic function. A place where one lives with one's family in happiness and safety. The end result, maybe, of home ownership, but maybe not. Or define the basic, intended function of a kitchen knife. For cutting up veggies, right? Calling it a "thing that provides us with delicious salad" may or may not be true.

 

I argue that the function of a gun is similar. Its basic, irreducible function is to kill or harm. One hopeful result of that function is protection of one's family, but that is not a guaranteed result of killing with the gun-it could be mishandled by a child, and the killing it accomplishes a tragedy rather than a protective act.

 

I believe it's vital in discussions like this to be honest about definitions. I suggest "to protect one's home and family" is euphemistic, and avoids the truth of what firearms are for-killing. Yes, you hope that by killing or harming a criminal, you will accomplish your purpose of protection, and I hope so too! But to define an object by the result you hope will come from owning it simply doesn't make sense.

 

I think in this case, I'd refer to a kitchen knife, by definition, as a sharp-edged tool, designed for cutting. I use it to prepare food. Someone else may use it as a weapon, for self-defense, or perhaps for malicious means. The difference lies in the person controlling the tool, right?

 

A gun is a weapon, designed to fire a projectile at a high velocity. I happen to employ this weapon to protect my family. The "purpose", if you're at all familiar with ballistics, is "stopping power". That's the purpose and the aim in using a firearm. I'm honestly not trying to be euphemistic, and I do appreciate that we can discuss this openly and without hostility. (Thank you. Not everyone is capable of that.)

 

My "hope" is not that by harming or killing someone, I might be able to protect my family. I choose this tool as a means to stop someone from using force to cause harm or to deprive me of life or property. Guns are often used to ward off an attack without ever being fired. I would not recommend brandishing one in the hope that it's mere presence will do the trick, but the fact is that it does sometimes do just that.

 

We should probably also define "children", since the concern over children accidentally getting hold of a gun and doing harm is a concern in the forefront of this thread. The numbers included in the "tragic deaths of children" also include adults 18 and 19 years of age who are often engaged in illegal activities to begin with. The statistics point out the connections of "children" being killed in their own homes, by people they know. Quite often, that they died in their own homes (often during a drug deal or other interaction gone bad), shot by someone they know (technically, the BATF considers dealers who are transacting business to know one another) gets construed to evoke images of little Susie and little Johnny, ages 3 and 5, who got into Daddy's drawer and shot up cousin Bobby. Those images are heartbreaking, definitely. They also aren't the majority of cases that include "the children". Yet that definition is used loosely and liberally to apply to all the numbers in an attempt to make that the main focus in discussions and legislation.

 

Yes, as with all things, all tools, all weapons, all medications - blunt objects, knives, vehicles, swimming pools, chemicals - there is a risk of abuse and tragedy. There is a high level of responsibility involved in firearm ownership, but it does not extend to the point that someone who is breaking the law in getting their hands on my guns is no longer responsible for his/her own behavior - which is a point I keep seeing pushed, here. I'm simply not willing to forego the means to protect my family out of fear that someone will do something stupid or malicious. What surprises me is that so many people will come down hot and heavy on gun owners for their choices, and yet there is no stigmatization against private pool owners for exercising a luxury and endangering their own children and neighbors. There's a much greater risk of a neighbor child slipping into a back yard pool and drowning than there is of a neighbor child getting his or her hands on one of my guns. Ever. That much, I can guarantee. :)

Dy

[newbie]

I think in this case, I'd refer to a kitchen knife, by definition, as a sharp-edged tool, designed for cutting. I use it to prepare food. Someone else may use it as a weapon, for self-defense, or perhaps for malicious means. The difference lies in the person controlling the tool, right?

 

A gun is a weapon, designed to fire a projectile at a high velocity. I happen to employ this weapon to protect my family. The "purpose", if you're at all familiar with ballistics, is "stopping power". That's the purpose and the aim in using a firearm. I'm honestly not trying to be euphemistic, and I do appreciate that we can discuss this openly and without hostility. (Thank you. Not everyone is capable of that.)

 

My "hope" is not that by harming or killing someone, I might be able to protect my family. I choose this tool as a means to stop someone from using force to cause harm or to deprive me of life or property. Guns are often used to ward off an attack without ever being fired. I would not recommend brandishing one in the hope that it's mere presence will do the trick, but the fact is that it does sometimes do just that.

 

We should probably also define "children", since the concern over children accidentally getting hold of a gun and doing harm is a concern in the forefront of this thread. The numbers included in the "tragic deaths of children" also include adults 18 and 19 years of age who are often engaged in illegal activities to begin with. The statistics point out the connections of "children" being killed in their own homes, by people they know. Quite often, that they died in their own homes (often during a drug deal or other interaction gone bad), shot by someone they know (technically, the BATF considers dealers who are transacting business to know one another) gets construed to evoke images of little Susie and little Johnny, ages 3 and 5, who got into Daddy's drawer and shot up cousin Bobby. Those images are heartbreaking, definitely. They also aren't the majority of cases that include "the children". Yet that definition is used loosely and liberally to apply to all the numbers in an attempt to make that the main focus in discussions and legislation.

 

Yes, as with all things, all tools, all weapons, all medications - blunt objects, knives, vehicles, swimming pools, chemicals - there is a risk of abuse and tragedy. There is a high level of responsibility involved in firearm ownership, but it does not extend to the point that someone who is breaking the law in getting their hands on my guns is no longer responsible for his/her own behavior - which is a point I keep seeing pushed, here. I'm simply not willing to forego the means to protect my family out of fear that someone will do something stupid or malicious. What surprises me is that so many people will come down hot and heavy on gun owners for their choices, and yet there is no stigmatization against private pool owners for exercising a luxury and endangering their own children and neighbors. There's a much greater risk of a neighbor child slipping into a back yard pool and drowning than there is of a neighbor child getting his or her hands on one of my guns. Ever. That much, I can guarantee. :)

Dy

 

Dy,

 

In your last point, that is not true. In Calif. you are responsible if anything happens on your property. When you build a pool, it has to have an ugly fence around iot. And if it leads to your back door, you have to have an alarm. If it leads to gate to the outside they have to be locked. By law.

 

Recently we thought of boarding horses. But my dh does not want to *take responsibility * for other people on our property.

 

Workers have to be insured on your prop. otherwise you are liable.

 

Even if my dd's are older and I have company that have smaller children. My house is protected for them. All outlets, cabinets etc. ..

 

Simply it is my responsibility, that someone might get a hold of medicine or alcohol or whatever in my house or on my property. i feel like I should take responsibility for myself and others.

 

Jet

[newbie]

That's right Jet. And most murders in the US happen not as cold-blooded planned events but as acts of passion. The gun is there and it is used. And it's not a rifle that is used, it's a handgun. Let's be clear, we say "gun" and "firearm" but what we mean most of the time is "handgun".

 

 

But they hunt so much more efficiently WITH guns.

 

But in this specific instance there is debate about what exactly the framers meant. Even to the point that the capitalization between what the House and Senate approved and what was sent to the states differs. And I do think that we have to take into account that there are arms too dangerous for a person to have as an individual. Surely you're not saying that the second amendment guarantees us the right to own nukes? If not, where is the line drawn? And by whom?

 

I'm shocked to read this. Roe v. Wade is based upon this inherent right to privacy.

 

I agree. But that was when both sides could muster up a cannon or two and go at it pretty much equally armed. But now? Where are we going to get an F-22? Heck, where am I going to get all the equipment the local police have? I can't protect my home against a SWAT team, much less against the government. I would have to depend upon their good nature and my getting enough warning to get the media there. Otherwise, like Elian Gonzalez... I don't stand a chance. That's reality. A reality we have to be cognizant of when we consider the second amendment. Does the ability to murder anyone we choose outweigh the right to stand up to our own government?

 

Sure... murder can happen anyway. Of the 17,000 or so murders last year a little over 8,000 were firearms related. Do we care that some of those were kids sitting in their living rooms who were innocent victims of drive-by shootings with guns that are illegal to make, import and use yet were made, imported and used anyway? Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

A buddy of mine has a $20 .38 special under his spare tire. Just in case he has to change his tire in a bad neighborhood. He bought it as easy as you please at a gun show. No ID... nuthin. Where does the second amendment protect that?

 

 

Well... yes and no. Controlling guns we do need to do. At least so that we can't buy them as easily as buying a remote control airplane.

 

But moral decay? Comon... that's just a buzzword for "Everyone else sucks but me". It's not moral decay. It's too many people. It's the evolution of a society that we should have seen coming. We want lower prices. We want goods and services that cost less. But we also want more money for the jobs we do. Only one way that's gonna happen. We have to work more hours. That means what used to be three jobs is now two jobs. Two people make more money, one doesn't, he's laid off. Prices can be lower because two people cost the company less. But now most people end up with the husband and wife working to make ends meet because eventually everyone ends up laid off here or there. With no parents at home or parents divorced because they're never together... the kids grow up in a way we've never dealt with before. Who has time to sit down with the kids and discuss guns or sex or drugs? I gotta get the lawn mowed and the dry cleaning in and OMG it's father's day this weekend!

 

/rant

 

You may call it moral decay. I call it the evolution of a capitalist society. What's next? I dunno but now you got me thinkin'...

 

Bravo and well put.

 

Jet

[DIY-DY]

Who would be respnsible if a gun was used by a minor in your house to harm or kill someone?

 

I can't give you a one-size-fits-all answer to that. What age is the minor? How did the minor get a hold of a weapon? What was going on at the time? Every situation that involves an accidental death also involves an extensive investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death.

 

No loving parent wants harm to come to a child (I hate all the mental caveats that ran through my mind - so I went with loving - please insert necessary addenda, here), and when it does via an accident, be it that the child was run over in the driveway, drowned in a pool, fell out of a second story window, od'd on Grandma's heart medication, impaled himself on a pitchfork, or managed to fire a gun, it's a tragedy of incredible proportions. Period. But jumping straight to "whose fault is it" isn't the route I would take (or have taken, when these things hit the news, for example). A blanket question like that is asking for an end-all answer that wouldn't serve well at all.

 

For example, DH and I are probably overly-concerned with making sure we have every. single. child. when we leave the house. We do a head count in the driveway, we call one another a few miles down the road to confirm how many the other person has with him/her, we do additional head counts even if we haven't stopped the car since the last head count. We feel that's practicing due diligence, and are comfortable with that level of security. We aren't about to start pointing fingers, however, when our friends don't do a head count until they get home. Or if they never do a roll call in the car. They do what they believe is necessary, to the level they believe is necessary, for their homes and families. If one of them should lose a child somewhere along the way, we aren't going to be arguing that everybody should be made to do a roll call, a head count, and a double verification "just in case". And we aren't going to be asking everybody to do things the way we do them. Even if it is "for the children".

 

Same thing with firearms - all of them. We practice due diligence to a level we are comfortable with. We are upfront with our guests, as we cannot expect people to make informed decisions without all the information needed.

 

If I have ever failed to practice due diligence, then certainly I bear responsibility for that. But no one is ever wholly responsible for another person's actions. Ever.

 

HTH,

Dy

[DIY-DY]

Yes, as with all things, all tools, all weapons, all medications - blunt objects, knives, vehicles, swimming pools, chemicals - there is a risk of abuse and tragedy. There is a high level of responsibility involved in firearm ownership, but it does not extend to the point that someone who is breaking the law in getting their hands on my guns is no longer responsible for his/her own behavior

 

Is this the point you're referencing? (Emphasis mine, added for this post. :))

 

Dy,

 

In your last point, that is not true. In Calif. you are responsible if anything happens on your property. When you build a pool, it has to have an ugly fence around iot. And if it leads to your back door, you have to have an alarm. If it leads to gate to the outside they have to be locked. By law.

 

Recently we thought of boarding horses. But my dh does not want to *take responsibility * for other people on our property.

 

Workers have to be insured on your prop. otherwise you are liable.

 

Even if my dd's are older and I have company that have smaller children. My house is protected for them. All outlets, cabinets etc. ..

 

Simply it is my responsibility, that someone might get a hold of medicine or alcohol or whatever in my house or on my property.

Jet

 

The points you mention regarding workers, guests, etc, involve people who are in your home with your consent. The pool laws, I understand, relate to the pool, specifically, regardless of whether the person in question was trespassing or not, right? Whether I agree with the principle of responsibility on private property as many states (not just CA) have applied it, or not, I do understand that.

 

But, if someone breaks into your home and injures himself in the commission of that crime, are you, in the state of CA, liable for his injuries? If he cuts himself on the glass window he broke to climb through, are you going to have to ante up for the stitches? If he slips hauling your TV down the stairs and breaks his neck, will you be found liable for that? Has CA really gone that far? (I'm asking b/c I don't know, and I'm absolutely flabbergasted to think that this is the case.)

 

i feel like I should take responsibility for myself and others.

We probably agree more on this point than you think. My point with this, however, is that we're discussing legal responsibility - who gets to spend the rest of her life in the joint if someone manages to do something idiotic on my property, with my private property. However, what I refer to as "due diligence" is the same basic principle, applied without the oversight of the law. It's the "personal" portion of "personal responsibility".

[newbie]

Is this the point you're referencing? (Emphasis mine, added for this post. :))

 

 

 

The points you mention regarding workers, guests, etc, involve people who are in your home with your consent. The pool laws, I understand, relate to the pool, specifically, regardless of whether the person in question was trespassing or not, right? Whether I agree with the principle of responsibility on private property as many states (not just CA) have applied it, or not, I do understand that.

 

But, if someone breaks into your home and injures himself in the commission of that crime, are you, in the state of CA, liable for his injuries? If he cuts himself on the glass window he broke to climb through, are you going to have to ante up for the stitches? If he slips hauling your TV down the stairs and breaks his neck, will you be found liable for that? Has CA really gone that far? (I'm asking b/c I don't know, and I'm absolutely flabbergasted to think that this is the case.)

 

 

We probably agree more on this point than you think. My point with this, however, is that we're discussing legal responsibility - who gets to spend the rest of her life in the joint if someone manages to do something idiotic on my property, with my private property. However, what I refer to as "due diligence" is the same basic principle, applied without the oversight of the law. It's the "personal" portion of "personal responsibility".

 

Everything applies except criminal. Although with pool if kid gets into yard and drowns in pool, I have been told you are liable, hence locks on gates. If TV man slips in house, he can sue.

 

I guess it is just Calif.

 

Now what also is a query, is I have heard of people breaking in and owner killing or hurting criminal and owner liable. I could be wrong.

 

Jet