Righty Driving at over 100mph on a public road is inherently dangerous though. Owning a gun is not inherantly dangerous. Well, true. To clarify I suppose I should say you can not morally restrict the rights of one because of the misdeeds of another. To an extent, yes it's a balance. Firearms being legal impacts upon no-one's freedoms though. I suppose if I must... Firstly, it's not about need, costs, benefits. It's about right. The state is immorally impacting upon rights by restricting firearm ownership. Simple as that. Next, even if it were about need, your claim that the benefits of firearm ownership are non-existant is clearly ridiculous. While you may feel firearms are used wrongly more often than they're used for a good reason, every year millions of people use firearms for recreation and self-protection against criminals. The claim that there has never been any indication that gun ownership benefits personal security is also absolutely astounding. There's been plenty of research that's suggested that. There's also been plenty of research done to counter the original research. There does appear to be a correlation between a decline in attempted and actual rape, and legalised CCW (concealed carry) permits though. There's also plenty of research which shows the benefits of banning firearms. Overall though, acting like the research is completely clear cut as you are is misleading and wrong. There's an assload of research supporting most opinions in the pro/anti firearms debate, and acting like all the research favours one argument is either misrepresentation of the facts, or ignorance.
Depends on the road, depends on the conditions, depends on the driver. Depends on the gun, depends on the owner, depends on it's storage conditions. In principle, neither *must* be dangerous. But statistics say that both are. There are families in Dunblane that would disagree. Thomas Hamilton was a legal gun owner and used only his legal guns in the massacre of 16 children (+ 1 teacher). [Yet Horritt Campbell only (?) managed to injure 7 children with his illegal machete in St. Lukes School in Wolverhampton.] I'd say legal gun ownership had a massive *permanent* effect on the freedoms of many people in Dunblane. Wouldn't you agree?
To an extent, but in general it's going to be a dangerous act. No, you're confusing matters. You're comparing gun ownership and speeding. A more accurate comparison would be gun ownership and car ownership, or else speeding and shooting. Gun ownership is not inherantly dangerous at all. It's just possible for it to lead to dangerous situations. Same as car ownership. But we don't ban cars, we just ban speeding. Similarly, we shouldn't ban guns, just murder (oh wait, we do!). No more than legal food did. Both enabled Hamilton to commit an illegal and immoral act (I'm assuming he mass murderers starve to death without food here...). It's not the guns that impacted upon anyones freedoms that day, it was Hamilton, and his choice to murder peope. And yes, those families would probably disagree with me, but people with vested and emotional interests in issues should rarely if ever be allowed to actually make important judgements on them. Emotion is a terrible basis for good decision making.
It is not a right; it would be a privilege - and as such should be waived in the interest of the common good. As for morality, I'd check your definition. Recreation is not a suitable need; you want to be allow to risk *my* life by carrying a gun so that you can have some fun??? The protection element is also a myth. It doesn't work, because an aggressor will simply carry more/bigger guns in response to your defensive possession of a gun. As for statistics, if you can explain how the high mortality rate (from firearms) in the US is unconnected to the attitude and availability of guns in the US, I would be intrigued.
Can't be a privilege. Private ownership is a right, since the state can not grant it, it can only remove it. Nope. Firstly, I can't be allowed to carry a gun by the state, only restricted from carrying one - the state can not claim to allow me rights I naturally have. Secondly, someone carrying a firearm poses no risk to your life. Someone using it may, but that is what should be regulated, not the carrying of it. Firearms aren't siege engines. Bigger makes no difference. They are the great equaliser. A 3 foot dwarf can carry a .40 calibre pistol and if they shoot someone a 3-4 times that person is probably done for. The idea that you can defeat someone who's armed with a gun just by carring more guns, or bigger guns is illogical and nonsensical. Never claimed I could.
WTF? And without any legal guns, in a re-run, would would he have done? Probably used a knife is my guess. But it would be a lot harder to kill so many people, so quickly with a knife. Certainly the lesser of two evils. This is so true. Hence, Lord Cullen was invited to hold an enquiry, in which he recommended the most restrictive (so far) limits on gun ownership this country has ever seen.
Man, this again. A game site discussion (here) blames guns, i bet there's a parralel discussion on this topic somewhere on a gun site blaming games. I hope you are defending us gamers there in the name of us all spec, because i'm not on those forums Ofcourse on the incident-level, it's always the people at fault, never the guns/cars/pillows/machetes/<random murder weapon here>. My rights are being invaded on a permanent level for the greater good of the nation, so i really don't see why the right to bear arms would be any different. That's personal though. What isn't personal is the fact that we live in a universe of morons. Feel free to include me in that category too, because there is no other category. I too, have behaved like a total brainless monkey on numerous occasions, not even all of them involving alcohol. Inside the "moron" category, there's some leeway for ranking people, but its a fact that every single human can be driven to some outrageous stuff if conditions allow. If we want to live in a society and still get some sleep, we need some sort of protection from all that stupidity, carelessness and blind hatred. I can somehow sympathise with people saying "I'll do that myself, thank you, now let me go buy my 5th AK". The problem is that while i sympatise with that guy, i still think he's an idiot (sub-category of a moron), and i dont really feel at ease with the idea of him owning guns. He'll probably feel the same about me. That's why guns need to be banned or seriously controlled. The answer to that is always that it's about the right to bear arms. Which is in a sense true, but it's not the whole picture. It's also about broken families and destructed lives. Nobody can predict what would have happened if that kid would have hat the kitchen knife instead of a gun in his hands, but knives are a lot less dangerous then guns, that's for sure. The parents should have been more careful with the gun and an angry teen in the house, but dis the mother deserve to die for that? Did the father deserve to lose his wife? Did the son deserve to lose his mother, and be fked for life for that? I think not, i think we have governments that protect us from ourself with the very dangerous stuff. One thing i'm always missing from the entire discussion is that guns kick a$$. That alone is a reason to not wanting to give the right to bear one up, and it's a valid reason. It's like losing the right to game. Can't have that! What's left standing on the pro-gun side then is two things: 1) because we can (it's our right) and 2) because we enjoy it. I really don't think they outweigh all the destruction that guns cause.
We also issue driving licences. You need to be qualified to use a car. So I would argue that a person would have to demostrate proficiency in using a gun. Semantics, really. A drivers licence gives me the right to drive a car. But I have to earn it first. No-one ever said people were logical. In any case, those who are inclined to use a gun for offense rather than defense are always at an advantage. They are prepared; they tend to get the first shot off. Basically, we have the same old argument again: you the Anarchist, valuing personal liberty over everything and accepting that there will be some inevitable fall-out from stupid people who can't handle it. Me the 'socialist' (for lack of a better word), arguing that the price of being part of a well-functioning community is some inevitable restriction of personal freedom. If you don't like it, you can exercise your freedom of choice by living self-sufficiently in the forests of Washington State, polishing all the guns you like. You'll find lots of like-minded people already there. Don't get me wrong --I think they have a point. When these people unplug from society, they really go it alone; pay no taxes but expect no benefits in return. I can respect that. And in the forest , a gun is a very appropriate tool. But in a shopping mall it isn't.
I agree, but not completely. Using (firing) a gun is much more dangerous then using (driving) a car. In that sense, shooting cannot be compared to driving, only to racing, at which point the risk levels are comparable again. Racing when not on a designated track is not allowed (in fact, you lose your license and get serious jailtime for that, much like shooting). Guns and cars dont compare well, since you cannot use a gun without things getting dangerous. Cars can and are designed to be used in harmless ways. Guns are designed to make things as dangerous as possible, preferrably for the guy on the other end of them. Compare guns to racecars then. A racecar is designed to do dangerous stuff too. But we regulate who, when, where, what and how on racecars, first and foremost the fact that they are NOT allowed on the public road! Why not do it with guns?
Let's get really into the semantics and set this straight: we DO all have the right to drive a car from birth, but you need a license to practice that right. That is, at least, how it is structured in Holland. How else can you take lessons? The government can revoke both the right and the license, but the right is about much more then just cars, it's about driving things in general. Without it, you cannot drive a scooter or herd cattle (yes, really ) either.
I think what you mean is that we all have the right to learn the right to drive a car from birth. We do not have the right to drive a car from birth otherwise 6 year olds would be doing it. We have the right to learn how to drive a car which can be applied to obtaining the right to drive one. It is a case of right to Learning and then Right to Obtaining.
lol, let's see how far offtopic we can get this I explained it the wrong way, but in Holland you really do have the right to drive stuff from birth. It's called the "rijbevoegdheid", which translates loosely as driving competence. Your license is an extension on this right, allowing you to drive a car without an instructor next to you. If you get caught speeding more then 50km/h too fast, it is THIS right that they revoke, not the license. That's why you are then suddenly not allowed to ride motorcycles either, while that's a different license.
At 16, you are allowed to ride scooters (still talking NL here). Putting in serious offenses on that thing will have your driving right revoked before you even have a license. This was also true before scooter licenses were introduced. I'm not sure if there's an age restriction or anything below that. I can proudly say that i'm not a lawyer On a sidenote: is there an age requirement for the right to bear arms in the US? Shotgun toddler Cheesecake! EDIT: You tossers! using the profanity filter F T W to cheesecake
There's some pathetic irony in a parent who owns a firearm but is against violent video games. I'm not saying gun ownership is wrong, I'm just saying this guy sounds like this guy wasn't setting the best example.
I don't see your point. That's like criticising a parent who removes pornography from his/her child yet persists to have sex (or view pornography) themselves. Sure this would be a facet of good parenting?? Just because you may view something as acceptable for adults, doesn't mean you are a hypocrite if you don't view it as acceptable for children.
