Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No.. the post was meant to illustrate that a right is NOT absolute.. that there are conditions of such rights..
By convicting the person screaming fire in a theatre it showed that a right to free speech stops when that free speech harms others in society.
Right to bear arms does the same thing. For example, removing that right of the felon to bear arms is a prime example.. because of the harm it causes or could cause society.
Again..Im NOT for banning weapons or allowing people to carry weapons.. I'm AM for adding a criteria to the already set licensing requirements in most states.. ex: psych tests. Our police officers must undergo psych tests before being admitted into the academy because they carry firearms constantly and the same criteria should be in place for civilians. (yes.. I am aware that there are other reasons for the psych tests to potential police officers). And also for age restrictions.
That is a BIG difference from banning all firearms and allowing anyone the right to bear them at all.
how is a law abiding citizen infringing on ones rights? Criminals get guns, they are already committing a crime, convicted felons loose rights because they committed a crime, so why would you infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens because a stupid person did something, or because a criminal committed a crime? why punish the good, when it is the bad people that are doing bad deeds?
Shooting an innocent person harms them. Owning a machine gun, a child target shooting or hunting, carrying a gun, etc., harms no one. There are already laws against harming people with guns.
seconded. by putting even more restrictions on the average citizen, we would be saying that they are untrustworthy to own the weapons, and incapable of making the responsible decision for themselves.
fortunately, as we've already known since the beginning, that would be blatantly against the constitution, not to mention belittling, condescending, unnecessary, and still, without effect.
further, as far as kids using guns, let us pretend that we put an age limit on them. do we really think that this will help when it comes to firearm accidents, or make things worse? first, i wonder what the age breakdown is in gun accidents involving children; how many of them are below any of these considered age limitations? also, i wonder how many gun accidents involving children happen during normal, condoned use of a weapon, as opposed to children sneaking around and getting the weapon when mommy and daddy aren't home.
if i have a weapon in my home, and my children are taught from an early age how to use it responsibly and respectfully, and are actually given the opportunity to do so, how much more likely do you think it would be that they leave the gun alone when they know they are not allowed to use it, as opposed to the kids that never get to use, whether or not they have been schooled by their parents?
even if people decided that an age limit was in order, i would hope that they would see the reason of making that limit somewhere around 8 or 9, and not 16 or 18, because as i alluded to earlier, a good number of the accidents involve little kids, kids that could have been educated and familiarized with the weapon in order to prevent tragedy.
That they carry firearms is only a tiny part of why they undergo those tests. The big reasons are because of the authority they are given in their job, the situations they will be involved with, the stress, etc. Police are civilians BTW.
Um.. police officers become police officers in the sense that they are not just "civilians".. they are civilians that became officers. If you read my paragraph entirely you would note that I am AWARE that there are other reasons for the psych tests.. now.. remove the firearm that goes with that authority (Im' not saying we should, btw.. making a point) and the need to worry about how mentally stable an officer is is not as important. The "power" they have over civilians is their ability to use force WITH those weapons and others that are put in their hands.
Shooting an innocent person harms them. Owning a machine gun, a child target shooting or hunting, carrying a gun, etc., harms no one. There are already laws against harming people with guns.
Tell that to the parents of the child that shot that gun and shot himself. Shooting an innocent person doesn't just harm the innocent person..it most severely harms the VICTIM of that person, not to mention the families also affected. If a person that owned a gun only had the potential to hurt themselves and not others I wouldn't care what they did , but the fact that they own firearms gives them the potential to harm others besides themselves. NOw.. that's not to say that they will... BUT they should be mentally stable and proven to be so through psychological testing to make sure they are in order to be able to own, carry and shoot a firearm.
Tell that to the parents of the child that shot that gun and shot himself. Shooting an innocent person doesn't just harm the innocent person..it most severely harms the VICTIM of that person, not to mention the families also affected. If a person that owned a gun only had the potential to hurt themselves and not others I wouldn't care what they did , but the fact that they own firearms gives them the potential to harm others besides themselves. NOw.. that's not to say that they will... BUT they should be mentally stable and proven to be so through psychological testing to make sure they are in order to be able to own, carry and shoot a firearm.
Innocent until proven guilty, in this country. You are in your suggested system treating people as guilty until they prove themselves innocent. A person with a knife, car, swimming pool, common household chemicals, and on and on, has the "potential" to cause harm.
Quote:
Um.. police officers become police officers in the sense that they are not just "civilians".. they are civilians that became officers. If you read my paragraph entirely you would note that I am AWARE that there are other reasons for the psych tests.. now.. remove the firearm that goes with that authority (Im' not saying we should, btw.. making a point) and the need to worry about how mentally stable an officer is is not as important. The "power" they have over civilians is their ability to use force WITH those weapons and others that are put in their hands.
Do the (generally unarmed) British police not undergo tests?
Police are civilians in this country. They are not above other civilians. If they break a law (illegal arrest, violation of civil rights, murder, whatever) they are tried in civilian courts like any other civilian, their position does not protect them legally if they act illegally.
No.. the post was meant to illustrate that a right is NOT absolute.. that there are conditions of such rights..
By convicting the person screaming fire in a theatre it showed that a right to free speech stops when that free speech harms others in society.
Right to bear arms does the same thing. For example, removing that right of the felon to bear arms is a prime example.. because of the harm it causes or could cause society.
Again..Im NOT for banning weapons or allowing people to carry weapons.. I'm AM for adding a criteria to the already set licensing requirements in most states.. ex: psych tests. Our police officers must undergo psych tests before being admitted into the academy because they carry firearms constantly and the same criteria should be in place for civilians. (yes.. I am aware that there are other reasons for the psych tests to potential police officers). And also for age restrictions.
That is a BIG difference from banning all firearms and allowing anyone the right to bear them at all.
Following this logic I guess we need to head off any potential Pricilla Fords and evaluate any one who wants to own a car. And The psyche evals are SO effective at screening cops. Just ask the four people killed by a sherrifs deputy not long back with his department issue AR-15. I certainly don't think some government clown or a head shrinker that have never handled firearms in their lives have any business making policy about how and at what age I decide to train my son in safe handling of weapons. I'm a professional. And I don't trust ANYONE else to instruct MY kid in this area. Thats my business and my responsibility. If we allow the state to stick their noses further in to the raising of our children tell me...where will it end? It won't. Screaming the "all we want are common sense controls" makes less and less sense at all to me. The only people I'll be willing to turn my son over for further training to will be his drill instructors if he follows his current desires and joins the service. By the time he gets there he may be more qualified to instruct them than the other way around if he keeps on the way he is.
Innocent until proven guilty, in this country. You are in your suggested system treating people as guilty until they prove themselves innocent. A person with a knife, car, swimming pool, common household chemicals, and on and on, has the "potential" to cause harm.
Those things you mentioned are not labeled "deadly weapons". A gun is.. there is a BIG difference. There is no presumption of guilt because there is no crime committed. I am suggesting a system that protects the public from a deadly weapon, namely the gun, falling into the hands of someone that is not mentally capable or stable. That's not saying they are "guilty" of anything because no crime has been committed. If they are found to be mentally unstable to own a gun, then they simply do not own a gun and are not guilty of anything. You can ONLY be guilty of something if a crime was committed. Don't try to twist this into anything other than making sure that those that handle firearms are mentally stable!
I still don't get if weapons are not banned..why you would be so opposed to having one more check in place to eliminate the possibility of a weapon being used by someone that is mentally unstable... suicidal, etc etc.
Do the (generally unarmed) British police not undergo tests?
I don't know.. are they? That's a good question one that someone who knows should answer.
Police are civilians in this country. They are not above other civilians. If they break a law (illegal arrest, violation of civil rights, murder, whatever) they are tried in civilian courts like any other civilian, their position does not protect them legally if they act illegally.
You are partially wrong in that. A police officer who shoots someone while on the job gets evaluated by a different criteria than the general public and has it pass through their internal system before any crimal charges are brought to bear on the officers. And, an officers job does not neccesarily end when they leave work, as they carry their guns at all times (with the acception of carrying their guns into a bar, for example, where they would be consuming alcohol).. or atleast a lot of them do. There was one incident on LI where an off duty police officer was eating at a McDonalds and a robbery began at hte McD's. The officer intervened and ended up shooting the suspect dead! Had he been a "civilian" it would have been treated differently..but as it was he was an officer of the law!
Yes.. when an officer commits a crime that is OUT OF THE SCOPE of their work they then loose their standing as an "officer" and can be tried as a "civilian" because they are then in breach of their protect and serve and violated the laws they were hired to uphold.
Following this logic I guess we need to head off any potential Pricilla Fords and evaluate any one who wants to own a car. And The psyche evals are SO effective at screening cops. Just ask the four people killed by a sherrifs deputy not long back with his department issue AR-15.
As I mentioned a few posts back..evaluation needs to be reoccuring as life stress can cause someone to fall "over the edge" .
I certainly don't think some government clown or a head shrinker that have never handled firearms in their lives have any business making policy about how and at what age I decide to train my son in safe handling of weapons. I'm a professional.
First.. who said some head shrinker , as you so nicely put it, would be making policy? Their only job is to evaluate you and your mental stability to own a firearm.. nothing more, nothing less!
And I don't trust ANYONE else to instruct MY kid in this area. Thats my business and my responsibility.
Who said anyone would be instructing your kid? Parents teach their own children how to drive.. they just have to wait till they are legally of age.
If we allow the state to stick their noses further in to the raising of our children tell me...where will it end?
The state doesn't control how you raise your child and putting an age on something as important as a deadly firearm is NOT telling you how to raise your child.. but protecting society AND the child from something as deadly as a weapon. There is a reason why there is a driving age limitation for crying out loud! It makes all the sense in the world to have the same set in place for firearms!
It won't. Screaming the "all we want are common sense controls" makes less and less sense at all to me. The only people I'll be willing to turn my son over for further training to will be his drill instructors if he follows his current desires and joins the service. By the time he gets there he may be more qualified to instruct them than the other way around if he keeps on the way he is.
Again. . nowhere in my post do I mention instruction of weapons The government doesn't dictate who your son learns to drive from Only what age they can legally be on the road to learn to drive and actually drive
Tell that to the parents of the child that shot that gun and shot himself. Shooting an innocent person doesn't just harm the innocent person..it most severely harms the VICTIM of that person, not to mention the families also affected. If a person that owned a gun only had the potential to hurt themselves and not others I wouldn't care what they did , but the fact that they own firearms gives them the potential to harm others besides themselves. NOw.. that's not to say that they will... BUT they should be mentally stable and proven to be so through psychological testing to make sure they are in order to be able to own, carry and shoot a firearm.
Shooting guns is not hard, carrying them about harmlessly isn't either.
I the case in question the people did not own the gun. No amount of requirements for ownership would have prevented this tragedy. Believe me, as a father of two wonderful little boys I can imagine the agony these people must feel. But their tragedy, as great as it may be to them, means little in the bigger picture. I'll say it again, cars kill kids & every child killed is a tragedy but we dont ban cars.
To do so seems silly only because most everybody owns & operates cars safely. The truth is its much more difficult to operate a car & you are much more likely to hurt or kill someone with it that I am with a gun.
Have you ever had a car accident? I have & they caused thousands of dollars of dammage & I still suffer back problems I atribute to it.
But I own & shoot a bunch of guns & nobody has ever been hurt by one.
Its a false assumption that guns are some big evil & kill boatloads of children or people in general. It just sells more papers & is reported on & pushed vigorously.
Logic would say that if people cared about saving kids or lives they would start with the greatest killers, not the most dramatic.
People all have a potential to cause harm & the truth is that legal gun owners cause a significantly less than average amount of this harm & virtually none with guns. Given that reality how will more gun laws inflicted on LEGAL gun ownership make a difference?
IMO it wont, it hasn't in the past. Thats why the real antigun people can usually be made to admit that in the end they want them all.
But even if ALL guns were banned from us lowly civilians there would likely still be places, like the shoot in this topic, where we could go & for a price shoot a gun under strict supervision & this poor family still may have lost their kid.
You should do some research on how often civilians use guns for protection VS how much mayhem is caused by them. I think you would be surprised by this important but ignored statistic. Theres varying results deending on who's results you read but even the ones run by the Govt conclude its a few hundred thousand. Thats a couple hundred thousand people that WILL be victimized every year if guns get banned.
I know you said you are not for banning them, but if you support the antigun movement it dont matter what you want because its what they want, an inch at a time.
Quote:
Again. . nowhere in my post do I mention instruction of weapons The government doesn't dictate who your son learns to drive from Only what age they can legally be on the road to learn to drive and actually drive
Again, they do not dictate when your kid can drive or learn to drive. Only on public roads. As such this is already covered by federal law. By federal law they can actually drive several years before they can actually own a gun let alone carry one in public. [+] Rate this post positively
Shooting guns is not hard, carrying them about harmlessly isn't either.
I the case in question the people did not own the gun. No amount of requirements for ownership would have prevented this tragedy. Believe me, as a father of two wonderful little boys I can imagine the agony these people must feel. But their tragedy, as great as it may be to them, means little in the bigger picture. I'll say it again, cars kill kids & every child killed is a tragedy but we dont ban cars.
NO.. but we do require that the drivers take a driver education course, pass a test including eye exams to be able to drive the vehicle.. AND we restrict the age for driving ,
To do so seems silly only because most everybody owns & operates cars safely. The truth is its much more difficult to operate a car & you are much more likely to hurt or kill someone with it that I am with a gun.
Have you ever had a car accident? I have & they caused thousands of dollars of dammage & I still suffer back problems I atribute to it.
But I own & shoot a bunch of guns & nobody has ever been hurt by one.
Its a false assumption that guns are some big evil & kill boatloads of children or people in general. It just sells more papers & is reported on & pushed vigorously.
Logic would say that if people cared about saving kids or lives they would start with the greatest killers, not the most dramatic.
People all have a potential to cause harm & the truth is that legal gun owners cause a significantly less than average amount of this harm & virtually none with guns. Given that reality how will more gun laws inflicted on LEGAL gun ownership make a difference?
I'm only talking about making sure that those that legally own guns are mentally stable. If you'd pass a psych test, then why worry about having to do so?
IMO it wont, it hasn't in the past. Thats why the real antigun people can usually be made to admit that in the end they want them all.
I'm not anti gun.. but I am for extra safety guidlines in place to protect the public from a loon being able to legally obtain that deadly weapon!
But even if ALL guns were banned from us lowly civilians there would likely still be places, like the shoot in this topic, where we could go & for a price shoot a gun under strict supervision & this poor family still may have lost their kid.
You should do some research on how often civilians use guns for protection VS how much mayhem is caused by them. I think you would be surprised by this important but ignored statistic. Theres varying results deending on who's results you read but even the ones run by the Govt conclude its a few hundred thousand. Thats a couple hundred thousand people that WILL be victimized every year if guns get banned.
I know you said you are not for banning them, but if you support the antigun movement it dont matter what you want because its what they want, an inch at a time.
I never said I supported an anti-gun movement. Simply because I am for more regulation does not mean that I am anti-gun. AFter all the headline topic of this thread is gun CONTROL, NOT Anti Gun or GUn Banning.
I am aware of statistics. I don't argue that there are not as many gun accidents as there are guns that are legally owned. Plane crashes are also not as frequent, but does that mean that we ignore precautions taken at security in airports or on maintenance. NO. We make sure that we eliminate as many "accidents" as we can. For example, if there had been a law in place that said that an 8 year old boy was too young to fire a weapon and handle that gun we'd have one less tragic death.. preventable death.
What I think should happen will not in anyway affect your ability to own a handgun, only the ability of someone that is not equipped to handle such a weapon from owning one. It will not prevent you from bonding with your child on a hunting trip, they can still come along but maybe not with their own weapon that they discharge. It's the time you are spending with them that counts the most, not what they got to shoot at with a gun! You are still teaching them something valuable and when they come of age, they will be able to shoot that gun right alongside with you. Same as being a passenger in a car. THey can still be in it with you, they just can't drive it until they are of age is all. It's not a reality at the moment, all I'm saying is that I favor an age restriction on discharging a weapon.
Again, they do not dictate when your kid can drive or learn to drive. Only on public roads. As such this is already covered by federal law. By federal law they can actually drive several years before they can actually own a gun let alone carry one in public.
TM - you contradicted yourself. You just wrote:[/quote]NO.. but we do require that the drivers take a driver education course, pass a test including eye exams to be able to drive the vehicle.. AND we restrict the age for driving ,[/quote]
Yet earlier, you wrote: [/quote]Who said anyone would be instructing your kid? Parents teach their own children how to drive.. they just have to wait till they are legally of age[/quote]
One time - Parents teach - next time - we require drivers ed
Completely contradictory.
Get your stories straight - you are confusing all of us
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
