Guns (Merged Thread) (alcohol, spend, facts, own)

[Noahma]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by Noahma To an American this would be of no significance, but America has already proven that it will kidnap Non-Americans anywhere in the world and treat them as people who have no rights at all.
The American government has also admitted to have lied to their allies (at least the Dutch government) about not using our airports to transport prisoners to countries where torture was allowed.
I also find it hypocritical to declare war on terror but then do not recognise terrorists as pow, because according to the Geneva convention you are not allowed to torture war prisoners.

Neither is rape, but it still violates the basic human right of the individual.
The American government is just as 'civil' as the terrorists they combat.

the Geneva Convention is referring to soldiers of a country, not to individual people committing crimes against a nation such as America. They are not uniformed soldiers.

Rape is against the law here, You really need to get out of your country and experience the world over here. You seem to think that Americans are a bunch of barbarians that run around killing and raping others. Your arguments so far are not based in any fact, but in one line story's you seem to be hearing on your television. Our government has gone to extreme Lents to keep civilian casualties down to a minimum. We could have just kept with our old WWII way of bombing areas, you know, Carpet the entire area with 500lb.bombs and hope to hit the target. We use precision guided weapons that will land within a few inches of the target, We target ones that are wanting to KILL us. It is a kill or be killed situation, you cannot really believe that if we talk to these people that WANT TO KILL anyone that does not agree with you a good idea? Nothing will stop someone that WANTS TO KILL YOU except the same life preserving instinct that all humans have. I could care less if someone breaks into my home and takes my things while I am upstairs, but if they come near the stairs, or threaten my life, or the lives of my family. That will be the very last thing they say or do. They will be DEAD. My life is important to me, my family's life is important to me. The criminals life must not be as important to them if they are going to risk it for some cheap plastic crap that I may own.

Get off your high and mighty horse, and experience America, instead of believing everything you hear from people that have never been here, or experience the American way of life either.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Noahma

They are not uniformed soldiers.

But they are still individuals who have basic human rights.
Your American government even threatened with invading the Netherlands if we, the UN, ever had the notion to drag an American soldier in front of the war tribunal in The Hague.

Get off your high and mighty horse,

I find this deeply ironic coming from an American.
It should be the other way around.

But how you deal with your gun problems is up to you and not me; I’m just giving you my perspective.

[swagger]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll join in anyway...

Originally Posted by TristansMommy

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense. [ Kellermann and Reay, N.E. Journal of Medicine]

This includes, without any doubt, suicides. Fifty-seven percent of all firearm deaths in the United States are suicides. (http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm - broken link)

Isn't a bit unfair to include those in a statement like the one I quoted above? I know you're not the source of that information, but Kellermann and the Journal of Medicine have an obvious agenda. Their "job" is to distort the numbers to support that agenda. You have the option of accepting it on blind faith or taking it with a grain of salt and verifying the data they're presenting. I choose to question statistics such as that which seem very, very far out of line with my real world experiences and those of the people I know. In this case, I can see how they're reaching that conclusion and deem it to be invalid. I also know now that any information coming from that source is to automatically be considered suspect.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Personally letting everyone arm up like Rambo so we can all be vigilantes is not a solution other than making everyone more afraid of everyone else.

I was wondering when the "V" word would appear.

Let's be clear about what a vigilante is:

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

1. a member of a vigilance committee.
noun
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.

What we are discussing here, with regard to personal protection, is not vigilantism. Defending one's self against an attacker is self defense. The defender is not playing judge and jury - they are saving their life, or that of another. There is a HUGE difference.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

Go observe some geriatric patients in a hospital that have hallucinations or even patients that are detoxing from substance abuse because they lost a job. I've seen them get very violent. I have no doubt that out in the real world if they had a gun they'd shoot their own mother. In addition, most people don't really take care of their mental health.

In response to that, I offer this:

Originally Posted by NRA

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
...

As you can see, the people you're concerned about with your above statement are already included in the class of people who are not legally allowed to own or possess a firearm. No new laws needed.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

A criminal holds up a convenience store and 3 vigilantes all draw and shoot to stop the bad man and they are just escalating the scenario.

First, see my comment about using the term "vigilante" above. Second, I believe you're wrong here. The situation isn't being "escalated." It's 3 times more likely to end positively - with the bad guy either surrendering and leaving with police or not surrendering and leaving for the morgue. Either way, he's 3 times less likely to harm an innocent.

Originally Posted by odinloki1

People who leave guns out so kids can shoot themselves and each other.

When I'm home, I typically have a loaded gun sitting on top of the cabinet next to my desk. I live with my girlfriend and her two boys (12 and 14). I'm not concerned about them doing anything with the gun because they've been raised properly and educated about guns and the danger that the improper use or handling of guns can pose.

A gun isn't some mystical magnetic object that has the ability to pull a child to it, force their finger to the triger and make them squeeze it. It's a machine - nothing more. We also have a deep fryer in the kitchen - they know to leave that alone, too. It's amazing what good parenting can accomplish.

Originally Posted by TKramar

Trust is overrated. In the heat of an argument, rational thought is the first thing to go. I'm not saying that the other person, or I, would not be remorseful AFTERWARDS...I'm saying there would be NO regrets at the instant of shooting. Anger is a strong emotion.

I've been angry. Very angry. Very, VERY angry. I have NEVER even considered shooting the person I was angry at. If you believe that you're capable of doing that during a heated argument, then by all means, do not buy a gun. Not everyone is as impulsive or has the tendencies toward violence that you apparently do, however. This is proven by the lack of gun violence (yes, I said "lack of") in this country, relative to the number of gun owners.

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Why then do you need a drivers licence to drive a car? Don't you have the (constitutional?) right to travel freely within your own borders?

We can move around, sure. I don't know of anything in the Constitution that defines it as a "right", but for the sake of argument, let's say that it is.

Moving about and driving a car are two entirely different things. I can use a car to move from point A to point B. I can also take a bus, have a friend drive me, charter a helicopter, ride a bike, use roller skates or just plain old walk. There's no requirement for me to operate an automobile in order to go to the store, visit a friend or tour the country.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by swagger

There's no requirement for me to operate an automobile in order to go to the store, visit a friend or tour the country.

But there is if you want to drive a car.
You don't need a license to defend yourself, but is my opinion that like with a car you should need a license to defend yourself with a gun.
Both the car and the gun are potentially deadly in the hands of untrained people.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by swaggerBut there is if you want to drive a car.
You don't need a license to defend yourself, but is my opinion that like with a car you should need a license to defend yourself with a gun.
Both the car and the gun are potentially deadly in the hands of untrained people.

So are knives, bricks, big sticks, and scissors.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

So are knives, bricks, big sticks, and scissors.

Guns are much easier to operate; you only have to point and squeeze the trigger. Even children can do this.
I have yet to see the 1st toddler who can kill a grown-up in a knife fight.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by AmaznjohnGuns are much easier to operate; you only have to point ant squeeze the trigger. Even children can do this.
I have yet to see the 1st toddler who can kill a grown-up in a knife fight.

So, now the argument is different. It's not whether the weapon can kill someone, but whether a child could use it to kill an adult. I don't know many toddlers who can drive a vehicle well enough to endanger an adult.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

So, now the argument is different. It's not whether the weapon can kill someone, but whether a child could use it to kill an adult.

No not at all.
It is not my fault that guns are made in such a way that even the mentally challenged can use them.
Same goes for driving cars, with the possible exception of driving stick shift.
( altho, nowadays kids can learn this in computer games).

[Amaznjohn]

BTW Tricky D, we do not have a constitutional right to drive a vehicle. This is a privilege provided to those who meet the qualifications. But, yes we do have the right to free movement. However, if we deny rights to others, i.e. stealing, murder, etc., our rights can be restricted. Thus, the reason felons are not allowed to own a gun.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by AmaznjohnNo not at all.
It is not my fault that guns are made in such a way that even the mentally challenged can use them.
Same goes for driving cars, with the possible exception of driving stick shift.
( altho, nowadays kids can learn this in computer games).

I'm sorry. I'm not following you. First you stated that because a gun, like a car, can be used to harm someone, ownership or use should be licensed. When I provided examples of other devices which could be used to harm someone you then moved the goalpost to include a device that can even be used by a toddler to harm an adult. Then when I explained that toddlers can't really use a car to harm someone (they can't reach the accelerator), you provided this post. Now, are you saying that anything that can be used by the mentally challenged to harm someone should be licensed? If so, then one must also include bricks, knives, scissors, and big sticks again.