Author Topic: Do guns kill people??? (Read 2143 times)

Neubob · « **Reply #45 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:20:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Only fitting. You oughta need a visa to visit Texas.

Are you saying that I'm not welcome in texas, that entering texas should be a privilege, or that owning a western collection isn't something to be entered into lightly?

Arlo · « **Reply #46 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:22:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
Are you saying that I'm not welcome in texas, that entering texas should be a privilege, or that owning a western collection isn't something to be entered into lightly?

Yes.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #47 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:27:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Gun control. I knew some didn't really fear it.

That is not gun control. That is human control.

Arlo · « **Reply #48 on:** December 02, 2007, 11:40:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
That is not gun control. That is human control.

I'm an anti-semantic.

Humans do stupid things. Til that stops, society will probably make laws to protect us from ourselves. That is, until enough stupidity floats to the top of the food chain and the honorable gentlemen and ladies from wherever forget what the point of legislation was or who it was designed to protect. At that point just arm congress and reinstate a dueling code. Laz' wet dream.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 03, 2007, 12:08:44 AM »

WOW!!!! Posted this thread, went to watch the Steelers game and came home to 2 pages of stuff.

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH and to Jam83, I've always had bullets laying around the place and NEVER have I had one one that just up and went off all on it's own, so NO bullets don't kill people either.

The point I wanted to make with this thread is that a gun, just like a car, is no more dangerous than the person who has control of it.

A properly maintained gun is no more of a threat to anyone than a properly maintained car. It ALWAYS comes down to the person behind the wheel or the trigger that causes the harm.

You can't blame the machine for improper use, only the operator of said machine.

That isn't to say that the machine doesn't sometime break or malfunction and cause harm to someone. Those cases are rare however. Most situations be it a gun or a car boil down to human error, willfull intent, or incompetence.

Arlo · « **Reply #50 on:** December 03, 2007, 12:16:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
WOW!!!!

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many loaded/round chambered guns with safety off in the bathroom, again? I'm thinking of taking bets.

Yeager · « **Reply #51 on:** December 03, 2007, 01:24:14 AM »

Typically guns dont kill people but they make it very easy for people to kill people.

But of course, I like guns because they make killing bad people with guns trying to hurt me much easier to kill (did that make sense?)

SD67 · « **Reply #52 on:** December 03, 2007, 01:44:20 AM »

I want my guns back:cry
King Johnny made me give hand them over (for a laughable amount of "compensation" I might add).

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** December 03, 2007, 09:16:07 AM »

Is there anyone here who thinks that the few simple safety rules needed to own and operate a firearm are anything like the safety training and skill level required to drive a car or fly an airplane?

Yet.. there are no laws at all preventing anyone from buying and owning a car or airplane. None. Any kind pretty much. They all have more potential for harm to others than any firearm that I am aware of.

Power tools require more training and skill yet.. there are no rules. no restrictions.

All these items have something in common.. they do not posses a will of their own... some cars I have owned seemed to I will admit but....

So why the fear of firearms? "potential"???

We gladly get on the road with 2 tons of car hurtling at us at 79 mph or more every few seconds... any nut could just... twitch the wheel.. and it is all over.

These same fellow citizens that we demonize as nut jobs incapable of owning firearms are hurtling at us in two tons of weapon hundreds... thousands of times a day... yet we fear not... they fly above us in bombs.. yet we fear them not.

Why? because we have become used to it and see that the freedom outwieghs the risk. We see that our fellow citizens (despite the few who do run people down on purpose) are not whack jobs.

Yet somehow... when they own a gun.. it all changes?

lazs

Neubob · « **Reply #54 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:21:31 AM »

It's a lot of psychology, Lazs.

Guns are made to kill, or at least inflict damage on a target of some kind. Cars and power tools only do so when mishandled.

Guns are objects of recreation for a majority of owners--the biggest exceptions being cops and soldiers, and it has been thoroughly pumped into our heads that even for those two professions, the use of a gun should be considered last resort. They are not directly necessary to the continuation of our economy the way that cars and power tools are.

Finally, after years and decades of public service announcements, billboards, movies and after-school specials, the image of a loaded gun in the hands of a curious 7 year old has been burned into our collective mind. A gun in the home, in the minds of many, is a tragedy waiting to happen. Couple that with the fact that we do not depend on them as much as we do on saws and drills and SUVs, and you get demonization.

Not saying I agree with all this, I can just see how these factors lead to general attitudes about firearms--especially in the minds of mothers.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #55 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:38:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
There is no constitutional right to drive or fly. That which is licenced is a privilege, not a right. The privilege is granted you by the "state". Rights are not granted by any state, they are only infringed by the state.

Wrong. The constitution says that the government can only regulate those who travel and are involved in commerce. Meaning, someone who does business out of their car, like an 18 Wheeler, a Contractor, or traveling salesmen.

It does not expressly say that everyone has the right to free travel, however, as per the 10th amendment, the line of the constitution means that the government has NO right to limit or license the non-commercial travel of the citizens.

Neubob · « **Reply #56 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:53:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wrong. The constitution says that the government can only regulate those who travel and are involved in commerce. Meaning, someone who does business out of their car, like an 18 Wheeler, a Contractor, or traveling salesmen.

It does not expressly say that everyone has the right to free travel, however, as per the 10th amendment, the line of the constitution means that the government has NO right to limit or license the non-commercial travel of the citizens.

Traveling and operating the means of travel are two different things. The government doesn't, and can't, as far as I know, control the movement of passengers within the borders of this country (unless they are under investigation or about to be prosecuted). They can have a say in who gets to be behind the wheel.

If the 10th amendment doesn't make these distinctions clear enough, it's because vagueness was an intended part of the recipe of the constitution. It's also because the drafters of that amendment never saw our modern interstates, and airspace.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #57 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:58:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
Traveling and operating the means of travel are two different things. The government doesn't, and can't, as far as I know, control the movement of passengers within the borders of this country (unless they are under investigation or about to be prosecuted). They can have a say in who gets to be behind the wheel.

If the 10th amendment doesn't make these distinctions clear enough, it's because vagueness was an intended part of the recipe of the constitution. It's also because the drafters of that amendment never saw our modern interstates, and airspace.

So you're saying that never, while the constitution was being written, did the founders travel between one state to another in some sort of vehicle?

Also, by your logic, there is nothing wrong with licensing gun owners.

Neubob · « **Reply #58 on:** December 03, 2007, 12:06:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
So you're saying that never, while the constitution was being written, did the founders travel between one state to another in some sort of vehicle?

Also, by your logic, there is nothing wrong with licensing gun owners.

All I'm saying is that the 10th amendment in no way precludes the government from taking it upon themselves to restrict who DRIVES a car, truck, train, plane, boat or carriage. I'm sure the founders travelled. I do not know if they drove. Maybe in their time licenses were not required. the fact that they are now, however, does not interfere with the 10th amendment.

They can't tell you where to go, but they can tell you whether you can operate the machine that gets you there--as long as it's on government transitways... On the flip side of the coin, making driving a privilege does not take away your right to travel.

As for guns and licensing, that has nothing to do with freedom of movement. It's a much harder question in my mind, especially after my own experiences with buying a firearm (in Blacksburg VA, of all places) just 2 summers ago.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #59 on:** December 03, 2007, 01:25:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Neubob
All I'm saying is that the 10th amendment in no way precludes the government from taking it upon themselves to restrict who DRIVES a car, truck, train, plane, boat or carriage. I'm sure the founders travelled. I do not know if they drove. Maybe in their time licenses were not required. the fact that they are now, however, does not interfere with the 10th amendment.

They can't tell you where to go, but they can tell you whether you can operate the machine that gets you there--as long as it's on government transitways... On the flip side of the coin, making driving a privilege does not take away your right to travel.

As for guns and licensing, that has nothing to do with freedom of movement. It's a much harder question in my mind, especially after my own experiences with buying a firearm (in Blacksburg VA, of all places) just 2 summers ago.

Yes, it does say it. As per the 10th (and 9th) amendment, because the constitution doesn't specifically say that it is a right of the government to license drivers, that specifically means that it the people have the right to NOT be licensed.

The mere act of licensing means that they have the ability to deny a license application, thus removing someone's ability to access a Constitutional Right. If there was no chance of government using a license negatively, nor denying a person's ability to drive, then there is nothing wrong with it. But you and I know that it is not possible for the government to act morally.