Author Topic: Do guns kill people??? (Read 2005 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:23:57 PM »

neubob.. I absolutely do understand that about the myth and fear and exaggerations revolving (no pun intended) around firearms.

The truth is that vehicles and guns both are used for recreation and they both have about the same potential for killing but one.. the vehicle.. is far more difficult to operate safely and is far more dangerous. The accident rate of both of these items bears this out.

lazs

bongaroo · « **Reply #61 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:32:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
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.

multiple loaded weapons laying around the house proves nothing but your idiocy.

7/10 for some good responses to a st00pid troll

bongaroo · « **Reply #62 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:37:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.

well, i'm all for our right to freely travel the nation, but in your picture of how it should run I would imagine it being very ironic when the half blind 89 year old lady ran you over because she didn't need to show she could see far or clearly enough to operate a vehicle and no license means no eye check...thats just dumb

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:47:56 PM »

well... just like firearms... The second is for "able bodied".. this would mean sane and... well... not blind.

You could put restrictions on driving based on being able bodied too...

The restrictions on driving are.... were... in proportion to the danger.. far more skill is required and far more learning than that of a firearm say.

But, like anything else.. we can see the slippery slope.. the lefties are never happy with a few "sensible" restrictions... driving restrictions have morphed into a mish mash of feel good busybody crap like seatbelt laws and eating laws and talking on the phone laws and all sorts of things... give em an inch...

That is the problem.. most would not be upset with taking a test for firearms ownership.. one that cost nothing and was convienient. It could be stricter say for machine guns.. one would not care about a license that cost nothing for concealed carry if it was convienient and... shall issue and.. none of these would require anyone to tell anyone else what guns they owned or what the serial numbers were.

lazs

Neubob · « **Reply #64 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:56:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
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.

No, it does not. Just because something is not true, or not specifically mentioned, does not automatically guarantee that its opposite is true, or intended. Even when the opposing view is refuted, there has to be active support for the presumption. This is the one of the most basic principals you'll see on logical reasoning section of the LSAT, which if you're lucky, you'll never take or even look at...

As for the constitution, there are many things that it does not specifically say. It is vague by design. If the constitution tried to address every aspect of every situation conceivable, it would be millions of pages long and still be hopelessly inadequate... When the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it comes under the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, where things like legislative intent, history and practicality are taken into account. It's what makes the study of such a brief document so daunting, and is a basic principal of Conlaw, which, if you're lucky, you'll never take or even look at.

And on a practical note, I think that licensing the use of such things as a car is reasonable. The requirements are basic, and it allows for a degree of order. No, I do not like bigger government. Bigger government is dangerous, inefficient, and it smelly... I just don't want 8 year old kids, or blind 90 year olds driving cars with me on the freeway.

Now, to combine all this, the fact that the constitution does not mention licensing of motor vehicles may give you the leverage you need to argue the matter in the supreme court. I doubt they'd bother listening to you, but you can certainly try.

Maverick · « **Reply #65 on:** December 03, 2007, 02:58:53 PM »

laser,

The framers didn't have licenses to operate animal drawn conveyances.

Transportation, by it's very nature involves interstate commerce, if not as a vendor then as a buyer. If you drive your vehicle you are already engaging in a means of interstate commerce. The vehicle was not made in your state most likely and the same for the fuel and oil. As soon as you fill it up you have just purchased items from across the state line (or national border for that matter) and will need to continue to do so to keep using it.

It's only through the agreement of reciprocity that your state issued drivers license is recognized in any other state. The same goes for the registration of the vehicle. Each individual state could conceivably charge you a registration and operator tax just to cross the state line in that vehicle.

As already stated you have freedom of movement, as a passenger in a means of conveyance. You do not have a constitutional right to be the operator of the conveyance. You can and will be sanctioned by the state, any state, for not having a permit (another word for license) to operate a motor vehicle in that state.

You shouldn't have a problem in riding a bicycle around all you want as long as you are not on the states prohibited roadways. Oh and BTW you will still have to follow state law in operating the bicycle or again face state sanctions. Yes you CAN get a ticket on a bicycle you just don't need a license to operate it.

Think Amish buggies and required safety equipment and rules for operation. While no license would be required, you will still face state sanctions for failure to comply with state regulations (law) regarding the operation of that equipment on the states roads.

My advise to you would be to go get a bicycle or a horse and buggy and drive all you want without a license. See the country all you want without an operators permit.

Curval · « **Reply #66 on:** December 03, 2007, 03:22:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bongaroo
multiple loaded weapons laying around the house proves nothing but your idiocy.

LOL

Indeed.

I'm guessing he has no small kids at his place. Would the guns be put away if little kids came over with relatives or something? I'll bet they would. As to WHY...well no particular reason...given that the inanimate objects wouldn't be a danger to anyone.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:39:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
LOL

Indeed.

I'm guessing he has no small kids at his place. Would the guns be put away if little kids came over with relatives or something? I'll bet they would. As to WHY...well no particular reason...given that the inanimate objects wouldn't be a danger to anyone.

You are corerect that I have no children living in my apartment with me. My kids live with my ex, but they do come over all the time. Also under normal circumstances, actually all the time, I keep my firearms locked up in my gun safe with the exception of my shotgun. I always keep that loaded with 6 in the tube (yes I have a magazine extension on it) and an empty chamber, safety ON. My weapons in the safe always have at least one loaded magazine or speed loader ready to go but no rounds in the weapons themselves.

I DO NOT however lock my shotgun up when my kids do come over. They know not to touch any of my guns without asking first. If they ask, and they do from time to time, I gladly take them out and let my kids handle them under my constant supervision. Both my kids (son age 11, daughter age 9) understand firearms safety and they also know that they can get hurt or killed by not following the rules.

As a responsible gun owner, with children I have taken the responsibility upon myself to properly train them. My son recieved his first gun last year for Christmas at age 10. I bought him a Ruger Model 77/22 bolt action rifle. It hangs on the wall in his bedroom in a custom gun rack I made for it. I however keep the ammo locked up in my safe. When he is old enough to go buy ammo legally for his gun then he can take the responsibility for storing his own ammo.

Next year my daughter gets her first gun. She'll be 10 years old and properly trained as well. Like I do with my son though, I'll keep the ammo secured with all the rest.

BUT......the whole point of my initial post was to prove that a gun will not jump up and kill someone all by itself, thus debunking the popular misconception that guns are somehow inherantly dangerous. The ONLY way a gun can hurt or kill anyone or anything is due to willfull intent or negligence on the part of the person holding the gun.

Also to those that say a gun is designed to kill people, they are wrong with that assumption. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. That is all. It just so happens that a projectile traveling at high velocity tends to cause severe trauma if it hits a person, hence guns make effective killing tools.

Arlo · « **Reply #68 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:44:55 PM »

Did you make up a fib to prove a "vital" point on the AHBB? Or did you tempt fate thereby ignoring the wisdom of gun safety you taught the kids you apparently don't mind orphaning should your "important experiment" go awry?

Curval · « **Reply #69 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:55:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
You are corerect that I have no children living in my apartment with me. My kids live with my ex, but they do come over all the time. Also under normal circumstances, actually all the time, I keep my firearms locked up in my gun safe with the exception of my shotgun. I always keep that loaded with 6 in the tube (yes I have a magazine extension on it) and an empty chamber, safety ON. My weapons in the safe always have at least one loaded magazine or speed loader ready to go but no rounds in the weapons themselves.

I DO NOT however lock my shotgun up when my kids do come over. They know not to touch any of my guns without asking first. If they ask, and they do from time to time, I gladly take them out and let my kids handle them under my constant supervision. Both my kids (son age 11, daughter age 9) understand firearms safety and they also know that they can get hurt or killed by not following the rules.

As a responsible gun owner, with children I have taken the responsibility upon myself to properly train them. My son recieved his first gun last year for Christmas at age 10. I bought him a Ruger Model 77/22 bolt action rifle. It hangs on the wall in his bedroom in a custom gun rack I made for it. I however keep the ammo locked up in my safe. When he is old enough to go buy ammo legally for his gun then he can take the responsibility for storing his own ammo.

Next year my daughter gets her first gun. She'll be 10 years old and properly trained as well. Like I do with my son though, I'll keep the ammo secured with all the rest.

BUT......the whole point of my initial post was to prove that a gun will not jump up and kill someone all by itself, thus debunking the popular misconception that guns are somehow inherantly dangerous. The ONLY way a gun can hurt or kill anyone or anything is due to willfull intent or negligence on the part of the person holding the gun.

Also to those that say a gun is designed to kill people, they are wrong with that assumption. A gun is designed to fire a projectile. That is all. It just so happens that a projectile traveling at high velocity tends to cause severe trauma if it hits a person, hence guns make effective killing tools.

It's like getting a lecture from a drill sergent...or better yet an ATF officer.

lol

john9001 · « **Reply #70 on:** December 03, 2007, 05:56:02 PM »

wait a minnit, a point was made that a loaded gun laying on a table will not shoot anybody on it's own, then somebody say,"well what about kids?"

That puts a human into the picture, so now you have a person/kid touching the gun which is something different.

less spin , more facts.

Arlo · « **Reply #71 on:** December 03, 2007, 06:02:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
wait a minnit, a point was made ....

Argument pretty well falls apart there.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #72 on:** December 03, 2007, 06:04:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Did you make up a fib to prove a "vital" point on the AHBB? Or did you tempt fate thereby ignoring the wisdom of gun safety you taught the kids you apparently don't mind orphaning should your "important experiment" go awry?

No, I did it only because I know nothing would have happened. I've been around guns my entire life and I have NEVER seen one just go off all by itself. I have seen plenty of close calls but again they were all due to improper handling or poor maintnance on the part of the person shooting or owning the weapon.

I have never had a close call. My weapons are all properly maintained, and when I have a weapon in my hand, loaded or not, I ALWAYS follow the rules for proper safety.

I also handload much of my own ammunition. Several reasons for this. 1 it's cheaper than buying factory ammo. 2 I KNOW that the ammo I shoot is quality and isn't going to cause me any problems. The only ammo I buy in bulk is .22LR and I only buy Winchester XX 37 grain copper jacketed hollow points. It's the most reliable 22 ammo I have found to date that shoots well out of most guns I've fired it from.

Curval · « **Reply #73 on:** December 03, 2007, 06:05:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
wait a minnit, a point was made that a loaded gun laying on a table will not shoot anybody on it's own, then somebody say,"well what about kids?"

That puts a human into the picture, so now you have a person/kid touching the gun which is something different.

less spin , more facts.

lol

Read it again. I already agreed that his highly scientific experiment proved his glaringly obvious point.

The issue where kids came up revolved around the wisdom of the method of conducting said highly scientific experiment.

You are trying to spin now. Do you think that this particular mode of experimentation (no matter how highly scientific) is one a responsible gun owner should be undertaking? Loading up guns and leaving them around to see if they would jump up and fire on thier own? Seriously?

Arlo · « **Reply #74 on:** December 03, 2007, 06:21:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hornet33
No, I did it only because I know nothing would have happened. I've been around guns my entire life and I have NEVER seen one just go off all by itself.

So you did do this bit of foolishness to make a point to your AH buddies online who weren't physically present to witness science at work.

Divorced due to irreconcileable differences over common sense? Use better discretion, I implore ya.

Been around guns and other gun owners my entire life, as well. Can't think of one reason not to call you stupid, at this point.