'Shoot first' laws make it tougher for burglars in the United States

[M14 Shooter]

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

That's because the vast majority of the time, when used in self-defense, the gun is not fired.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Those are two different subjects each with their pros and cons. As for gun ownership, I think that there should be required courses for those intent on owning a gun – or there should at least be a final exam. After all, one must pass a driving test before he is given a drivers license.

Driving isnt a right. Owning a gun is.

Should there be required courses for voting? Should you have to pass a final exam before you can vote?

And, if you'd like to treat guns like cars -- well, we can have that discussion.
You wont like it, but we can have it.

 

[mattskramer]

The lost 16-year-old kid made his presence known.

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma...195628!8091!-1

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.


I bet that statistic comes in handy when being robbed...

Or when you shoot a lost unarmed foreign exchange student or when you leave a gun with a babysitter who shoots your son.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3558242.stm

Mr Maxfield was seven years old when he was paralyzed by a bullet accidentally fired by a 20-year-old babysitter who was trying to unload a gun.

 

[mattskramer]

Driving isnt a right. Owning a gun is.

Should there be required courses for voting? Should you have to pass a final exam before you can vote?

And, if you'd like to treat guns like cars -- well, we can have that discussion.
You wont like it, but we can have it.

Driving a car is not a right. Okay. Your point is taken. Yet, is it your position, since the constitution does not say otherwise, that anyone off the streets with any reason or no reason should be allowed to buy any type of arm that he wants immediately with no safety catch, no registration numbers, no training, no limit, no nothing?

 

[mattskramer]

Driving a car is not a right. Okay. Your point is taken. Yet, is it your position, since the constitution does not say otherwise, that anyone off the streets with any reason or no reason should be allowed to buy any type of arm that he wants immediately with no safety catch, no registration numbers, no training, no limit, no nothing?

I know this person who was locked up for a few years for theft but he served his time. He was also diagnosed as manic-depressive but he takes his medicine. He wants to by 5 fully automatic machine guns right away. He does not want to wait for a background check. He also plans to remove any cereal numbers. He does not like cereal numbers. I guess that if he has the money, he should walk into a store that may have some and buy them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Driving a car is not a right. Okay. Your point is taken. Yet, is it your position, since the constitution does not say otherwise, that anyone off the streets with any reason or no reason should be allowed to buy any type of arm that he wants immediately with no safety catch, no registration numbers, no training, no limit, no nothing?

The right to arms shall not be infringed.

You can have whatever restrictions you like, so long as they do not infringe the right to arms. If you'd care to put a restriction up for scrutiny, please do.

Remember, however, that a precondition to the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right -- a prior restraint -- is an infringement.

 

[mattskramer]

The right to arms shall not be infringed.

You can have whatever restrictions you like, so long as they do not infringe the right to arms. If you'd care to put a restriction up for scrutiny, please do.

Remember, however, that a precondition to the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right -- a prior restraint -- is an infringement.

But don’t background checks, requiring safety features on the gun, limiting what types of guns you can have, requiring some type of proof that you can handle a gun – don’t those infringe on your right to have guns?

 

[mattskramer]

But don’t background checks, requiring safety features on the gun, limiting what types of guns you can have, requiring some type of proof that you can handle a gun – don’t those infringe on your right to have guns?

Again, you seem to be ducking and dodging the question. Do you think that there should be absolutely no limit on gun ownership?

 

[Shogun]

Or when you shoot a lost unarmed foreign exchange student or when you leave a gun with a babysitter who shoots your son.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3558242.stm

Mr Maxfield was seven years old when he was paralyzed by a bullet accidentally fired by a 20-year-old babysitter who was trying to unload a gun.

Shit Happens. How many foreign exchange students need to worry about being accidentally shot compared to the number of burglaries that happen? I'm betting the foreigners can wipe their brow with relief knowing that their demographic is laughably miniscule to that of criminals...

Like I said, it's easy to tell someone the statistic low-frequency of criminal behaviour... until getting robbed. A single random encounter with a foreign exchange student won't erase the reality of crime and the imperative of self defense.

 

[mattskramer]

Shit Happens. How many foreign exchange students need to worry about being accidentally shot compared to the number of burglaries that happen? I'm betting the foreigners can wipe their brow with relief knowing that their demographic is laughably miniscule to that of criminals...

Like I said, it's easy to tell someone the statistic low-frequency of criminal behaviour... until getting robbed. A single random encounter with a foreign exchange student won't erase the reality of crime and the imperative of self defense.

And on the flip side of that, it is easy to tell someone that the right to have arms should not be limited at all until someone gets unintentially shot by an overly paranoid trigger-happy ignoramus with a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know this person who was locked up for a few years for theft but he served his time.

Convicted felons may not legally have/buy firearms under federal law. Their right to arms has been removed by due process. As such, this does not violate the 2nd amendment.

He was also diagnosed as manic-depressive but he takes his medicine.

If he hasnt been adjudicated metally inform or involutarily committed to a metal institution, he has the same rights as everyone else.

He wants to by 5 fully automatic machine guns right away.

Is there a machinegun that -isn't- fully automatic? No, there isn't.
So do I. I wish I had this guy's money - he could be spending $100,000, easy.

He does not want to wait for a background check.

He shouldn't have to -- its an infringement.
A right delayed is a right denied, you know.

He also plans to remove any cereal numbers. He does not like cereal numbers.

He's not buying Frosted Flakes -- it's serial numbers, as in 'a number in a series'.
I don't believe that doing this is illegal.

 

[Shogun]

Again, you seem to be ducking and dodging the question. Do you think that there should be absolutely no limit on gun ownership?

i'll answer this question.

There should be NO limit on what guns can be owned for legal citizens with a clean criminal background. Uncle Bob isn't going to turn into a Contra just because he adds an automatic to the collection.

For those with Felonies (especially, violent crimes associated with using guns), like voting, they can lose their right to own guns.

Let the ATF compile all criminal activity involving guns for the last decade and get a list of what guns are ACTUALLY being used in crime. THOSE particular guns can trigger a background check. an uzi might SOUND mean and evil but are they really being used by criminals? If not, then why limit the liberty of Uncle Bob who isn't going to rob a bank just because he added an Uzi to the collection?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, you seem to be ducking and dodging the question. Do you think that there should be absolutely no limit on gun ownership?

I'm not ducking the question, sport - you just arent asking the question is a meaningful way.

 

[mattskramer]

Convicted felons may not legally have/buy firearms under federal law. Their right to arms has been removed by due process. As such, this does not violate the 2nd amendment.


If he hasnt been adjudicated metally inform or involutarily committed to a metal institution, he has the same rights as everyone els.e


Is there a machinegun that -isn't- fully automatic? No, there isn't.
So do I. I wish I had this guy's money.


He shouldn't have to -- its an infringement.
A right delayed is a right denied, you know.


He's not buying Frosted Flakes
Serial numbers, as in 'a number in a series'.
I don't believe that doing this is illegal.

Wow. Please correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you think that there should be no limit whatsoever on gun ownership. Okay. Thanks for your answer. We agree to disagree. I just think that there sould be some safety feature. (proof that you can handle a gun responsibly or a safety-lock for the gun or a limit as to the power that the gun can have (I wonder if I should be allowed to buy a bazooka. Do you know of any place that sells fully functional bazookas/) or a background check).

 

[Shogun]

And on the flip side of that, it is easy to tell someone that the right to have arms should not be limited at all until someone gets unintentially shot by an overly paranoid trigger-happy ignoramus with a gun.

Well, then, I guess it's time to boot out all the foreign exchange students who think that they might become a victim to our second amendment. The liberty of the gun owner is protected... NOT the liberty of a foreign exchange student to be here. Accidents happen. Trying to blame life on, again, a laughably siniscule demographic is beyond lame. If you applied the same standard to automobiles then there would be NO cars or we'd drive 8 miles an hour. Not to mention that pesky little second amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just think that there sould be some safety feather.

What's a safety feather?

proof that you can handle a gun responsibly

Proof you can vote responsibly?

or a limit as to the power that the gun can have

Pray tell -- what limit would that be?

I wonder if I should be allowed to buy a bazooka.

"Bazookas" and their ammunition are legal.

 

[Shogun]

Wow. Please correct me if I am wrong but it looks like you think that there should be no limit whatsoever on gun ownership. Okay. Thanks for your answer. We agree to disagree. I just think that there sould be some safety feature. (proof that you can handle a gun responsibly or a safety-lock for the gun or a limit as to the power that the gun can have (I wonder if I should be allowed to buy a bazooka. Do you know of any place that sells fully functional bazookas/) or a background check).

If you are a legal citizen with a clean background void of violent crimes using weapons then go for it.. Go get that Bazooka and have lots of fun. Notice that no one is giving blank checks to gun owners who kill purposefully kill people. I'm trusting that having a bazooka isn't going to make you Mr. Hyde yourself into some gun crazed killer.

 

[mattskramer]

Well, then, I guess it's time to boot out all the foreign exchange students who think that they might become a victim to our second amendment. The liberty of the gun owner is protected... NOT the liberty of a foreign exchange student to be here. Accidents happen. Trying to blame life on, again, a laughably siniscule demographic is beyond lame. If you applied the same standard to automobiles then there would be NO cars or we'd drive 8 miles an hour. Not to mention that pesky little second amendment.

You are fixated on the exchange student. That was just one of many incidences. What about the dumb babysitter shot the child that she was babysitting? I also recall a story about a father who unintentionally shot his daughter while she was trying to sneak into her bedroom from a late date.

I’m not saying that we should disarm American citizens. I’m just suggesting that there should be some precautions and limits.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I’m not saying that we should disarm American citizens. I’m just suggesting that there should be some precautions and limits.

I will fully support any gun control law that meets two conditions:
-It guarantees that criminals, stupid people and children will not get guns
-It does not infringe on my right to arms in any way

If you create/find one of these laws, you let me know.

 

[mattskramer]

What's a safety feather?

Perhaps a switch at the trigger that can be set and must be released in order for the trigger to be pulled.

Proof you can vote responsibly?

No. I don't see anything potentially fatal if some ignorant people vote for "the wrong person". I'm talking about a simple certificate from a gun safety class that you passed.

Pray tell -- what limit would that be?

A double-barrel shotgun, or a pistol with nothing more than a 12-bullet clip. If you can't hit a target with any of those guns, you have no business having a gun.

I’m not suggesting that all of these features be implemented but would you be opposed to the implementation of just one?