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

[M14 Shooter]

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

You mean a safety?
Who is arguing against there being safeties on guns?

No. I don't see anything potentially fatal if some ignorant people vote for "the wrong person".

Then you arent looking hard enough -- look what happened when all those morons on the red states voted for GWB.
Imagine where we'd beif they had to have taken a course and pass a test.

I'm talking about a simple certificate from a gun safety class that you passed.

Which is an infringement.

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.

You said that there should be a limit to the power that the gun can have.
This doesnt have anything to do with power.

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

I oppose implementation of any restriction that violates the constitution.
Why aren't you?

 

[Shogun]

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.

YOU keep bringing up that once situation as if it were, somehow, reflective of anything. It's not. one of MANY MORE instances than burglaries and robberies and rapes? Show me your source.

I guess the DUMB babysiter should be more responsible with her job and maybe not let the kids play in glass shards with butcher knives and matches too. Or, we can ban windows, cutlery and matchbooks in order to facilitate the retarded assumption that LIFE will become 100% safer despite the DUMB BABYSITTER variable...


I've posted my willingness to limit guns.If we hid behind every shitty scenerio to come paired with liberty then we'd never leave our padded rooms. For christs fucking sake, dude.. women die from using TAMPONS.

 

[mattskramer]

You mean a safety?
Who is arguing against there being safeties on guns?


Then you arent looking hard enough -- look what happened when all those morons on the red states voted for GWB.
Imagine where we'd beif they had to have taken a course and pass a test.


Which is an infringement.


You said that there should be a limit to the power that the gun can have.
This doesnt have anything to do with power.


I oppose implementation of any restriction that violates the constitution.
Why aren't you?

Okay. So you support background checks to be sure that a convicted felon is not sold a gun and you support safeties on guns. You are not so much of a reckless gun nut as I had thought.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. So you support background checks to be sure that a convicted felon is not sold a gun and you support safeties on guns.

Apparently, you didn't see the several occaions where I said that background checks are an infingement.

 

[mattskramer]

YOU keep bringing up that once situation as if it were, somehow, reflective of anything. It's not. one of MANY MORE instances than burglaries and robberies and rapes? Show me your source.

I guess the DUMB babysiter should be more responsible with her job and maybe not let the kids play in glass shards with butcher knives and matches too. Or, we can ban windows, cutlery and matchbooks in order to facilitate the retarded assumption that LIFE will become 100% safer despite the DUMB BABYSITTER variable...


I've posted my willingness to limit guns.If we hid behind every shitty scenerio to come paired with liberty then we'd never leave our padded rooms. For christs fucking sake, dude.. women die from using TAMPONS.

Practically everything should be considered within reason. What are the statistics on the injury or death from irresponsible gun use per those who own guns with the statistic on injury or death from irresponsible use of other items per those who have those other items?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Practically everything should be considered within reason. What are the statistics on the injury or death from irresponsible gun use per those who own guns with the statistic on injury or death from irresponsible use of other items per those who have those other items?

35% More kids die in bicycle accidents than in gun accidents.

 

[mattskramer]

Apparently, you didn't see the several occaions where I said that background checks are an infingement.

Okay. I’m confused. Look at your first comment on post # 31. You said 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.

Now, how can a salesman know whether or not he is selling a gun to a convicted felon unless he does a background check?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I’m confused.

No kidding.

Look at your first comment on post # 31. You said 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.

Explain how this means I support background checks.

 

[mattskramer]

No kidding.


Explain how this means I support background checks.

Okay. I assumed that there was a link - that in order to keep felons from having guns, you would support background checks.

Okay. So, you don't want felons to have guns and you don't want background checks. Yet, you oppose background checks even if that results in felons being able to buy guns? I think that I understand. Can you think of another way to prevent felons from buying guns without background checks?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I assumed that there was a link - that in order to keep felons from having guns, you would support background checks.

The "link" is that if a felon is found with a gun, then you arrest him for having the gun.

Can you think of another way to prevent felons from buying guns without background checks?

In a free society, you cannot pre-empt crime.
You must wait until it is committed and then act accordingly.

 

[mattskramer]

The "link" is that if a felon is found with a gun, then you arrest him for having the gun.

In a free society, you cannot pre-empt crime.
You must wait until it is committed and then act accordingly.

Okay. So the salesman is not to be held responsible for knowing whom he is selling a gun to – if it is to an ex-felon or whomever – even if, by definition, he is aiding someone in committing a crime – as it is a crime for a felon to own a gun.

I guess that I see your point. I just don’t see that a background check would be that much of an infringement on your right to have a gun particularly if it helps keep guns from felons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. So the salesman is not to be held responsible for knowing whom he is selling a gun to

If a salesman has reason to believe that the person trying to buy a gun is not legally able to own a gun, then he is required to not sell it.

I just don’t see that a background check would be that much of an infringement on your right

"Shall no be infringed" does not allow for -any- infringement.

 

[mattskramer]

If a salesman has reason to believe that the person trying to buy a gun is not legally able to own a gun, then he is required to not sell it.

It turns into a guessing game aside from a background check.


"Shall no be infringed" does not allow for -any- infringement.[/QUOTE]

Isn’t a gun safety an infringement? What if I want a cheap gun with no safety?
Then perhaps an amendment is in order.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It turns into a guessing game aside from a background check.

Welcome to a free society, where we're all treated as innocent until proven guilty.

Isn’t a gun safety an infringement?

You mean a mechanical safety?
No.

What if I want a cheap gun with no safety?

Then buy one.

Then perhaps an amendment is in order.

There's no need to amend the 2nd. Its perfectly fine the way it is.

 

[Shogun]

Practically everything should be considered within reason. What are the statistics on the injury or death from irresponsible gun use per those who own guns with the statistic on injury or death from irresponsible use of other items per those who have those other items?

so then when do we start banning knives because kids get cut? Tall surfaces because kids fall? Cars because driving kills?

 

[Shogun]

The "link" is that if a felon is found with a gun, then you arrest him for having the gun.


In a free society, you cannot pre-empt crime.
You must wait until it is committed and then act accordingly.

I have to say.. it's awfully ironic to see that considering all of the OTHER threads i've been posting in today...

 

[mattskramer]

so then when do we start banning knives because kids get cut? Tall surfaces because kids fall? Cars because driving kills?

How many people own knives? Of those people who own knives, how many people have been permanently physically paralyzed or killed through the use of a knife? Also, keep in mind that knives have other uses besides killing people.

You are required to have a license to drive a car. It does not stop all car accidents, but I think that proving your driving skills helps.

 

[Shogun]

How many people own knives? Of those people who own knives, how many people have been permanently physically paralyzed or killed through the use of a knife? Also, keep in mind that knives have other uses besides killing people.

You are required to have a license to drive a car. It does not stop all car accidents, but I think that proving your driving skills helps.

and, likewise, MANY MANY people own guns without finding themelves robbing a bank or killing their daughter. And, guns have uses besides killing people too. Aesthetics.. Target practice, HUNTING. Your argument is baseless.


Helps? apparently to a degree that does NOT keep people from dying from legal cars, eh? Driving is a privilage, hence a license. Guns are a right.

 

[mattskramer]

35% More kids die in bicycle accidents than in gun accidents.

Bicycles might cause more injury per bicycle owner when compared guns causing injury to gun owner. Yet, one factor that I think should be considered is statistics on “who gets hurt”. It is one think if a gun owner clumsily shoots himself. It is quite another when a “Dirty Harry wanna be” foolishly or clumsily shoots someone else. For comparison, how often does a bicyclist injure himself and how often does a bicyclist permanently maim someone else with a bicycle? I doubt that bike riders injure other people to the extent that gun owners injure other people.

I think that the Bill of Rights needs limitations. For instance, does “freedom of religion” mean that if my religion calls for animal sacrifice, I can burn animals for that reason? Does freedom of speech mean that I can scream racial obscenities at midnight in a dark alley in Harlem?

 

[Edward]

and the lesson to your friends is to stay sober or call ahead.

And the lesson for robbers is to come heavily armed when they rob homes and to kill the owners before doing so. They are already desperate but now these kinds of laws increase the liklihood of more deadly home invasions. Of all the stupid laws this one has to take the cake because it is likely to lead to a lot of innocent people being killed as a result of the robber choosing to put his life before theirs. We need to use some common sense here. Now robbers are going to carefully plan their invasions and go directly for the homeowners bedrooms, put a bullet in them, and then just in case kill their children and proceed to rob them. I am so glad that I don't live in Florida because I don't want to end up dead as a result of such stupid laws. Here is a good example of it:

"A husband and wife are sleeping and they don't own a gun but the robber doesn't know that. The robber goes into their bedrooms and puts a bullet in both of them and then robs the house because he wanted to make sure he wouldn't be shot while in the commission of the act."

Also, your suggestion that someone who mistakenly enters someone's home should be sure to call ahead is idiotic. The point is that they are entering the wrong home and are killed as a result of doing so. Now, it makes sense for the owners to defend themselves and that it would be okay for the owner to shoot to kill someone who is robbing their house but the burden of proof should rest upon the homeowner to show that they had reason to fear for their life. Now this law allows someone to invite someone to their home, and kill them and then say that they thought they were robbing their homes. The liklihood of this law being abused is obvious.