Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Diuretic]

Why?

See my previous response.

 

[Larkinn]

so if the rate at which something is owned per capita defines obsession I guess we need to add, toasters, toothbrushes, socks, underwear, you know other things that damn near everyone has to the list of things we're 'obsessed' with.

America owns more of each of those things per capita than any other country?

Really?

What makes you think that?

 

[Bern80]

An automatic weapon obviously can do more damage in a shorter period of time than a rifle that needs a bolt action to be worked. If my neighbour went postal then I would have a better chance of survival if he didn't have an automatic weapon.

Note - I can see there have been a number of posts on this and this one is going to look out of the stream of discussion, sorry about that, time zones, I'm working my way through.

Doesn't matter the weapon no matter the type, is only as dangerous as the person using it. If your neighbor is an expert marksman that goes postal you're probably fucked either way. If he happens to be blind as a bat I'd put my odds on you regardless of the weapon he had.

Again the point is the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself determines the purpose and how dangerous it is.

 

[Larkinn]

That doesn't explain why I'm wrong. You're argument was the purpose of gun is to kill. It most clearly isn't, yet you say I'm wrong.

Obviously the purpose comes, mostly, from what the object is. A nukes purpose is to kill mass amounts of people. Therefore, no matter what an individuals purpose, your uncomfortable giving it to them. Especially since you can only judge an individuals purpose by the words they state. Same goes for guns except they usually don't kill mass numbers of people.

Another of my general philosphies is that I don't see the point in restricting a person from doing something that doesn't effect anyone else.

I think the VT shooter owning guns effected a number of other people.

It gets back to my point that it makes far more sense to apply laws to people rather than things.

Alright...so lets have freedom of nukes, and then whenever someone nukes someone we'll put them in jail. Fabulous idea.

You simply owning a nuke in of itself doesn't effect anyone. What YOU (you being person, not an inanimate object) choose to do with it could very well have adverse effect on people. But you of course would have to blame the nuke, not your decision on how to use it.

When did I ever say blame the gun? The gun is the thing that makes it possible to easily kill people, as a nuke does. These things are dangerous enough that it may well be the best course not to allow access to them. It is obviously the case with nukes.

 

[Bern80]

America owns more of each of those things per capita than any other country?

Really?

What makes you think that?

Again tryig to wiggle out of your original argument. You originally attempted to prove that we are gun obsessed by citing the per capita number of guns owned in the country as if someone rate of ownership equals a mental obsession with it. As your article points out many American's owning guns. Ownership does not equal obsession. Even if every person in the U.S. had one and there were none in the rest of teh world you still couldn't make the case that we are obsessed.

 

[CSM]

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.

Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.

The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.

Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.

The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.

Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

OOPS! I guess we shouldn't let any facts get in the way of some poster's assertions....

By the way, the BBC provided these little tidbits. Guess its that European gun culture.

 

[Larkinn]

Again tryig to wiggle out of your original argument. You originally attempted to prove that we are gun obsessed by citing the per capita number of guns owned in the country as if someone rate of ownership equals a mental obsession with it. As your article points out many American's owning guns. Ownership does not equal obsession. Even if every person in the U.S. had one and there were none in the rest of teh world you still couldn't make the case that we are obsessed.

Umm, no I wasn't wiggling out of anything. You tried to make an analogy and it failed. Americans have about as many guns as people. They have HALF of the worlds civilian guns. They have far more lax rules on guns than most other countries do. There is a gun culture here, like it or not.

 

[CSM]

Hmmm...not 15 years ago but does anyone remember Mr. David Gray's Aramoana Massacre? New Zealand gun culture....

 

[Diuretic]

Doesn't matter the weapon no matter the type, is only as dangerous as the person using it. If your neighbor is an expert marksman that goes postal you're probably fucked either way. If he happens to be blind as a bat I'd put my odds on you regardless of the weapon he had.

Again the point is the person using the weapon, not the weapon itself determines the purpose and how dangerous it is.

I suppose discussing active shooter tactics is a bit diverting because we're all discussing gun control in general, so the ability of my neighbour to hit anything with a rifle other than using the butt and swinging it is moot.

Let me put it this way, I'd sooner respond to a shooter with a bolt-action rifle than a shooter with a fully-automatic weapon and plenty of ammo.

The weapon is definitely relevant. I mean, what's the whole point of a fully automatic weapon? I don't mean someone getting a kick out of firing it on a range (and I have to admit it's a hoot). The point is to fire a lot of bullets in a very short time. That use - aside from the recreational one I mentioned - is military. The military uses weapons to do a lot of damage in a short time. That's their job.

So, my position is that some weapons should be prohibited and some should be restricted and regulated. Now I just need to add, this is in the abstract, I'm not suggesting amendment to any State laws in the US or the laws anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Bern80]

Obviously the purpose comes, mostly, from what the object is. A nukes purpose is to kill mass amounts of people.

You really can't wrap your head around this can you. What does a nuke do? it makes a big huge explosion. Somene - A FUCKING LIVING, BREATHING, THINKING PERSON, DO YOU GET IT YET - decided that would be a real effective way of killing a lot of people. All by itself a nuke makes a big explosion and if the history of our planet showed that we liked setting of nukes to see how big a hole we could make (which ironically is what most nukes have been used for) you would not make the argument that it's purpose was to kill people. Why? because A PERSON decided that's what he wanted a nukes purpose to be.

I think the VT shooter owning guns effected a number of other people.

Wow that one went right over your head I guess. Him owning a gun didn't effect anyone. Him decideing the PURPOSE for which he CHOSE to use it did.

 

[Diuretic]

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.

Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.

The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.

Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.

The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.

Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

OOPS! I guess we shouldn't let any facts get in the way of some poster's assertions....

By the way, the BBC provided these little tidbits. Guess its that European gun culture.

Probably not European gun culture. Probably incidents where mentally ill people were able to get hold of firearms and misuse them.

 

[Diuretic]

Hmmm...not 15 years ago but does anyone remember Mr. David Gray's Aramoana Massacre? New Zealand gun culture....

I remember reading about it, I think it was in the 1950s. I think there was a film made about it too. Not the actions of a rational man. But you haven't mentioned Martin Bryant yet.

 

[Larkinn]

You really can't wrap you're head around this can you. What does a nuke do? it makes a big huge explosion. Somene - A FUCKING LIVING, BREATHING, THINING PERSON, DO YOU GET IT YET - decided that would be a real effective way of killing a lot of people. All by itself a nuke makes a big explosion and if the history of our planet showed that we liked setting of nukes to see how big a hole we could make you would not make the argument that it's purpose was to kill people. Why? because A PERSON decided that's what he wanted a nukes purpose to be.

Thats the ONLY PURPOSE OF IT. Yes, I'm aware that a human is involved in setting it off. No shit, sherlock. The point is that we allow humans some things and not others based NOT ON THE HUMANS, BUT ON THE OBJECTS THEMSELVES. This is an obvious truism, since even a nutter like you wouldn't recommend giving nukes to everyone. THEREFORE, you've already given that objects can be regulated because of their purpose and abilities.

Wow that one went right over your head I guess. Him owning a gun didn't effect anyone. Him decideing the PURPOSE for which he CHOSE to use it did.

Really? So kindly explain how he would have killed all those people without a gun. A knife maybe? Karate? Please do tell.

 

[CSM]

I remember reading about it, I think it was in the 1950s. I think there was a film made about it too. Not the actions of a rational man. But you haven't mentioned Martin Bryant yet.

My point is that murder by firearm does not a gun culture make.

This particular murder occurred in 1990. As you say, most murders are not the actions of a rational man....if they were rational they would not resort to murder.

I purposely did not want to list a long litany of gun murders for Europe (and/or New Zealand...Constable Duncan, etc.). I merely wanted to point out that the "statistics" on gun murders in those aforementioned countries over the past 15 years was (according to Dr. G...zero) is clearly wrong. Either by intent or ignorance, the poster was misleading his opposition in the discussion.

 

[Diuretic]

My point is that murder by firearm does not a gun culture make.

This particular murder occurred in 1990. As you say, most murders are not the actions of a rational man....if they were rational they would not resort to murder.

I purposely did not want to list a long litany of gun murders for Europe (and/or New Zealand...Constable Duncan, etc.). I merely wanted to point out that the "statistics" on gun murders in those aforementioned countries over the past 15 years was (according to Dr. G...zero) is clearly wrong. Either by intent or ignorance, the poster was misleading his opposition in the discussion.

Got it, I missed the original point but point taken now.

 

[Bern80]

Thats the ONLY PURPOSE OF IT. Yes, I'm aware that a human is involved in setting it off. No shit, sherlock. The point is that we allow humans some things and not others based NOT ON THE HUMANS, BUT ON THE OBJECTS THEMSELVES. This is an obvious truism, since even a nutter like you wouldn't recommend giving nukes to everyone. THEREFORE, you've already given that objects can be regulated because of their purpose and abilities.

If that is a nuke's only purpose then you would have to concede the point that a nuke can not possibly be used for anything else. How did a nuclear weapon come to have the purpose of killing (as you maintain)? For your argument to be true nuclear bombs, guns, cars would have had to appear out of thin air and been given a purpose by some other power that we have no control over. Unless of course it is your position that as a general rule we build things with no idea as to what we're gonna use them for and later some higher power tells us what there suppossed to be used for.

Of course I would oppose people haveing nukes. Not because of a nukes purpose, because an inanimate object doesn't have a purpose until I give it one.

Really? So kindly explain how he would have killed all those people without a gun. A knife maybe? Karate? Please do tell.

Man you're a slippery one. Can't evem stick with your own argument for more tham a post. I said as a general rule people should be free to do things that don't adverselyu effect others. To which you inexplcabbly replied the VT shooter effected others. Guess I should have just responded with, DUH. Or kindly explain how you saying his actions effected others invalidates me saying people should not be regulated from doings things until their actions adversely effect others.

 

[Dr Grump]

Scotland, March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.

Germany, March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.

The teenager - who also shot himself - was facing expulsion from school after failing a cannabis test.

Germany, February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.

The man also shot dead his boss and a foreman at the company he worked for before turning the gun on himself. Another teacher was shot in the face, but survived.

Germany, April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

OOPS! I guess we shouldn't let any facts get in the way of some poster's assertions....

By the way, the BBC provided these little tidbits. Guess its that European gun culture.

I never mentioned Scotland in my post. And you mention a couple of relatively minor incidents compared to the likes of Columbine and Virginia Tech, and we've not even mentioned the ones where four or five people have died. If you want me to goolge a list, I'll be more than happy to, but don't say I didn't warn you...

 

[Dr Grump]

Hmmm...not 15 years ago but does anyone remember Mr. David Gray's Aramoana Massacre? New Zealand gun culture....

I was specifically talking schools, but if you want to talk about Grey, I'll raise you half a dozen postal workers going ballistic and a few dozen serial killers? You wanna play that game, I'm keen..

 

[Dr Grump]

My point is that murder by firearm does not a gun culture make.

This particular murder occurred in 1990. As you say, most murders are not the actions of a rational man....if they were rational they would not resort to murder.

I purposely did not want to list a long litany of gun murders for Europe (and/or New Zealand...Constable Duncan, etc.). I merely wanted to point out that the "statistics" on gun murders in those aforementioned countries over the past 15 years was (according to Dr. G...zero) is clearly wrong. Either by intent or ignorance, the poster was misleading his opposition in the discussion.

My stats specifically mentioned schools. If you can find mass shootings at schools in those countries I mentioned please do so. Nothing misleading about it.

For some reason you gunnies love your guns but refuse to believe you have a gun culture. You do. is that a good thing? IMO no. SHoulda gone the way of the Wild West. IYO, yes, it is your right. have at it. This is just a discussion where people have varying views. Those are mine and they are what they are, as are yours. But please don't tell me that guns don't kill people or that cars should be outlawed. Just a strawman, vacuous argument..

 

[Bern80]

My stats specifically mentioned schools. If you can find mass shootings at schools in those countries I mentioned please do so. Nothing misleading about it.

For some reason you gunnies love your guns but refuse to believe you have a gun culture. You do. is that a good thing? IMO no. SHoulda gone the way of the Wild West. IYO, yes, it is your right. have at it. This is just a discussion where people have varying views. Those are mine and they are what they are, as are yours. But please don't tell me that guns don't kill people or that cars should be outlawed. Just a strawman, vacuous argument..

I say no because the only thing you can possibly mean is that for some reason us Amerricans have guns on the brain. Or that we spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about them. That we have a gun culture makes no sense especially given the occurence you have cited.

You are of the postion that columbine happend because those kids were obsesses with guns? Or VT happened because that kid was obsessed with guns? That is essentially your argument when you say we have a gun culture. For every viloent act that occurrs you are blaming the gun when you say we have a 'gun culrure'. For every viloent act you are rooting the cause with the gun. How much sense does that make?