Split off gun debate

[Arta]

Sure, but the consitution grants the federal government the right to pass (ie, have congress approve) any constitutional law... My point was that gun control (or even a ban, with the right exemptions) is not necessarily unconstitutional.

[Adron]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

[Hazard]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.

[Hazard]

Sure, but the consitution grants the federal government the right to pass (ie, have congress approve) any constitutional law... My point was that gun control (or even a ban, with the right exemptions) is not necessarily unconstitutional.

Read and re-interpret the consitiution, then get back to me.

[Arta]

What does that even mean?

[Hazard]

What does that even mean?

It means read and re-interpret the constitution before you start talking about how a gun ban could be constitutional.

[Arta]

You mean the interpretation of a federal court is not sufficient?

[jigsaw]

It is our right as americans to own firearms... This is no way contributes to increased crime in my opinion, (as stated in bowling for columbine).  I believe that each househole should have a gun as protection in a defensive situation.  I own many guns... would I ever get angry and shoot someone? No. That is my take... people kill people. not guns.

[Arta]

people kill people. not guns.

I agree, but guns make it exceptionally easy to kill someone. They are an excellent abstraction.

I find the defence argument strange: The statistics, which I hope I won't have to find *again*, pretty much all state that the risks associated with gun ownership for protection outweigh the benefits.

It is our right as americans to own firearms

That's very subjective. Whether that right is enshrined in the constitution is by no means clear-cut, and if it's not, that leaves it open to legislation like anything else.

One question I find interesting is where to draw the line - should citizens be able to own any arms? Some people say an M-16, for example, is an appropriate form of home-defence. Is a grenade? How about a landmine? Where is the limit drawn? What is the definition of 'arms'? If the Consitution confers upon anyone the right to bear arms, how is 'arms' defined? Is it reasonable for someone to own a warplane? A missile system? Those are armaments, after all. Does the constitution give citizens the right to own weapons of mass destruction, which are also, undeniably, arms?

I don't think there are any easy answers in this debate.

[jigsaw]

No easy answers.  But, I have read statistics in the past... on both sides of the fence, stating whatever that person wants it to state, if you catch my drift.  Granades, and landmines... well sure, if they are on your property - then feel free put a mine on your lawn. I don't recommend it.  But as a person it is our right to do what we want, on your property which you own.  I beleive in civil liberties and freedom.  Its hard to say "use common sense" I mean an M-16 it's an automatic rifle obviously not for civilian use.  Me for instance, I enjoy range shooting for a hobby... I don't shoot to kill, but if it came down to me defending my home and family, I could easily disable a person without killing them intentionally.  If guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them, and if guns didnt exist, they would have another form of weaponry, and most likely have an edge.  But to wrap this up, I beleive that the gun safety laws, background checks, waiting periods... they are extensive... but they are appropriate. 

This may be a bad example... but here it goes.  Prohibition in the USA in the 20's... most civilians didnt own alcohol, or drink it. But the few folks who wanted it made speak-easy's and such and still distributed / consumed it.  The point is, people are people by nature obviously and they will do whatever they feel fit especially if they are a criminal.  There is no clear cut right/wrong answer. But since we have these amendments we need to live by them and support them, and I sure like the fact that I can own guns,... I enjoy them, as some people enjoy cars or computers , etc...

[jigsaw]

Oh and Arta, my avatar vagina will gobble you up if you come back with some retarded socialist point of view again

[Hazard]

You mean the interpretation of a federal court is not sufficient?

Which federal court might that be? Site your source?

[Arta]

Read back:

I'm not sure if those numbers are right but the principle is. Also that a gun bought for self-defence is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member than to fend of an invader:

A 1998 study from the Journal of Trauma, Injury and Critical Care shows that guns kept in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting than be used for self defense.

Kellerman AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and Deaths Due To Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care. August 1998. 45:263

I also read something interesting today. There have been 2 cases, Presser v Illinois and United States v Miller, that have established that the 2nd amendment does not enshrine the right for individuals to bear arms. Apparently, these and subsequent federal rulings have established that the right to bear arms is linked to a state milita and that it doesn't confer rights upon individuals. This is the precident that allows the federal government to ban certain firearms without those laws being unconsitutional. It seems to me, given this information, that there is no consitutional basis for objecting to gun control, as long as the rights of an organised militia are preserved...

Note that I haven't read these rulings, I'm just trusting that the American Academy of Pediatrics to tell me the truth.

* Arta[vL] goes back to lurking

[Adron]

No easy answers.  But, I have read statistics in the past... on both sides of the fence, stating whatever that person wants it to state, if you catch my drift.  Granades, and landmines... well sure, if they are on your property - then feel free put a mine on your lawn. I don't recommend it.  But as a person it is our right to do what we want, on your property which you own.  I beleive in civil liberties and freedom.  Its hard to say "use common sense" I mean an M-16 it's an automatic rifle obviously not for civilian use.

I don't think that's so obvious.. If the idea is that you be able to defend yourself and your state (think militia was mentioned?), you should probably be allowed regular infantry weaponry. Don't the police get automatic weapons? Why do they need them if you don't need them to defend yourself from criminals?

If guns were outlawed, criminals would still have them, and if guns didnt exist, they would have another form of weaponry, and most likely have an edge.

They would always have some form of weaponry, and people who want to hurt other people and train to be able to do so will always have an edge. We can agree on that I think. Then what remains is how seriously you want people to be hurt. If you want the innocent victims to come out with gunshot wounds, or if you want them to come out with bruises. The criminals will always have the edge...

This may be a bad example... but here it goes.  Prohibition in the USA in the 20's... most civilians didnt own alcohol, or drink it. But the few folks who wanted it made speak-easy's and such and still distributed / consumed it.  The point is, people are people by nature obviously and they will do whatever they feel fit especially if they are a criminal. 

That's true. Alcohol is unfortunately simple for anyone to create. All you need is some sugar, water and yeast. It's harder for criminals to set up their own gun factory. Not just anyone can produce guns, bullets, cartridges, etc. Prohibition also caused a reduction in overall availability of alcohol, right?

There is no clear cut right/wrong answer. But since we have these amendments we need to live by them and support them, and I sure like the fact that I can own guns,... I enjoy them, as some people enjoy cars or computers , etc...

Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.

That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.

[Hazard]

I don't think that's so obvious.. If the idea is that you be able to defend yourself and your state (think militia was mentioned?), you should probably be allowed regular infantry weaponry. Don't the police get automatic weapons? Why do they need them if you don't need them to defend yourself from criminals?

If a criminal can attack me with automatic weapons, should I not be able to defend myself to the extreme?

They would always have some form of weaponry, and people who want to hurt other people and train to be able to do so will always have an edge. We can agree on that I think. Then what remains is how seriously you want people to be hurt. If you want the innocent victims to come out with gunshot wounds, or if you want them to come out with bruises. The criminals will always have the edge...

If somebody is trying to kill me, I want them dead and its that simple. Better them than me, and thats the truth. Lets assume we go your way. They will no longer have gunshot wounds, fine. Is it better for all these criminals to take up knives, and then they'd be coming out with stab wounds?

Since you have those amendments you have to live with them for now, but you don't have to support them, and you can change them some time in the future. I understand that some people like guns, just like others enjoy other things.

You'd never get one of the original amendments in the Bill of Rights changed. Good luck with that one slugger.

That's not a reason to keep guns available though. Some people like incest. Some people like burning down houses. Things are forbidden when they cause others hurt. Besides, if guns weren't around, those people who like guns today would've most probably channeled their interests somewhere else and been happy anyway.

Adron you aren't thinking logically here. Cars, alcohol, cigarettes, airplanes, knives, boats, gas grills, sharp corners, etc. all cause others hurt. Keeping guns available for your personal safety is a damn good reason to keep them around. If you're not safe, you're screwed. Your conclusion about focusing their energies on things other than guns is another example of spewing something that has no backing whatsoever, its just your misguided conclusion based on no information.