202. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:41 PM PT
bjc Message #193:
"Others owning and carrying a gun affects me more than someone owning and carrying a joint."
Wrong. Others *using* a gun affects you more than if they use a joint. There's a substantial difference. The matter is analogous for this reason: If you use drugs in the privacy of your home, it should be your concern (assuming you're an adult). It's not my business, nor should it be the state's business.
Until your drug use interferes with someone else's life, at which point the line has been crossed, and the state must intervene. That's essentially the libertarian philosophy Maher has consistently espoused, and I actually agree with that. Of course, that is not reality, at least in how the state deals with drugs.
But it *is* how the state deals with citizens' use of guns and cars. Any of these things can be deadly, in the hands of an idiot. Used rationally, by someone with sufficient training, a gun can save your life. And the fact is that most guns are used only for hunting or target shooting. It's when the guns are misused, for criminal purposes, that it should be our business. And at that point, the punishment should be swift and severe -- on the perpetrator, not the dealer or manufacturer.
203. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:43 PM PT
(cont. to bjc):
"Maher has frequently said that owning a gun is not so horrible just that gun lovers should just admit that they love guns not protecting themselves from tyranny. As Maher said, your closet full of guns is not going to stop the gunships and stealth bombers."
I like Bill Maher, but he can frequently be thoughtlessly glib. I don't own a gun, but I'm definitely a minority in my area. Most people I know own several guns, from .38s to 12-gauge shotguns to AR-15 assault rifles (which are loads o' fun for target shooting). None of these people are paranoid of the gov't, none are militia members. None of them can see any reason to forfeit their ability to purchase and lawfully use what they wish either.
I don't think the gov't sent gunships & stealth bombers to Waco or Ruby Ridge. The fact is, the DEA, the BATF, and most other law enforcement agencies have very little accountability anymore, wrt whether they kick down the right door or not.
204. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:46 PM PT
Elliot,
One of the things you just don't seem to understand is that I am very often looking for information.
"I see a lot of credit going to gun control."
Where? That's not a challenge, it's a request. I read quite a bit; I've seen no analysis of this that mentions gun control as a contributing factor. Certainly not a significant factor.
"Gun bans similar to those that exist in foreign countries have been enacted in a number of U.S. jurisdictions and have survived constitutional challenges. "
Examples? Again, I'm not challenging. Just name some so I can check them out, see if we're talking about the same thing.
"Gun violence is attributable to lack of restrictions on guns in the same way that drunk-driving violence is attributable to lack of restrictions on alcohol. "
Drunk driving violence was not lessened by making alcohol less accessible, was it? It was lessened by stiffer penalities for driving while drunk.
205. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 1:57 PM PT
Elliot Message #201:
"If a child of mine was killed by a friend of his using the friend's parents' gun, I would definitely look into suing them into bankruptcy. I would encourage other people to do the same thing. If gun owners don't want to expose themselves to that kind of liability, they shouldn't keep a gun at all. It's their choice."
I agree with all of that 100%. Why then, in the Kenzo Dix case I posted about early on in this thread, did Griffin Dix decide that it was *entirely* the fault of Beretta that his son got killed? He didn't go after the friend's father, who left a loaded gun sitting in his camera bag in plain view of these kids. Nor did he go after the 15-year-old friend who *pointed the gun at Kenzo as a joke*. How fucking stupid is that? Even 10-year-olds with BB guns know better than that!
But back to the Jonesboro case, where would you draw the line? The guns were kept in a locked case, the ammo was in a locked case, both cases were in a locked shed, which was broken into, and these kids were *trained* in how to properly use & load these guns. None of this was accidental, it happened because these kids have some serious mental problems. Should the grandfather have been able to read their minds and known they were going to snap?
Again, I'm putting this in the light of the Jonesboro case because the mother of one of the victims is pushing this law as hard as she can. She doesn't seem to realize that reasonable preventive measures *were* taken to keep the weapons safe & secure, but these little fuckers were on a mission. This is not a case of Dad leaving a loaded 45 on the kitchen table for poor dumb Junior to stumble across.
206. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:01 PM PT
In Switzerland, every family is *required* to keep an assault rifle in their home (they have no army). Yet Switzerland has almost no gun deaths. They do have tight handgun control, but still, no one takes their assault rifle to the park (or post office, or wherever) and blows away a crowd. What's the deal there?
207. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:03 PM PT
CalGal:
"Where? That's not a challenge, it's a request. I read quite a bit; I've seen no analysis of this that mentions gun control as a contributing factor. Certainly not a significant factor."
In analyses of the effects of gun control laws.
"Examples?"
New York City. Chicago.
"Drunk driving violence was not lessened by making alcohol less accessible, was it? It was lessened by stiffer penalities for driving while drunk."
Yes, and the Brady Law reduces gun violence by imposing penalties for the sale of guns to criminals. So what?
208. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:05 PM PT
So it was a lousy analogy, that's what.
The rest of your answers are non-answers, as usual.
209. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
cartman:
"In Switzerland, every family is *required* to keep an assault rifle in their home (they have no army). Yet Switzerland has almost no gun deaths. They do have tight handgun control, but still, no one takes their assault rifle to the park (or post office, or wherever) and blows away a crowd. What's the deal there?"
Better education. A more responsible attitude towards guns. Tougher gun laws. Less poverty. A smaller and more homogeneous population.
210. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:08 PM PT
Cart,
"What's the deal there?"
Well, I think it is certainly arguable that Americans are just more violent than Europeans.
211. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
CalGal:
"So it was a lousy analogy, that's what."
Nonsense. Both laws deter violence by punishing those who facilitate it. I fail to see the point of your endless claims that gun control hasn't been "proven" to reduce gun violence. No criminal law has been "proven" to reduce violence.
"The rest of your answers are non-answers, as usual."
More nonsense. You asked for examples and I gave them.
212. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:14 PM PT
Cal, Elliot:
Precisely my point. I don't see how lawsuits will engender civilized behavior. Toughen up the criminal penalties on the people who are committing crimes, and we might get somewhere.
To Elliot's list, I would also add that most European countries seem to have a more communal attitude, which makes stringent gun control laws easier to enact. Americans, obviously, are infatuated with the idea of the rugged individualist, and have a much higher mistrust (paranoia) of the goverment.
213. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:17 PM PT
CalGal:
"Well, I think it is certainly arguable that Americans are just more violent than Europeans."
You are something like 100 times more likely to be murdered with a gun in the U.S. than in Britain. It seems unlikely that Americans are 100 times as violent as Britons. The most obvious difference with respect to such violence between the two countries is the number and availability of guns. That's why it's so important to place much stronger restrictions on them.
214. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:24 PM PT
cartman:
"Precisely my point. I don't see how lawsuits will engender civilized behavior."
On the contrary, I think a few high-profile lawsuits against gun owners, gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and others involved in the perpetuation of gun violence could have a profound effect on the manufacture and sale of guns in this country. That's why the industry and the gun nuts are so bent out of shape by them. If you choose to own a gun, you choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of your action.
"To Elliot's list, I would also add that most European countries seem to have a more communal attitude, which makes stringent gun control laws easier to enact."
The primary obstacle to the enactment of much stronger gun laws in the U.S. is the fanatical American gun lobby. As I keep pointing out, most Americans support much more gun control.
215. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:37 PM PT
Elliot:
"If you choose to own a gun, you choose to accept responsibility for the consequences of your action."
Yes. Gun owners, like most reasonable people, can accept responsibility for *their* actions. Many of these lawsuits are attempting to place the full responsibility for one person's actions onto another person (or company). Let the person who pulled the trigger, cognizant of his criminal action, take the heat for what he's done.
"The primary obstacle to the enactment of much stronger gun laws in the U.S. is the fanatical American gun lobby."
Well, that's true, although descibing ANY lobby as "fanatical" is needless. That's what lobbies are paid to do. Let's face it, the only reason Philip Morris executives aren't behind bars (in a Charles Keating country-club prison, of course) is because a substantial portion of Congress is bought and paid for by the "fanatical" tobacco lobby.
"As I keep pointing out, most Americans support much more gun control."
Depends on where you live. Actually, I don't have a real problem with more gun control per se, as long as it's reasonable. What I have a problem with is the shameless effort by these lawyers and their grief-blinded clients to make people financially liable for their losses, even though someone else is directly responsible.
It's all about getting paid.
216. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 2:53 PM PT
cartman:
"But it *is* how the state deals with citizens' use of guns and cars. Any of these things can be deadly, in the hands of an idiot."
Ha! In America, just like in other countries, cars are registered by the government, identified with a unique and easily-read number, and drivers are licensed. Strict restrictions on the ways cars can be used are enforced with tough laws. Car sales are strictly recorded and tracked. The registration and licensing information is readily available to the police. Cars are subject to government safety regulations. Owners and operators are generally required to buy insurance covering injury to third parties.
None of this is true for guns in this country. It's insane.
217. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
I wonder how much of that results from the fact that driving is a privilege, gun owning is a right?
Don't fuss; I'm not saying it *should* be that way. I'm just telling you that the *first* think you learn in driver's ed (at least in California) is that driving is a privilege.
And outside of the restrictions, which have to be spelled out, gun owning is a right.
Also, I imagine cars are stolen more than guns? And, finally, is it possible that car safety is given more attention because more people die in cars than by guns?
218. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:04 PM PT
Eliot's point is spot on. There is no reasonable argument for complete registration and licencing of all firearms of any type.
The main arguments are paranoid fantasies of government conspiracies. I think the main true reason is that if a certain gun type were made illegal, owners would be forced to turn them in.
219. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:06 PM PT
It being a "right" not withstanding
220. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
"There is no reasonable argument for complete registration and licencing of all firearms of any type. "
I think you mean against, not for.
I wouldn't disagree. But it hasn't happened, despite all those numbers Elliot cites of the people's support for gun control.
221. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:12 PM PT
CalGal:
"And outside of the restrictions, which have to be spelled out, gun owning is a right."
No, it's not. It's a privilege.
"Also, I imagine cars are stolen more than guns?"
So what? I imagine a stolen gun is more likely to be used to kill or injure someone than a stolen car.
"And, finally, is it possible that car safety is given more attention because more people die in cars than by guns?"
Guns currently kill slightly fewer people in the U.S. each year than cars do. According to a piece in Scientific American I saw a year or so ago, gun deaths are expected to exceed auto deaths within a few years.
222. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:13 PM PT
CalGal:
"I wouldn't disagree."
Good.
"But it hasn't happened, despite all those numbers Elliot cites of the people's support for gun control."
Because of the gun nuts. That's why it's so important to oppose them.
223. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
Elliot:
All those things you point out wrt automobile regulations are true. And they are all easily & regularly circumvented. You can require a license to operate a gun. It won't mean anything more than a driver's license does.
Having a driver's license does not indicate that the licensee has any ability whatsoever to drive a car. It merely shows the person has a face, a pulse, and $20. In fact, in most states, including Arizona, you don't even have to renew your license (which means you don't have to get your eyesight checked as time goes on).
People drive without insurance all the time -- and when they wipe someone else out, usually it's just tough shit, as they don't have any money anyway.
So much for regulation. It certainly makes the roads & highways no safer. People still drive like assholes, and kill other people through negligence.
My point is this: you can put all the gun regulations you want in place. You can hit the manufacturers and dealers in the wallet, where it hurts the most. But until a significant portion of American culture sheds its ultraviolent tendencies, it won't matter. Criminals will still get guns -- if they're not afraid to rob & murder, they won't care about gun laws. Dumb and malicious kids will continue to do dumb and malicious things with whatever they get their hands on. Unfortunately, it seems to be a cultural thing.
224. arkymalarky - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
"People drive without insurance all the time -- and when they wipe someone else out, usually it's just tough shit, as they don't have any money anyway."
Examples of how people get around the law is not proof that the law isn't effective unless you have stats which show how widespread the circumvention is. License plates are also very useful in identifying people who aren't responsible on the road or who commit crimes in which their vehicles are identified by witnesses.
225. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:23 PM PT
Cartman,
"Having a driver's license does not indicate that the licensee has any ability whatsoever to drive a car. It merely shows the person has a face, a pulse, and $20"
Didn't you have to take an exam and a road test?? I know I did, I even know a few morons who failed them. I personally would favour tougher testing for motorists rather than none for gun owners.
226. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:25 PM PT
Elliot,
"Because of the gun nuts. That's why it's so important to oppose them."
No, they're just the external symptom.
Cart is correct. It's a cultural thing.
227. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:26 PM PT
cartman:
"Elliot:: All those things you point out wrt automobile regulations are true. And they are all easily & regularly circumvented. You can require a license to operate a gun. It won't mean anything more than a driver's license does."
You can't be serious. Perhaps you really do think that laws regarding licensing, registration, safety, insurance, etc., of cars and drivers don't do much good and that it wouldn't matter much if we eliminated them, but apparently, most people (here and everywhere else in the world) don't agree with you.
And pretty much everywhere else in the world treats guns at least as strictly as cars.
228. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:30 PM PT
CalGal:
"No, they're just the external symptom. Cart is correct. It's a cultural thing."
I don't know what the point of this observation is supposed to be. Yes, the gun nuts in America are a product of American culture. And? Segregationists were a product of American culture.
229. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:38 PM PT
"Because of the gun nuts. That's why it's so important to oppose them."
I think more precisely it is the amount of money manufacturers pour into congress, err I mean the NRA to halt any legislation regarding firearms. The only way to combat that is to prove to elected officials that they won't get elected no matter how much money they spend on their campaigns when they block gun laws. Since that seems impossible (as more money seems to equal more votes) all that's left is to do an end run around legislators and take the manufacturers to court.
230. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT
Elliot:
"Perhaps you really do think that laws regarding licensing, registration, safety, insurance, etc., of cars and drivers don't do much good and that it wouldn't matter much if we eliminated them..."
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not espousing anarchy here, that any fool who wants to drive or have a gun should do so. I'm saying that strict gun regulations would most likely prevent regular people from owning them, but criminals would still find a way to get them.
I think you overestimate Americans' acceptance of some of the stricter gun measures being considered. There are almost as many guns in this country as there are people. So obviously there's a hell of a lot of individual gun owners, virtually none of whom will accept any infringement on their right (perceived or real) to own and use their guns in a legal manner.
"Yes, the gun nuts in America are a product of American culture. And? Segregationists were a product of American culture."
Apples and oranges, Elliot. There is nothing morally wrong with owning a gun and using it legally.
231. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:49 PM PT
bjc4000:
Yes, the NRA has for many years had a reputation as one of the most, if not the most, uncompromising lobbying organizations in Washington. But it's fallen on hard times in recent years. Membership has dwindled, finances are running low. The gun lobby is finally on the run. We need to keep up the pressure.
232. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
CalGal:
"That's not what I'm saying."
My response wasn't directed to you; it was directed to cartman. Hence the name "cartman" at the top of the post.
" I'm saying that strict gun regulations would most likely prevent regular people from owning them, but criminals would still find a way to get them."
No, they wouldn't. Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you just going to keep repeating the unsupported assertions of the gun lobby?
"I think you overestimate Americans' acceptance of some of the stricter gun measures being considered."
Which measures would those be? The statistics I have given show large majorities supporting almost all the measures described, some of which are quite strict.
"There are almost as many guns in this country as there are people. So obviously there's a hell of a lot of individual gun owners, virtually none of whom will accept any infringement on their right (perceived or real) to own and use their guns in a legal manner."
This claim is directly contradicted by the statistics I have already given.
"Apples and oranges, Elliot. There is nothing morally wrong with owning a gun and using it legally."
That's irrelevant to the fact that the gun nuts, whom I consider highly immoral, and the segregationists, whom I also consider to have been highly immoral, are both products of American culture. I just don't see what relevance that fact has.
233. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:58 PM PT
"There are almost as many guns in this country as there are people. So obviously there's a hell of a lot of individual gun owners,..."
That actually does not follow logically, many gunowners have more than one and the fanatic "collectors" throw the average completly out of whack.
234. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 3:59 PM PT
bjc Message #229:
So it's OK to circumvent the law and go after legitimate businesses on specious grounds, because some people don't feel like their elected representatives are doing their job?
Perhaps we should re-instate Prohibition. Then we won't have any more drunk drivers, either.
235. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:01 PM PT
Elliot,
"Yes, the gun nuts in America are a product of American culture. "
No, they are the culture itself. Just an extreme version of it.
The individualism that the nuts take to extremes began with a simple fact--the Second Amendment was written so that if the new government got too powerful, individuals could use *their* guns to resist.
On top of that, the U.S. was founded on a deep and abiding suspicion of government. It was created out of war. It expanded through violence.
More than that--we are rewarded, time and again, for our individualism, for our selfishness, for our violence.
So it's really rather ungrateful for us to bitch about the downside of that violence.
But worse, it's unrealistic. You think a bandaid like gun control is going to help in any meaningful sense against a culture like ours?
236. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:04 PM PT
Elliot,
"Hence the name "cartman" at the top of the post."
Yes. Well, Cartman wrote the post you responded too, as well. Hence the name Cartman69 at the *very* top of the post, where the userid is listed.
237. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:05 PM PT
cartman:
"So it's OK to circumvent the law and go after legitimate businesses on specious grounds..."
If the grounds are specious, the jury can find for the defendant. Do you oppose negligence lawsuits against all manufacturers, or only against those that manufacture guns?
"Perhaps we should re-instate Prohibition."
No, that would be a bad idea. Gun control does not equal Prohibition. Even a handgun ban wouldn't equal Prohibition. Gun bans are working perfectly well in other countries.
238. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:09 PM PT
Cartman was correct earlier when he said gun control support varies with the part of the country. Traditionally urban areas are much more for controls than rural areas. The reasons should be fairly obvious as rural areas more often get to see guns used as tools rather than weapons.
Maybe as a compromise some weapons could be registered as "farm" weapons ,as some vehicles are, with different regulations and restrictions regarding them. (probably a silly suggestion)
239. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Elliot:
I don't recall that the statistics you posted indicate how many people were polled, or in what part of the country. If in fact they did not indicate those things, then I fail to see what relevance they have. If I want to waste a few weeks, I can survey 10,000 people in this area, and I can promise you that 80% of them oppose ANY gun control measure, strict or not. It doesn't mean 80% of Americans oppose it. At any rate, I can't imagine any gun owner that wouldn't object to some of the stricter measures being put forth.
"Do you have an actual argument to make, or are you just going to keep repeating the unsupported assertions of the gun lobby?"
Well, my original argument was over the issue of personal responsibility being neglected in the context of these manufacturer lawsuits. We seem to have crossed into arguing over the viability (and constitutionality) of gun control.
"That's irrelevant to the fact that the gun nuts, whom I consider highly immoral, and the segregationists, whom I also consider to have been highly immoral, are both products of American culture. I just don't see what relevance that fact has."
It seemed you were making some sort of oblique comparison between "gun nuts" (whatever that means), and segregationists. Maybe not. What exactly is immoral about owning a gun for sport or defense, and wanting to use it legally without constant meddling from the government?
240. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:17 PM PT
CalGal:
"No, they are the culture itself. Just an extreme version of it."
Fine. However you want to phrase it. And the point is....?
"The individualism that the nuts take to extremes began with a simple fact--the Second Amendment was written so that if the new government got too powerful, individuals could use *their* guns to resist."
No it wasn't. But we agree about their extremism.
"On top of that, the U.S. was founded on a deep and abiding suspicion of government. It was created out of war. It expanded through violence. More than that--we are rewarded, time and again, for our individualism, for our selfishness, for our violence. So it's really rather ungrateful for us to bitch about the downside of that violence."
We shouldn't complain about contemporary gun violence because that would be "ungrateful" to previous generations of Americans? Is that it? Where do you get this nonsense?
"But worse, it's unrealistic."
It's "unrealistic" to complain about gun violence? What's that supposed to mean?
"You think a bandaid like gun control is going to help in any meaningful sense against a culture like ours?"
Yes. Gun control is not a bandaid. And the idea that the current astronomical levels of gun violence are somehow an immutable aspect of American culture is just idiotic.
241. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
CalGal:
"Yes. Well, Cartman wrote the post you responded too, as well."
Yes, CARTMAN wrote the post. My response was addressed to CARTMAN. You then quoted that response and said "That's not what I'm saying" as if it had been addressed to you. You seem very confused.
242. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
cartman:
"It seemed you were making some sort of oblique comparison between "gun nuts" (whatever that means), and segregationists. Maybe not. What exactly is immoral about owning a gun for sport or defense, and wanting to use it legally without constant meddling from the government?"
I didn't make an oblique comparison, I made an explicit one, in response to CalGal's linking of gun nuts and American culture.
The defensive value of guns is largely a myth. "Sport" is a poor justification for such a dangerous device. If you want to shoot at things, use a BB gun. And we already empower the government to "meddle" much more in products far less dangerous than guns, so the "meddling" argument doesn't make sense, either.
243. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
cartman:
"I don't recall that the statistics you posted indicate how many people were polled, or in what part of the country. If in fact they did not indicate those things, then I fail to see what relevance they have."
The statistics were from University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center and Johns Hopkins University. The NORC is one of the most reputable polling organizations in the country. Other polls have reported essentially the same results about public opinion on gun control.
244. Greystoke - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:35 PM PT
Y'all haven't even mentioned the reason that cars are heavily regulated by the government and guns are not. Cars must be driven on highways that are owned by the government. If you don't drive your car on the highway, you don't have to have registration, a license, insurance, a license plate, etc. But obviously, virtually everyone drives their cars on public highways and therefore must accept the regulations. duh.
Guns are usually stored in the home and are kept in personal possession while being transported. Hence the government has far less rationale to require licensing, registration, and other intrusions on privacy.
Elliot says that gun nuts are to blame for the difficulty in regulating guns. Well I say GOOD! and more power to the guns nuts. The founding fathers were wise enough to recognize the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, and enshrined that right in the Second Amendment. How do you explain the Second Amendment, Elliot?
The founding fathers wisely allowed gun ownership to thwart the ability of the government to impose its will on the people. Perhaps you think it is inconceivable that our govenment could become tyrranical. But it happened 220 years ago, and it could happen again someday. (Particularly if Republicans are in contol of Congress and the Presidency at the same time.)
To paraphrase the NRA: in order to take my gun, you'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hand.
245. JadeGold - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
I have tin snips that'll work just dandy on those fingers.
" A well-regulated militia..."
---the forgotten part of the 2nd Amendment
246. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
Elliot:
"If the grounds are specious, the jury can find for the defendant. Do you oppose negligence lawsuits against all manufacturers, or only against those that manufacture guns?"
The guns didn't malfunction. Had the gun exploded in the users' hands, that would be grounds for negligence. The guns functioned perfectly. Nobody should *ever* be able to collect from a manufacturer if the product functions exactly as advertised.
247. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
Elliot:
"Do you oppose negligence lawsuits against all manufacturers, or only against those that manufacture guns?"
Considering that I voted for Ralph Nader in '96, I don't have much of a problem at all with negligence lawsuits against manufacturers. What I oppose is the use of the courtroom, and the ancillary benefits of the legislature, to absolve those most directly responsible for gun violence, by making manufacturers & distributors financially (but strangely enough, *not* criminally) liable.
If the manufacturer is making a defective product, fine -- sue 'em. They deserve what they get. That's not the case though. Unscrupulous dealers, who are presumably licensed, regulated, and overseen by the state, are selling to individuals who are either criminals or are subsequently selling the guns to criminals. Where the manufacturer or distributor factors into this is unclear.
If a gun dealer is *convicted* of selling guns to minors or criminals, then his license should be revoked, permanently. No second chances. But if the dealer is merely *suspected* of wrongdoing, as was intimated much earlier in this thread, that's irrelevant. No crime has been proven, therefore the manufacturers and distributors have every legal right to do business with them.
248. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
Greystoke:
"Y'all haven't even mentioned the reason that cars are heavily regulated by the government and guns are not. Cars must be driven on highways that are owned by the government. If you don't drive your car on the highway, you don't have to have registration, a license, insurance, a license plate, etc. But obviously, virtually everyone drives their cars on public highways and therefore must accept the regulations. duh."
This isn't true, at least not in Arizona. I'll bet it isn't true in other states, either. To the extent that cars are treated differently by the government if they are not driven at all or not driven on public highways, it is only because such use is rare and does not present much danger. No such rationale applies to guns.
"Guns are usually stored in the home and are kept in personal possession while being transported. Hence the government has far less rationale to require licensing, registration, and other intrusions on privacy."
Guns kill and maim as many people as cars do. That seems to me an excellent reason for stronger regulation.
"Elliot says that gun nuts are to blame for the difficulty in regulating guns. Well I say GOOD! and more power to the guns nuts."
I know. You're one of them.
249. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:46 PM PT
Greystoke:
"How do you explain the Second Amendment, Elliot?"
The need for a well-regulated militia.
"The founding fathers wisely allowed gun ownership to thwart the ability of the government to impose its will on the people. Perhaps you think it is inconceivable that our govenment could become tyrranical."
No, I don't consider it inconceivable. I do consider the idea that gun control must be opposed in order to safeguard against tyranny and oppression borderline insane, however. No one takes it seriously except libertarians and certain gun nuts.
250. Greystoke - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
Jade
Your tin snips against my .357 ? Bring it on.
251. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"The guns didn't malfunction. Had the gun exploded in the users' hands, that would be grounds for negligence. The guns functioned perfectly. Nobody should *ever* be able to collect from a manufacturer if the product functions exactly as advertised."
I disagree. More importantly, so have countless juries in product liability cases in which manufacturers have been found financially liable for negligence that did not affect the advertised functioning of their product. Sorry.
252. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:50 PM PT
Elliot:
"The defensive value of guns is largely a myth. 'Sport' is a poor justification for such a dangerous device. If you want to shoot at things, use a BB gun."
As rare as home invasions and the like may be, there are occasions when the defensive value of a gun is a reality. The rarity does not obviate the utility.
I have no predilection for shooting at things myself, animate or not. However, I don't presume to tell other people what they can and can't use to destroy paper targets or clay pigeons, any more than I would presume to legislate what they must watch on TV.
I see nothing wrong with a person using a firearm in a legally sanctioned manner; that is, in a defensive or sporting manner that does not harm anyone else.
AuNaturel:
"Nobody should *ever* be able to collect from a manufacturer if the product functions exactly as advertised."
Exactly.
253. Greystoke - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:54 PM PT
"This isn't true, at least not in Arizona. I'll bet it isn't true in other states, either."
What isn't true? That you don't need a license, registration, and insurance if you don't drive your car on public highways? Well, I know for a fact its true in my state. Are you sure its not also true in Arizona, or are you merely speculating?
254. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Cart:
"Well, my original argument was over the issue of personal responsibility being neglected in the context of these manufacturer lawsuits. We seem to have crossed into arguing over the viability (and constitutionality) of gun control."
Elliot doesn't believe in personal responsibility. That is a central maxim in his philosophy, that individuals are inherently inferior to any governmental body in deciding such things. As long, that is, as the government is farther left than the individual. Should the government be father to the right than that individual, suddenly he becomes a defender of rugged individualism.
He further defines "extremist" or "gun nut" anyone who does not favor tighter gun controls. I suppose if one is far enough out in left field, the infield does look a long way away.
255. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:00 PM PT
Elliot,
In Message #232, you say:
"My response wasn't directed to you; it was directed to cartman. Hence the name "cartman" at the top of the post."
Quite true. However, your response in that post had quotes--including "that's not what I'm saying"--from Message #230.
Please report back and tell me who wrote Message #230.
In other words, Elliot, in Message #232 you were responding to Cartman's post. Not mine. And lordy, you're thick some times.
256. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:01 PM PT
"A well-regulated militia..."
Go read the Anti-Federalist. A well regulated militia is a well armed one, where you are expected to bring your own gun and train on your own. Not a standing army or even a select reserve, such as the national guard. You should also look up the legal definition of "militia". It includes almost every able bodied male in the nation.
257. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
Jade, Elliot:
The militia phrase was negotiated to allay the fears of the states of a federally run army. But there is no question that the individual right to be armed was a critical concern of the colonists and that it was the main brunt of the amendment.
258. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
"But there is no question that the individual right to be armed was a critical concern of the colonists and that it was the main brunt of the amendment. "
Who cares what they wanted, don't live people get more of a vote than centuries dead ones.
259. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:13 PM PT
Au:
"Elliot doesn't believe in personal responsibility. That is a central maxim in his philosophy, that individuals are inherently inferior to any governmental body in deciding such things. As long, that is, as the government is farther left than the individual. Should the government be farther to the right than that individual, suddenly he becomes a defender of rugged individualism."
Well, I won't claim to know Elliot's philosophy, really, but he seems to place an inordinate amount of faith in juries and surveys. Personally, I don't give a damn if 99% of the population decide to completely do away with all firearms, it doesn't make it right. Groupthink is not necessarily thought.
The principle of the matter is that there is no reason for people who are legally and safely using guns to be proscribed from doing so.
260. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
"Who cares what they wanted, don't live people get more of a vote than centuries dead ones."
Besides the point. Elliot and Jade were making statements about what the intent was.
261. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:15 PM PT
Elliot:
"I disagree. More importantly, so have countless juries in product liability cases in which manufacturers have been found financially liable for negligence that did not affect the advertised functioning of their product."
Then where was the negligence if the product functioned as advertised? Lawyers love your train of thought because they can ride it all the way to being the most litigious society in the world. You love that line of thought because it absolves you of the responsibility for your own mistakes. This is a prime example of how dysfunctional tort law has become.
262. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:16 PM PT
cartman:
"As rare as home invasions and the like may be, there are occasions when the defensive value of a gun is a reality."
Yes, there are. But guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidently or mistakenly against the owner, or a friend or neighbor or family member, than against a hostile intruder.
263. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Also, bjc--and Elliot and JadeGold--the point was that the country was *founded* on this intent.
I think it's certainly arguable that any country founded in such a fashion is going to be more individualistic, more ornery, and more violent.
So trying to fix the violence by taking the guns away is approaching it from the wrong end. And I think that's why, as Cartman points out, the laws are flouted all the time.
264. bjc4000 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
Cartman,
"The principle of the matter is that there is no reason for people who are legally and safely using guns to be proscribed from doing so."
You are totally correct, however another principle involved is what constitutes "legal" use of guns and if that doesn't sometimes conflict with "safe" use of guns. Both are matters of opinion.
In my opinion walking around with a legally registered concealed weapon is not safe.
265. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:21 PM PT
"Who cares what they wanted, don't live people get more of a vote than centuries dead ones."
The amendment process is clear. You are welcome to it if you wish. A 60% plurality in popular support would easily be strong enough to get an amendmenmt through. But where people had had a chance to vote they have consistantly voted to oppose gun control. Which gun control laws can you find that were voted in by initiative rather than by politicians?
266. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:22 PM PT
Greystoke:
"What isn't true? That you don't need a license, registration, and insurance if you don't drive your car on public highways? Well, I know for a fact its true in my state. Are you sure its not also true in Arizona, or are you merely speculating?"
Registration (and tax) is required regardless of how you use your vehicle. All cars sold in the U.S. are subject to federal safety standards and other regulations, including identification, regardless of how they're used. A car that sits in a private driveway obviously isn't dangerous in the way that a car driven on public highways is a threat. A gun kept in the home is probably more dangerous than one kept locked and guarded at a gun club.
267. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Elliot doesn't believe in personal responsibility."
This is nonsense.
"He further defines "extremist" or "gun nut" anyone who does not favor tighter gun controls."
Anyone who opposes all tighter controls is definitely a gun nut, in my opinion. Basically, the term encompasses the NRA mentality and policy position. It's very much a minority position in America today.
"Then where was the negligence if the product functioned as advertised?"
The companies knew that the legitimate market couldn't support the number of guns they were shipping. They knew that the guns they were supplying were being resold to criminals, and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent this illegal activity. They did it for the money.
268. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:29 PM PT
"Yes, there are. But guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidently or mistakenly against the owner, or a friend or neighbor or family member, than against a hostile intruder."
Absolutely a bogus statistic circulated by the handgun control crowd. Manufactured of whole cloth and thoroughly disproven. Along the same lines as the supposed epidemimc of spouse abuse during Superbowl Sunday.
269. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
CalGal:
"The militia phrase was negotiated to allay the fears of the states of a federally run army. But there is no question that the individual right to be armed was a critical concern of the colonists and that it was the main brunt of the amendment."
It was an "individual" right only in the context of a well-regulated militia composed of individuals, not in the context of individual citizens acting privately for their own ends. Thus, it is irrelevant to modern gun control laws.
"Also, bjc--and Elliot and JadeGold--the point was that the country was *founded* on this intent."
No, it wasn't. You're misunderstanding the intent.
270. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
But even if they *are* more likely to be used against the owner, it makes no difference to whether or not the owner can have a gun.
Besides, in any individual case, the owner may not be an idiot and would only use the gun properly. So banning ownership on the grounds of protecting a few idiots is probably not going to fly.
271. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:36 PM PT
Elliot,
"It was an "individual" right only in the context of a well-regulated militia composed of individuals, not in the context of individual citizens acting privately for their own ends."
Not true.
"Thus, it is irrelevant to modern gun control laws."
That may or may not be true. But my point, as you recall was about intent and how that intent might have fostered a productively violent society. Which might be why modern gun control laws are ignored by all but the law-abiding--who are the least likely to need the controls.
272. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:37 PM PT
CalGal:
"So trying to fix the violence by taking the guns away is approaching it from the wrong end."
No, it isn't. It is the easy availability of guns themselves that causes much of the violence.
"And I think that's why, as Cartman points out, the laws are flouted all the time."
Most laws are flouted all the time. I'll bet drunk-driving laws are flouted far, far more often than any gun law.
273. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:37 PM PT
Elliot:
"...guns in the home are far more likely to be used accidently or mistakenly against the owner, or a friend or neighbor or family member, than against a hostile intruder."
Absolutely correct. So revoke the gun permits from people who have shown themselves incapable of responsibly owning a gun.
bjc:
"In my opinion walking around with a legally registered concealed weapon is not safe."
I agree with that. I don't buy the NRA nonsense that "an armed society is a polite society". Society is obviously far safer when the guns are kept at home or at a gun club. I don't like the idea of everyone packing heat around town, anymore than you do. That has nothing to do with whether citizens should be allowed to own guns and keep them in their houses for defense.
274. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"The amendment process is clear. You are welcome to it if you wish. A 60% plurality in popular support would easily be strong enough to get an amendmenmt through."
No Amendment is needed. No gun control law has ever been struck down on Second Amendment grounds.
"But where people had had a chance to vote they have consistantly voted to oppose gun control."
Nonsense. The people virtually never get to vote directly on gun control. The people favor more gun control overwhelmingly, as the statistics I quoted indicate.
275. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:41 PM PT
"The companies knew that the legitimate market couldn't support the number of guns they were shipping. They knew that the guns they were supplying were being resold to criminals, and failed to take reasonable measures to revent this illegal activity."
Identical things can be said of the liquor industry and pharmaceutical industry.
You really don't believe in personal responsibility, do you? If I shoot someone, I am to blame. Nobody else (unless I was part of a conspiracy). Not the dealer who legally sold me the gun. Not the wholesaler who sold the gun to the dealer. Not the manufacturer who sold it to the wholesaler.
There is only a certain amount of resposibility for an act and it totals 100%. By assigning a percentage responsibility to the manufacturer, you reduce my own. It is identical to saying a woman asked to be raped, therefor she shares responsibility, therefor the perpetrator bears less responsibility.
276. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:41 PM PT
Elliot,
"It is the easy availability of guns themselves that causes much of the violence."
I disagree. You would be hard pressed to prove it. And until you can, my interpretation is far more interesting and explains all the things you want to ignore.
277. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:42 PM PT
Elliot,
"The people virtually never get to vote directly on gun control."
The opportunity arises periodically. What happens when they do get that chance?
278. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
AuNaturel:
"Absolutely a bogus statistic circulated by the handgun control crowd. Manufactured of whole cloth and thoroughly disproven. Along the same lines as the supposed epidemimc of spouse abuse during Superbowl Sunday."
More nonsense. The studies showing that guns kept in the home are more likely to be used accidently or mistakenly than against a hostile intruder have been cited in the Fray many times.
279. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:47 PM PT
CalGal:
"But even if they *are* more likely to be used against the owner, it makes no difference to whether or not the owner can have a gun."
Of course it makes a difference. It means the gun is a net danger to him. That eviscerates the self-defense argument.
"Besides, in any individual case, the owner may not be an idiot and would only use the gun properly. So banning ownership on the grounds of protecting a few idiots is probably not going to fly."
It's not a "few idiots," it's the aggregate probability for all such gun owners.
"Not true."
It is true. Unsupported assertion and simple contradiction gets kind of boring, doesn't it?
280. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:51 PM PT
"It is the easy availability of guns themselves that causes much of the violence."
People with a propensity for violence are what cause violence. Guns are merely a tool. You can use a hammer to drive a nail, or you can use it to bash someone's head in. Either way, it's not the problem of the hammer manufacturer, or of the hardware store that sold you the hammer.
281. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:51 PM PT
cartman:
"Absolutely correct. So revoke the gun permits from people who have shown themselves incapable of responsibly owning a gun."
It's a bit late by then, isn't it? Someone has already been killed or injured by them. But at least we agree that permits should be required for gun ownership.
282. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:56 PM PT
"No, it isn't. It is the easy availability of guns themselves that causes much of the violence."
There you go again. Personal responsibility getting diluted by the evil guns that cause violence. Not evil people.
This is ever worse blithering idiocy than usual. Guns have NEVER been more difficult to acquire. By your claim, the rural countryside should be a steaming cauldron of violence. In the 40s and 50s we should have had blood running in the street.
Why did gun violence decrease in states that went to "must issue" on concealed carry permits when it increased most other places?
283. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
Elliot,
It is inarguably true that the colonies did not consider the right for an individual to bear arms *in his own defense* as sacrosanct and the purpose of the Second Amendment.
It is true that they felt that all citizens needed to have the right to take up arms to defend themselves against the government, if need be.
BTW--could you explain how and why England implemented gun control?
284. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 5:59 PM PT
CalGal:
"I disagree. You would be hard pressed to prove it. And until you can, my interpretation is far more interesting and explains all the things you want to ignore."
You would be hard-pressed to "prove" any cause of crime. You keep going on and on about proof. There's no "proof" than any law has any particular effect. What matters is evidence. As AlastairConnor showed earlier, the disparity in the rates of gun violence between the U.S. and other countries far exceeds the disparity in the rates of violence in general. This implies that it is the guns themselves that cause most of the gun violence. There is virtually no dispute amoung professional criminologists that the easy availability of guns in the U.S. is a major cause of its sky-high rates of gun violence.
"The opportunity arises periodically. What happens when they do get that chance?"
In Arizona--which is one of the most gun-friendly states--a gun control Proposition on the 1992 ballot passed overwhelmingly.
285. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:03 PM PT
Eliot:
"Nonsense. The people virtually never get to vote directly on gun control."
Maybe that's because it wouldn't pass??? Duh! Lots have states have intitaive processes. They tackle everything from abortion and affirmative action to school vouchers and medical marijuana to term limits to bilingual ed. There is no great groundswell of opinion for stiff gun control. There are a lot of people who don't really care one way or another and answer the question according to how its worded.
The people favor more gun control over
286. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
CalGal:
"It is inarguably true that the colonies did not consider the right for an individual to bear arms *in his own defense* as sacrosanct and the purpose of the Second Amendment."
Of course it's arguable. No one knows what "the colonies" considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be.
In any case, what anyone thought it meant 200 years ago is largely irrelevant. What matters is what people, and in particular the courts, think it means now. And I've been over that already.
287. CalGal - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
"You keep going on and on about proof. There's no "proof" than any law has any particular effect. "
Exactly. So there's no reason to assert that you are correct.
"There is virtually no dispute amoung professional criminologists that the easy availability of guns in the U.S. is a major cause of its sky-high rates of gun violence."
That's incredibly easy to say and yes, if we made all the guns disappear, gun violence would go down. However, it's extremely likely that our other violence rates would go up as a result. Perhaps it's the easy availability of guns that is keeping our strangulations and knifings down to a manageable rate.
And since we *can't* make all the guns disappear, the question is moot anyway.
288. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:08 PM PT
"In Arizona--which is one of the most gun-friendly states--a gun control Proposition on the 1992 ballot passed overwhelmingly."
And the text of this prop which passed in a state which remains one of the most gun friendly and uncontroled?
289. cartman69 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:11 PM PT
Elliot:
"It's a bit late by then, isn't it? Someone has already been killed or injured by them."
Yes, but that's the risk one takes in a free society. Accidents happen. People are careless. You don't take other people's rights from them because some people have trouble handling a gun.
"But at least we agree that permits should be required for gun ownership."
Yes, and I don't see anything wrong with requiring a certain level of proficiency either. Or even with maintaining a safety standard. What we disagree on, aside from the basic notion over whether people should even be *allowed* to own guns in the first place, is the issue of liability.
290. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
THE RISKS OF GUNS IN THE HOME
Over 35% of American households contains at least one firearm.
--Police Foundation, 1996
One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home.
--Police Foundation, 1996
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1986
When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.
--Kellermann A, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995
The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.
--Kellermann A, New England Journal of Medicine, 1992
In 1995, there were only 179 justifiable handgun homicides compared with a total of 11,198 handgun murders in the United States.
--FBI Uniform Crime Reports, released October 1996
In 60% of fatal accidents involving a firearm, the weapon was located in or near the home.
--General Accounting Office Report on Accidental Shootings, 1991
85 percent of adults who don't own guns feels less safe when others in the community acquire firearms.
--Hemenway, Solnick and Azrael, Firearm Training and Storage, 1995
In 1994, 16 children, aged 19 and under, were killed with guns every day in this country.
--National Center for Health Statistics, 1996
More than 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes.
--Lee, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990
291. elliot803 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:20 PM PT
CalGal:
"Exactly. So there's no reason to assert that you are correct."
Nonsense. The conclusion is based on the evidence. The "proof" that you keep demanding is impossible to provide, so the demand is stupid.
"That's incredibly easy to say and yes, if we made all the guns disappear, gun violence would go down. However, it's extremely likely that our other violence rates would go up as a result."
Yes, there would probably be some increase. But nothing like the decrease in violence due to the elimination of guns. Accidental and drive-by stabbings are unlikely to be a major problem.
"And since we *can't* make all the guns disappear, the question is moot anyway."
More nonsense. We don't have to make "all guns disappear" to reduce gun violence dramatically.
292. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:22 PM PT
Now, I can cite studies as well indicating that personal weapon ownership is a net benefit to those who excercise that option.
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
A federal grant went to two anti-gun scholars to fund this research project. Result: findings which support the work on defensive uses of
firearms done by Dr. Gary Kleck of FSU.
Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
This is the famous 1996 Lott and Mustard multi-year study which proves the link between concealed carry and the lowering of the crime rate.
Several download options available.
Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws
http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html
One of the oldest studies, from October of 1994, relying heavily upon early Florida and Washington data.
Of course Elliot, et al, will deny the validity of these reports. But we already knew that, so it doesn't matter.
293. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:31 PM PT
No one knows what "the colonies" considered the purpose of the Second Amendment to be.
Of course we can. Just read the Antifederalist. Read the transcripts of the debates. Read the contemporaneous writing of the founders where they touch the issue. Might as well say that meaning can never be discerned unless you were there personally.
"In any case, what anyone thought it meant 200 years ago is largely irrelevant. What matters is what people, and in particular the courts, think it means now."
What the courts think varies from one time to the next. The commerce clause is the fig leaf behind which federal gun control hides and the current high court hasn't been too friendly to it. As to what it meant 200 years ago being irrelevent, go tell that to Scalia, Souter or Renquist.
294. wonkers2 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
What matters is the probable effect of whatever policy is adopted. That is the ultimate basis for Supreme Court rulings in nearly all areas. Very few provisions of the Constitution come close to being absolute without regard for contemporary circumstances. Unfortunately for the gun nuts, the Second Amendment is not one of those near absolute provisions. Whatever the attitude of the framers in a rural society was toward flintlock rifles doesn't mean much in today's urban nation of machine pistols, submachine guns, flamethrowers, land mines, bazookas, etc. Majority opinion and common sense for contemporary America will ultimately prevail over the forces of evil who are profiteering on ignorance and lunacy.
295. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 6:56 PM PT
"THE RISKS OF GUNS IN THE HOME"
"More than 1.2 million elementary-aged, latch-key children have access to guns in their homes."
I'd say a remarkable record of safety, given that "One out of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked in the home". Everybody should give their children Eddie Eagle training from the NRA. Hell, it should be mandatory in the school. Would do a lot more good than DARE.
"Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense."
These are mutually exclusive somehow? Overwhelmingly rapists and murders or known to the victim.
"In 1995, there were only 179 justifiable handgun homicides compared with a total of 11,198 handgun murders in the United States."
Mmmm...this means that the police *only* killed 179 people all year long? Stupid statistic.
"In 60% of fatal accidents involving a firearm, the weapon was located in or near the home."
Amazing that accidents with firearms would be concentrated where firearms are kept!
"85 percent of adults who don't own guns feels less safe when others in the community acquire firearms."
Gee, suppose 85% of the people in a community didn't feel safe having their children taught by a homosexual teacher??? Does feeling safe somehow override someone elses rights?
I could go on, but so what? One can make statistics say what they want. What if more safety could be obtained at less cost by simply teaching kids to beware of guns? What of all the defensive uses of firearms that never involve a fired shot? What about crimes deterred because of the uncertainty the victim might be armed? Why do areas of highest gun conecentration have the lowest gun violence rates?
296. AuNaturel - Feb. 23, 1999 - 7:00 PM PT
Cart;
"Yes, and I don't see anything wrong with requiring a certain level of proficiency either. Or even with maintaining a safety standard."
I rather agree with you on that, when firearms are to be taken outside the home for hunting, defensive purposes etc.
"What we disagree on, aside from the basic notion over whether
people should even be *allowed* to own guns in the first place, is the issue of liability."
Elliot's principle is that ANY means to achieve a (theoretically) good end is justified, regardless of unintended consequences. That is really where you differ.
297. Greystoke - Feb. 23, 1999 - 7:04 PM PT
wonkers2
"Majority opinion and common sense for contemporary America will ultimately prevail over the forces of evil who are profiteering on ignorance and lunacy."
I'm glad we are in agreement on that point. Unfortunately, I suspect we disagree about who is on the side of common sense, and who is profiteering on ignorance and lunacy. Hint: the greedy lawyers who are suing the gun manufacturers are in the latter group.
298. wonkers2 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 7:08 PM PT
Aside from the direct effects of guns, an important side effect of the gun manufacturers' lobby is that their money brought about the election of a bunch of right wing cretins to the Congress and to state legislatures. These cretins don't just vote against gun control and regulation but also against trade and other international legislation, environmental legislation, strengthening Medicare and support for a variety of other urgent matters.
299. wonkers2 - Feb. 23, 1999 - 7:12 PM PT
Greystoke, I suppose you'd say the same about the greedy lawyers who have been suing the tobacco industry as well. If so, we disagree on both. Freedom implies responsibility. Bad cases make bad law. The tobacco companies are getting just what they deserve and so will the gun companies, one way or another.
300. Greystoke - Feb. 23, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
This from Fderalist Paper # 46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
Makes it rather clear that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to discourage tyranny by the government. And, in the most extreme case, to facilitate the overthrow of a tyrannical government.