How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

CrescentFresh

New Member
Fighting with nunchuks does require close combat. A person has way more of a chance to protect himself against a guy with nunchuks vs a guy standing 10-20-30 ft away with a gun. Guy kills guy with nunchuks or guy kills 26 people with a gun. Hmmm sounds like apples to dingleberries to me.

Peace
Salt
so people with nunchucks can be taken out with a high capacity ar?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.
in counterpoint, the second amendment of the constitution was drafted to enshrine that Right specifically and to preserve it against encroachment by any future do-gooder or despot who might try to disarm the populace.

the second amendment was not created in a vacuum, but with a long history of disarmament leading to despotism.

when the Scottish Parliament signed the Act of Union in 1707 it was followed by several uprisings. these Jacobite rebellions resulted in the Disarmament Act of 1747, which made posessing any weapon (even knives) a criminal act. shortly thereafter, scotland was subjected to "The Highland Clearances" which would today be described as "Ethnic Cleansing" where poor folks were driven off their farms, and into "labour villages" where they were allowed to choose either slave wages harvesting kelp or starvation.

in 1776, the founders well knew the price paid by the nwo helpless scots highlanders for defending their freedom, and took steps to ensure such a thing could not happen in their new nations.

the right to Keep (own) and bear (possess on your person) arms (weapons of ANY description) were crafted carefully with a justification clause, so future generations would know WHY it was there, and absolutely unambiguous language regarding what infringements were permitted (NONE).

even the case of US v Miller touted as proving the constitutionality of gun bans says nothing of the sort.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158." ~http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html

or, in non-lawyer speak:

sawed off shotguns are weapons used for crime. they serve no rational purpose outside crime as they are too inaccurate for hunting, to random for self defense, dangerous to everyone around them, and NOT any part of the military arsenal.

however, the fully automatic and burst fire capable M16 and CAR 15 (with 20 30 and 50 round mags...)are regular issue weapons in the "organized militia" (the army), the navy and the marine corps, and as such would therefore be considered as having a use in militia service, and thus WOULD be covered by the second amendment's protections.

Lawyered.

on a more direct and less legailistic note, as the second amendment enshrines a specific right to keep (own) and bear (carry about on one's person) arms (weapons of every description), demanding that anyone not otherwise encumbered (felons, crazy people, the clinically retarded etc...) would be an infringement of that right, reducing it to a mere privilege which could be taken away with a few minor changes to the laws you propose.

it doesnt take much imagination to envision a future dingbat congress riding high on the emotional tidal wave of... whatever... who might decide that the requirements to own arms should be set MUCH higher, so high as to be unattainable by anyone.
nor does it take much imagination to envision a future despot declaring by executive order that the requirements to own arms are now "membership in the ruling party" just before he declares himself El Presidente For Life. after all, thats what Fidel Castro did...
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria? You don't see a host of problems here? Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another.

Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement.

On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems.

Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people. Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not.
"State or Federal evaluation? Who develops the criteria?"

The feds on both counts

" Federal intercession at the purchasing level? Or should it be state,suppose the state are different and someone wants to cross state lines with a gun that is legal in one state and illegal in another."

Again, the feds. There would have to be uniformity in the law, which could not be accomplished if left up to the individual states.

"Manditory classes could conflict with the 2nd as an infringement."

Honestly, I don't care. A gun is intended to kill, and should be treated with a level of seriousness and professionalism. As a society we have no issue with taking training to drive a car, so how is owning and operating a gun any less important?

"On the subject of registration - Why? registration will make it impossible for a citizen to own a weapon without someone knowing he does and that is fraught with problems."

I conceded the slippery slope here, but the importance of this is to establish lawful ownership of the gun in order to punish the "bad guy". There would be no way of knowing that a gun is in the wrong hands without a registration process of some sort.

"Most of the mass shooters were not criminals but insane people."

My focus is not on preventing Adam Lanza type incidents. I don't feel that there are any practical measures to prevent something like that. If a nutter is set on shooting up a school, no law on earth will stop that.

"Now who are you going to get to determine which set of mental disorders are allowable and which are not. What you are in essence saying is that there will be a body of people - likely governmental on some level who will determine who is "eligible" to have their Constitutional rights - and who is not"

A persons eligibility will be based upon past behavior. Would you not agree that a person convicted of armed robbery, or rape, or murder, should not be permitted to own a firearm? There would be no "body of people". There would be clear-cut criteria (not unlike what we already have) set forth.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Drug sentences wouldn't exist if I called the shots. The government has no right telling me what I can ingest. If my actions cause no harm to others, then it should be none of their business.

A gun, by design, is meant to kill another human. A stolen gun is not only designed to kill another another human, but it is now in the hands of someone who has no regard for the law. Straight to prison, imo.

I thought you gun-nuts wanted to punish the "bad guys"??

A gun can be used to defend oneself or to initiate aggression. Would you be in favor of disarming those that use guns to jail people for ingesting plant matter of their choice?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
If we lost the ability to form pre-trained motivated militia then we are fucked
That's the 2nd
How many innocent live cannot be protected?
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Fighting with nunchuks does require close combat. A person has way more of a chance to protect himself against a guy with nunchuks vs a guy standing 10-20-30 ft away with a gun. Guy kills guy with nunchuks or guy kills 26 people with a gun. Hmmm sounds like apples to dingleberries to me.

Peace
Salt
this was not two ninjas dueling on the cliffs above a storm tossed sea with dramatic music playing.

this was a straight up MDK with a blunt object.

it could have been a thrown brick, a heavy sack beating, a set of brass knuckles (also more illegal than nuclear weapons) or the dreaded "Sawed Off Nunchuk", a goddamned stick.

dead is dead, either by rifle shot, pistol ball, cannonade, sabre slash, footman's lance, bodkin arrow, slingstone, club, stone tipped spear or martian death ray.

banning guns doesnt prevent murder, it just makes murder into a contact sport for those who cannot figure out the use of a longbow.

conversely, in the situation you seem to prefer, i would have the advantage, as my size and strength will ensure i am unchallenged when i decide to go on my (some would say inevitable) killing rampage.

however thanks to the glorious second amendment, a sickly little old lady with a colt pony .380 auto can end my flail-wielding orgy of destruction with a single well placed shot.

guns are not tools of crime, they are tools which serve the user in crime or defense of liberty.
 

zambonic

Well-Known Member
Maybe you should pose this question to the Jews in Germany during Hitlers rein, or the Russian people during Stalins time...need I go on?

I've been thinking a lot about guns, gun violence, mass shootings on the one hand, U.S. civil rights and the 2nd amendment on another hand and on a third hand, the explosive, reactionary, irrational responses to any percieved threat to most gun owners ability to do as they please with firearms, buy as they wish, and be held completely unaccountable for their ideological contribution to gun violence.


But the question finally draws down to a very simple one: how many innocent deaths is each one of your guns worth?

I know I am making some critical presumptions, that the removal of law abiding citizen's guns does not directly correlate with a reduction in gun violence and that there is the counterbalancing factor of self protection and perhaps an offset for potential governmental tyranny.

But that aside, presuming that a number could be established,


If you knew for certain that surrendering your firearm would keep a given number of children from being shot, what would that number be?

How many children is your right to keep and bear worth to you?
 

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
A gun can be used to defend oneself or to initiate aggression. Would you be in favor of disarming those that use guns to jail people for ingesting plant matter of their choice?
I see your point, but so long as we have 300+ million guns out there, I feel that the police need to be armed.... even with knowing how they abuse their power.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
DrKynes.......... a sawed off shotgun would work great for snakes
no it does not.

a regular shotgun is even dangerous when used on snakes unless youre a "Snake Sniper shooting froom 50+ yards...

pellets bounce. if you see a snake coiling up at your feet and shoot at it with a sawed off shotgun, then youll blow your own foot off, or ricochet pellets will perforate you.

if the snake is close enough to be a hazard, it's too damned close for a sawed off, if it's menacing somebody else, THEY are too damned close to the snake for a sawed off.

sawed of shotguns are wildly inaccurate, and essentially only useful as a threat to everybody in that bank you are robbing.

if youre worried about snakes, pack a .22 loaded with a shotshell round full of dove shot. thats what .22's are for.
 
Top