The right to bear arms

[Eamonn]

What's wrong? Don't you explore both extremes of any important issue, before finding your own place somewhere in the middle of the argument?

Dirt(always self pwned)Dawg  ... A Badge of Honor

Nope, i've never physically killed humans or animals or had sexual relations with kiddies, held people to ransom with gas/electricity prices while profiteering on the poor and vulnerable or had an abortion but i reserve the right to have a view on all the aforementioned issues.

[DirtDawg]

[Litigious]

HOPLOPHOBIA

[Litigious]

http://members.wserv.com/~crimson/nra.htm

[driftingblizzard]

Sorry I'm late...  keep getting lost in the virtual traffic.
I think that there are many risks to being alive.  Many risks are advertised way (WAY) out of proportion.  People spend a lot of their time and energy debating issues that will never affect them. 
When this article started, it was about gun ownership, toward the end it was about whether or not killing animals was ok.  Inbetween, well, just have a read for yourselves.  I think the only topic not covered was the cleanliness of soda cans versus soda bottles.  I my self prefer bottles. 
Here's my take.  Gun ownership should be a "personal choice".  If you want one, go get one.  If you don't like them, don't buy one.  They are quite expensive you know.  For a good one.  If you hate that this country allows it, you can also choose a country that doesn't and go live there.
I don't think anyone should tell me that I have to own one or not.  It should be my choice.  With that said, the percieved risks are way out of proportion either way.  I'm in more danger driving to church  the liquor store (statistically speaking)  than from going in and buying liquor and ending up in a gun violence situation.  Peroid.  Here's the top three killers of americans:
#1, smoking.  #2, alcohol.  #3  Auto accidents.  Those three add up to more deaths than the next 25 causes totalled together.  Fine print: (The top three causes include accidents and health problems associated with said activities).   Now the finest print:  All bets are off on number of deaths from anything when the next flu pandemic rolls through...   But at least if I survive it, I'll feel safe when I go out foraging for food for my families survival. PS.  The number one cause of accidental death for all children 6 years old and younger:
Iron poisoning from overdose of vitamins.  Ponder that one about....  vitamins.  Number one cause. 

[Scrapheap]

If only more people thought like you, we would'nt even be having this discussion.

You're right. It should be everyones personal choice, except in cases where people have proven themselves to be violent and/or untrustworthy.

[driftingblizzard]

Yes, but I'm not quite sharp enough to be able to post the statistical chart, the firewall may prevent prying eyes.  Most people wouldn't read it correctly anyway since its semi-logrithmic.  But please tell me if it comes through.  (I know that I can see it, I don't know if you'll be able to or not).

And its from 1982 when deaths from ALL of those activities listed were higher in ALL catagories.  It was a much more dangerous world all-the-way-around. 

Of 342,933 U.S. deaths in 1982,

Smoking: 120,000
Alcohol:   100,000
Auto:        80,000
Total:      300,000

The next 21 listed items:  42,933 TOTAL.  (and yes, handgun deaths are listed.  Yes, there is a risk.  But don't lose perspective. And no, lightning strikes, shark attacks and Carbon monoxide poisoning are not listed, nor drug overdoses, wildebeast stampedes etc., the list is to show perspective only.)

I shall feverishly look for more modern statistics and also try to find a virtual means of self defense come morning time.
Until then, here's something to really worry about:   http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/12/29/canada.arctic.ap/index.html



[attachment deleted by admin]

[driftingblizzard]

If only more people thought like you, we would'nt even be having this discussion.

You're right. It should be everyones personal choice, except in cases where people have proven themselves to be violent and/or untrustworthy.

I can't brag, I'm gifted with A-S.  I've also cheerfully attached death statistics current to 2005.  Please read with all sense of delicacy as I've probably had relatives pass on in order to help create this chart.    Once again, I can see it, I don't know if YOU'LL be able to.  So, here is the web linc:

http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Whoa nellie:  I just realized that over 2 million of the 2.5 million annual deaths from all causes in the U.S. are in the 55 and older crowd: What are they up too!?  Is anybody looking into this?!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[odeon]

Let me see if I get your point right... Is it that because tobacco, traffic accidents and such cost so much more lives, we shouldn't even be looking into the lesser numbers? Is it that until proven unsuitable, everyone should have the right to a firearm? How is this done, exactly? Empirical tests?

I'm sure you'll get the numbers down on the 2 million annual deaths among the 55+ crowd if you ease up on those awful firearm restrictions.

Oh, and please; don't brag.

[Eamonn]

Changed my mind. I think i should be able to legally get a gun if i want one. Sure some people might be murdered with a gun but if people really wanted to put an end to all accidents/murders then like the blizzard said then cars etc cause more deaths but no-ones interested in loosing that comfort. In this country i cant even carry a knife for self-protection, making life very easy for muggers. Even some breeds of dog are banned here. I bet that being a youth will be banned altogether in this nanny state. Governments are trying to turn their populations into sheep with id tags. Wanting to chip the homeless. Needing licenses for everything, banning smoking in public places. CCTV everywhere. Intervening in allegations into corruption. It's a very murky world out there and im all for more freedoms for the individual and less government controlling. What right has the government to decide what i cant or cant do? I also think shootouts at high noon should be made legal again. Boy, would that make for good tv.

[Litigious]

If only more people thought like you, we would'nt even be having this discussion.

You're right. It should be everyones personal choice, except in cases where people have proven themselves to be violent and/or untrustworthy.

In Sweden it's enough if you're being attacked in a bar fight and simply defending yourself with your fists to get your gun license revoked, at least if you have a license for a one hand gun. It sounds like a joke, but it isn't. I've checked it up. I know people here who have a gun legally but still want an illegal gun so that they can defend themselves without getting in jail. Even if you're being attacked in your own home, the risk is more than 50% that you end up in jail for defending yourself, and that is with a legal gun.

[Litigious]

I know this sounds very strange to Americans, but guns aren't banned per se in Sweden, but the legislation makes it impossible to bear a gun in public (no "right to carry"-license) and almost impossible even to use a legal gun for self protection in your own home, since the courts usually will sentence you for "excessive self-defense" (how there can be such a thing when you're being attacked in your own home?) if you shoot a burglar...(Have I written this before?)

So if you feel threatened, it will be easier to escape jail by getting an illegal gun, kill the burglar and then claim that it was his gun and that he was killed while you were trying to take it from him. Or, if it's happening in public, shoot the attacker and then run and throw the gun away.

As I see it, our laws are making otherwise law abiding citizens criminals, if they wan't to feel secure...

[driftingblizzard]

Let me see if I get your point right... Is it that because tobacco, traffic accidents and such cost so much more lives, we shouldn't even be looking into the lesser numbers? Is it that until proven unsuitable, everyone should have the right to a firearm? How is this done, exactly? Empirical tests?

I'm sure you'll get the numbers down on the 2 million annual deaths among the 55+ crowd if you ease up on those awful firearm restrictions.

Oh, and please; don't brag.

I do value your point of views.  Truly I do.  But no, that's not my point at all.  But that is usually how these discussions go, that the point is re-directed and then we end up discussing the cleanliness of soda cans versus soda bottles. (Its called fogging). 

My point was that the perceived risk from gun ownership has been, pardon the unintienional pun, "blown way out of proportion" to the actual risk.  And when this happens, people, many of whom never owned a gun, would use that skewed perception to try to take away my right to own one if I chose to.

And by the way, a right is by its nature something that's been given to me.  I don't have to earn it or show that I deserve it,  but if I abuse it, yes, I could lose it.  Like convicted felons.   

Hmmm, the right to brag?  I think I'm getting a brainstorm for another forum thread...  (although I did actually say that "I can't brag"...). 

 

[odeon]

Do I have to have owned a gun to know that they are deadly? How many innocent lives would you say that your right to own and carry a firearm is worth? One? Ten? Thirty-two? A Columbine incident once a decade?

And please, don't feel forced to fog the issue. Take the soda can discussion in another thread.

[driftingblizzard]

You're supposed to say that you also value my points of view too, first.  Then bash me.