Gun rights victory today!

[Magic Man]

That's because "death tax" is a cheap appeal to selfishness. Meanwhile "restriction on liberty" is precisely what is happening.

If you step outside of your opinion on the subject, I think you'll see that differently.

Again, not all restrictions are unnecessary or unreasonable. You'd be hard pressed to find a stauncher advocate of free speech than myself, but even I don't oppose the restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is my entire point. It's silly to call it that because of this exact reason.

So, why are you arguing against taking the former into account? I'm confused.

I'm not. I'm saying that taking into account how often people who own guns aren't involved in violence is irrelevant.

 

[sandandfoam]

Guns may not cause violence, per se, but they certainly make it easier.

lol and beer doesn't cause people to be drunk

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Is that a yes or a no?

It does not mean that I was only talking about hunters, and collectors certainly fire their weapons for recreation.

So "collector" doesn't "mean people who use handguns at the range," but it certainly includes it.

And includes the use of both rifles and handguns by both hunters and collectors.

 

[Magic Man]

It does not mean that I was only talking about hunters, and collectors certainly fire their weapons for recreation.

Then you should be specific. To me, collectors collect.

So "collector" doesn't "mean people who use handguns at the range," but it certainly includes it.

Not in my opinion. "Recreational gun users" would include them, IMO.

And includes the use of both rifles and handguns by both hunters and collectors.

What do hunters use to hunt?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do hunters use to hunt?

Rifles, handguns, bows, crossbows.

note: http://www.handgunhunt.com/

note 2: http://www.bowhunting.com/

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then you should be specific. To me, collectors collect.

I'm glad to if you ask. To me, it's obvious that most collectors either hunt or shoot recreationally. The only collectors who wouldn't use at least some of their guns don't do so because the guns are too old. A gun is only valuable if it works, so collectors have to shoot just about everything that they have.

 

[Storm]

Guns may not cause violence, per se, but they certainly make it easier.

Depends on your perspective. A responsible combination of use and restriction (armed security guards) might have prevented 9-11. When my apartment complex briefly "splurged" on armed security, many of our issues improved dramatically. I've had no luck finding a confirming source, but I did hear of a highly-publicized campaign in Florida (I think) to arm women with small handguns, which was accompanied by a sharp drop in random attacks. That last one is rumor, and I won't swear to it, but it makes perfect sense to me. And while it's not a gun, I've never been bothered on the street when I had my stick with me, in sharp contrast to the near-constant harrassment without it.

Meanwhile, someone upthread mentioned Australia suffered a rise in home invasions upon banning guns. The UK had a rise in knife crime.

Just knowing people are armed is an effective deterrent. The vast majority of criminals are looking for easy targets. I have no intention of being one.

 

[Storm]

If you step outside of your opinion on the subject, I think you'll see that differently.

This is my entire point. It's silly to call it that because of this exact reason.

I could say the same to you.

I've said several times that not all restrictions are bad. A spade is still a spade.

I'm not. I'm saying that taking into account how often people who own guns aren't involved in violence is irrelevant.

What's the difference?

I'm not being obstinate, but as far as I can tell, you're completely contradicting yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

Rifles, handguns, bows, crossbows.

note: Handgun Hunter Magazine - Your Handgun Hunting Headquarters

note 2: Bowhunting.com | Archery and Bowhunting Equipment For Serious Bowhunters

Why would you hunt with a handgun? What's wrong with a rifle?

 

[Magic Man]

Depends on your perspective. A responsible combination of use and restriction (armed security guards) might have prevented 9-11. When my apartment complex briefly "splurged" on armed security, many of our issues improved dramatically.

That's a little different than having everyone buy guns.

I've had no luck finding a confirming source, but I did hear of a highly-publicized campaign in Florida (I think) to arm women with small handguns, which was accompanied by a sharp drop in random attacks. That last one is rumor, and I won't swear to it, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Given your point of view on this, I'm not surprised it makes perfect sense to you. Yes, it's a possibility, but my whole point here is that there are dangers associated with moves like that, and the real question is do the benefits outweigh the dangers.

And while it's not a gun, I've never been bothered on the street when I had my stick with me, in sharp contrast to the near-constant harrassment without it.

Well, there you go. So, you don't really need a gun.

Meanwhile, someone upthread mentioned Australia suffered a rise in home invasions upon banning guns. The UK had a rise in knife crime.

I'd like to read more about this. Do you have links?

Just knowing people are armed is an effective deterrent. The vast majority of criminals are looking for easy targets. I have no intention of being one.

Well, good. You're armed with your stick, which seems to do a pretty good job, apparently. The problem is that there are dangers, too. If it was this simple, there would be no debate, but it's not.

 

[Magic Man]

I could say the same to you.

I've said several times that not all restrictions are bad. A spade is still a spade.

Yes, and a death tax is still a tax on your death, sort of. However, using that language doesn't really help a conversation.

What's the difference?

I'm not being obstinate, but as far as I can tell, you're completely contradicting yourself.

There are 2 things I'm trying to compare here:

1) Violence or crimes averted because of gun possession.
2) Violence caused or facilitated by gun possession.

People who have guns and aren't involved in violence or crimes don't factor into that comparison.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why would you hunt with a handgun? What's wrong with a rifle?

Less weight, more versitile ammunition, it poses more of a challenge making the kill. A lot of people like the feel of a handgun - it's more comfortable for them than lugging around a heavy rifle.

Some hunters are recreational shooters, too, and they prefer to use the same handgun for hunting that they use in the range or in competition (same thing for bow hunters).

 

[Revoltingest]

To people who use the self-defense arguement:

If you have a gun the chances of others having a gun are just as high. Net gain in safety is sweet nothing.

Your probability calculation is off. Let's say the perp has a 50% probability of having a gun.
If I have one, then the probability that I have one is 100%. But if I don't have one, then the probability that I have one is 0%.
QED, there is a quantitative advantage in my having one. I hope this clears things up for you.

WTF America.... wait, its hardly suprising.

Hey, cut us some slack....I didn't knock your country's lack of math skill regarding probability.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't know about gun rights victory...
More like a perpetual national failure

 

[Storm]

That's a little different than having everyone buy guns.

Once again, not all restrictions are unreasonable. I'll also quote from my first post in the thread: if you think guns are bad don't get one.

The issue here is not "everybody should have a gun." That's your choice, and no one's trying to make it for you. The issue is "no one should have guns," which is a whole nother kettle of fish. That's MY choice, guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights, and it's not anyone else's place to make it for ME.

Well, there you go. So, you don't really need a gun.

I legally have the option of a gun (well, I'm supposed to, but how easily it's stripped from me is a topic for another thread), and no need to justify my choices.

Again, some restrictions are justifiable, but all restrictions must be justified. Liberty should be the default.

I'd like to read more about this. Do you have links?

I don't. It was a claim made upthread (I think by Reverend Rick) that I haven't seen refuted.

Well, good. You're armed with your stick, which seems to do a pretty good job, apparently. The problem is that there are dangers, too. If it was this simple, there would be no debate, but it's not.

There are risks to driving as well. However, they do not justify outlawing it. Same with guns.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are risks to driving as well. However, they do not justify outlawing it. Same with guns.

And cars are used to facilitate crimes.

 

[Storm]

Yes, and a death tax is still a tax on your death, sort of. However, using that language doesn't really help a conversation.

The "sort of" is rather telling, don't you think?

There are 2 things I'm trying to compare here:

1) Violence or crimes averted because of gun possession.
2) Violence caused or facilitated by gun possession.

People who have guns and aren't involved in violence or crimes don't factor into that comparison.

OK, I see your point now. I still think it's an attempt to stack the deck, which I reject.

 

[Storm]

2) Even if ownership were the cause of violence, banning them in the US wouldn't help. This is one point on which I agree with the anti-immigrationists: Mexico would be a problem (IF we tried to get rid of guns). We're not geographically isolated like Australia, or surrounded on all sides by countries with similar restrictions like most of Europe. It just won't work.

Criminalize firearms, and we'll just see the black market skyrocket, fed by Mexican smugglers. It won't solve anything, only ensure that criminals are the only ones with access.

Prohibition is worthless enough without a ready supply of black market goods sitting next door.

OK, I held off for as long as I could. I find it rather telling that in an hour and three pages worth of posts, no one has seen fit to even acknowledge this point.

 

[Magic Man]

Once again, not all restrictions are unreasonable. I'll also quote from my first post in the thread: if you think guns are bad don't get one.

The issue here is not "everybody should have a gun." That's your choice, and no one's trying to make it for you. The issue is "no one should have guns," which is a whole nother kettle of fish. That's MY choice, guaranteed by the Bill Of Rights, and it's not anyone else's place to make it for ME.

First, yes, it's inarguable that the Constitution allows for citizens to own guns. In this case, it wouldn't be a matter of questioning whether or not it says that, but whether that's the best idea in modern times.

Second, I'm not sure how this responds to my comment.

Third, it boils down to the fact that you want to have one and you don't want people telling you what you can and can't do. That's fine, but in society that's not all there is to it. I want to be able to drive as fast as I can. I'm not allowed to, though, because certain restrictions on my liberty are in place.

I legally have the option of a gun (well, I'm supposed to, but how easily it's stripped from me is a topic for another thread), and no need to justify my choices.

Again, some restrictions are justifiable, but all restrictions must be justified. Liberty should be the default.

I don't understand how this responds to that comment. Your stick seems to do fine, which negates the need for a gun, it would appear.

I don't. It was a claim made upthread (I think by Reverend Rick) that I haven't seen refuted.

I meant for either one. I figure no one's refuting because there hasn't been any evidence for it yet.

There are risks to driving as well. However, they do not justify outlawing it. Same with guns.

Except that driving has something other than destruction as a goal. The entire purpose of guns is to destroy things. The purpose of a car is to transport people quickly, while the damage that happens because of them is a side effect. The damage caused by guns isn't a side effect; it's the purpose of the gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know about gun rights victory...
More like a perpetual national failure

If I lived in the UK, I wouldn't be dissing the US as being in a state of "perpetual national failure".
We all have our problems, but the gun rights issue is a Constitutional one. In this case, it was
a victory not just for gun rights, but also having the USSC rule according to the law of the land,
rather than personal values. Even if you oppose gun rights, doesn't it make sense that the
justices rule based upon Constitutional law, rather than whim & fiat?