Do we NEED guns? (evolution, America, pagan, Zen)

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by robtex

Two things when considering these stats and rampages:

1) The guy with the gun is an arguement for gun control
2) for every minnosota school shooting or killeen rampage 1000's more will be killed annually by friends and aquitances because of current gun avaliablty.

Let me put it to you another way. Say you work in an office with 500 people...a really big company. Lets face it there is no way you can know about everybody there....any day one of those guys can just lose it and come in firing....by your line of thought...maybe its a good idea for all the employees to pack iron just in case one of them flips out..(oh yeah and if they are going to do that get rid of the offices coffee pots...i would be really tempted to shoot some jerkoff from accounting who took the last cup and didn't restart the machine).

Ok Robtex, I'll bite,

Do we stop there? What about Rocks, Sticks, knives, Axes, Screwdrivers. Beer Bottle, Barstools, and anything else we could use as a weapon? I do agree that an armed revolution in the US is not likely, but we do have serious self defense issues and we scare the pants off of anyone even thinking about some kind of armed takeover here. I used Pepper Spray while driving a Cab. Never got hassled by the cops because it was legitimate self defense. I would do that before shooting someone, but if I had no choice I would empty the clip.

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by robtex

I am pro-gun control because I see it as a number's game

It's a numbers game, sure. But the ones who want the guns to commit crimes will get the guns anyway, no matter what the law is. So I should be allowed to have a gun, too, to defend myself against those kind of people. I'm one of these people who won't own a gun if it isn't legal. But there are all those people out there who will own a gun regardless of whether or not it is legal that I would much rather have the option of owning a gun.

[Bennettresearch]

Sorry for the double post Robtex,

I went to cannot find page and when I got back it looked like my post wasn't there. wierd.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Ok Robtex, I'll bite,

Do we stop there? What about Rocks, Sticks, knives, Axes, Screwdrivers. Beer Bottle, Barstools, and anything else we could use as a weapon?

two things about that.

1) comparing guns to other possilbe weapons are apples and oranges.

The difference being two-fold. First rocks, stickes knives axes screwdrivers ect ect require physical skills and coordination to use. This limits the number of people that can effectivly use them. Not by a lot but it does margianlize it and rolls into the second part. That part being that those items listed take a much more emotionally committed person to use them in a violent action. What I mean is that to kill someone with a handgun all you need to do is to manuever a mechanical lever less than one inch from its original position. To kill someone with say a knife you have to repeatly lunge slice and and cut to get the desired effect. With a bar stool even more. If you read enough crimes of passion in the day-to-day newspaper you will see, as I have that there is a trend towards blunt trama "overkill" or overkill using a sharp insturement. I personally feel that is because insufficent emotional release is achieved in a lustfull wanton killing when a gun is used as opposed to another instruement. The flip side, which plays into the numbers game is that because it takes a higher emotional committment to kill with the items you listed by reason far less incidents will be emotioanal enough to get the same numbers you can get with the less emotionally committed handgun slayings.

2) I don't see the issue of gun control as interdependant to the other items listed. Each is its own issue. I do have opinions on knives, axes and some other items not listed but I don't see them as the "same issue" when it comes to gun control. It may be similar but the baning of firearms is not contigent on the laws regarding knives or other instruments with descructive potential.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Sorry for the double post Robtex,

I went to cannot find page and when I got back it looked like my post wasn't there. wierd.

no sweat I deleted your double post. If you ever want to delete your own post you can go to edit and click on delete.

[Bennettresearch]

Ok Robtex,

you have obviously studied the matter and your argument is very logical and sound. This problem actually speaks of society as a whole. One of my beefs that I sound off on is that I resent being reduced to the least common denominator. Ergo, if someone else cannot walk out the door without hurting themselves, why am I restricted by rules protecting them? You see, this is where the objection of a nanny state arrises. To bring it back to the subject, those who may be responsible in taking care that a gun doesn't get found by a child or stolen, can be restricted because of those who are not responsible. That is why the issue gets emotional.

Just poking at you about sticks and rocks. It does appear in this thread that the majority of people want the right to have a firearm, so gun control has an uphill battle to wage.

[lilithu]

Namaste, Robtex.

Originally Posted by robtex

Change the word "good" to "lethal" and it is a better measure of the scope of the possible consquences. I am pro-gun control because I see it as a number's game. A small small percentage will act like commandos with their guns but even if the numbers are small I don't feel the consequences justify the luxary of handgun and assult rifle ownership .

If you concede that the numbers are small, on what basis do you decide that the consequences don't justify the "luxury." "Luxury" btw, is pejorative. What you think is a luxury is considered by others to be a constitutionally protected right.

Originally Posted by robtex

That assessment is taking into consideration the american culture which mixes poorly with firearms, the lack of need (we don't need a minuteman army to fight the usa army), and the financial costs associated with treating even the small percentage of dead and wounded from firearm violence.

As I said, we have a lot of things we don't "need." And some of the unnecessary things we have serve desires that are a lot more frivolous than self-defense. Financial costs is not a compelling argument. A lot more people die or are "wounded" every year from obesity and heart disease. Should government be allowed to make it mandatory to eat right and exercise? I agree that American culture is based on violence, and I personally don't like that. But I am not at all convinced that we can legislate it out.

Originally Posted by robtex

As a footnote, I have to say I am really distressed that bringing a firearm into a bar is a felony but blasting bami on the weekend while hammered is not.

Alcohol should never be mixed with anything potentially lethal. That said, I'd rather Bambi be blasted with one clean shot than be hit by a car while scrounging for food or starve to death.


Robtex, I realize that I am in the vast minority of liberals on the issue of gun control. But I honestly feel that I am being more true to the spirit of liberalism here. When we argue for civil liberties on the basis of human freedom, we cannot pick and choose which behaviors people should be free to engage in and which ones should be prohibited simply based on whether we like it or not.

If we argue that people are (mostly) responsible enough to make their own choices, then how can we argue that they can be free to watch porn and violence (if they want to), smoke pot (if they want to) but not free to own a gun (if they want to)?

[robtex]

Let me go backwards and hit Lilithu's stuff first.

1) firearms are a luxary the second amendment was designed for a minute man army. It is not a constitutional right but a luxary to own a gun in the USA

According to the bradysite that I posted on this thread we shelled out about 100 bilion in medical expenses annually for firearm violence.
( http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/f...ets/?page=econ
secondary source:
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/1214.cfm

Second point: obsity and heart diese are self-inflicted which makes it a different arguement than gun violence.

third point: bambi hit by a car : hunting with rifles is neccessary in states like oregon and minnosota. I am more concerned about handguns because they are concealable and automatic rifles which are not used for hunting.

Point 4. People do not die from porn and we do regulate porn to a degree. child porn is illegal. We do regulate the consumption of pot. Again porn and pot are self consuming acts of hedonism whereas firearm violence is one person projecting violence unvoluntarly on another.