And people wonder why they're called "Gun Nuts"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the definition of criminal is someone who keeps laws.

It's about making it difficult to obtain them with licenses and bureaucratic hoops, and mandatory personality checks for gun owners perhaps on a yearly basis.

Outright banning them, however, or making it too difficult, just gives more power to the black market. It's definitely a fine line to walk, but it's one that needs walking and frequent tweaking to keep up with the times and with local culture. It can't be made easy for the sake of hobbyists' fun; these are real dangerous tools. Human life is more important than someone's fun.

One possible approach: require liability insurance for gun owners the way we do for cars (along with a hefty penalty for owning or carryinh a gun without insurance). If a gun owner really is safe and responsible, they'll find this reflected in low premiums. Riskier gin owners will find themselves priced out of firearm ownership.

And for those who think that guns make them safer, we should allow insurance companies to take the presence of a firearm (and a trained person to use it, obviously) into account when setting premiums for home and business insurance. if the gun advocates are right and they do make things safer, the actuaries will see this in their data and discounts could be given accordingly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, try to be reasonable. His comment matches a strawman fallacy.

Like this one?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3560272-post25.html

Freedom is your right to work for less than a livable wage so that most of the wealth in a society can be expediently transferred from its underclass to its top 1% wealthiest members. You should hold that right sacred.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was going to stay out of this conversation but here's a 'real world' scenario. This Monday morning at 4:11 am there was a gentleman on a blue scooter taunting my dog. I did not know this person and there was no reason for this guy to be in my driveway. He pulled out before I was able to ask him what he wanted. If he had decided to come any further however, he would have been a participant in a three-way discussion consisting of him, me, and my .40 cal friend. Say what you want but when it comes down to cases at four in the morning I'll take a firearm over enlightened thinking and every time.

Sounds eerily similar to this story in the local news. I'm glad yours ended better:

Detroit gripped by racially-charged killing | Windsor Star

 

[CMike]

One possible approach: require liability insurance for gun owners the way we do for cars (along with a hefty penalty for owning or carryinh a gun without insurance). If a gun owner really is safe and responsible, they'll find this reflected in low premiums. Riskier gin owners will find themselves priced out of firearm ownership.

And for those who think that guns make them safer, we should allow insurance companies to take the presence of a firearm (and a trained person to use it, obviously) into account when setting premiums for home and business insurance. if the gun advocates are right and they do make things safer, the actuaries will see this in their data and discounts could be given accordingly.

The difference is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


There is no constitutions right to drive a car.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds eerily similar to this story in the local news. I'm glad yours ended better:
Detroit gripped by racially-charged killing | Windsor Star

Sounds like a good reason to improve training of gun owners.

 

[CMike]

I was going to stay out of this conversation but here's a 'real world' scenario. This Monday morning at 4:11 am there was a gentleman on a blue scooter taunting my dog. I did not know this person and there was no reason for this guy to be in my driveway. He pulled out before I was able to ask him what he wanted. If he had decided to come any further however, he would have been a participant in a three-way discussion consisting of him, me, and my .40 cal friend. Say what you want but when it comes down to cases at four in the morning I'll take a firearm over enlightened thinking and every time.

You can only draw legally if a reasonable person would believe he or someone else is in. imminent danger or grave bodily harm.

A dude in your diveway does not fit that crieria

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The difference is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


There is no constitutions right to drive a car.

First off, I'm talking about ideal hypotheticals, not necessarily intending to fit the laws of any particular country.

Second, rights in the Constitution don't necessarily mean that there's no cost associated with exercising them. Take freedom of the press: news outlets still pay corporate taxes, even though freedom of the press is established in the First Amendment as the right to bear arms is established in the Second.

Guns and ammo aren't exempt from sales tax, are they?

Edit: and I don't know of any law that would stop an insurer from decreasing home insurance rates for gun owners (or increasing them for people who don't own guns) if guns really did lower risk. Why don't they?

 

[BSM1]

[q

uote=CMike;3562762]You can only draw legally if a reasonable person would believe he or someone else is in. imminent danger or grave bodily harm.

A dude in your diveway does not fit that crieria

[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. However I did clarify (or meant to) that if this drunk/crazy/drugged person tried to enter my home then I have no doubt he would threaten my life.

 

[Sunstone]

Like this one?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3560272-post25.html

Freedom is your right to work for less than a livable wage so that most of the wealth in a society can be expediently transferred from its underclass to its top 1% wealthiest members. You should hold that right sacred.

So what are you claiming is the falsehood here? Are you claiming that most of the wealth in our society is not ending up with the top 1% of the population?

Or, are you claiming that it's false a significant number of people in our society do not earn a livable wage at any one job they hold?

 

[Skwim]

The difference is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


There is no constitutions right to drive a car.

I suggest you read the Ninth Amendment.

 

[CMike]

I suggest you read the Ninth Amendment.

Feel free to post what you think backs up your position.

I await to hear about the constitutional right to drive a car.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Feel free to post what you think backs up your position.

I await to hear about the constitutional right to drive a car.

Maybe if you tell me why you think that mandatory liability insurance for firearms would be unconstitutional, he'll be impressed by your example and provide what you're asking for.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what are you claiming is the falsehood here? Are you claiming that most of the wealth in our society is not ending up with the top 1% of the population?
Or, are you claiming that it's false a significant number of people in our society do not earn a livable wage at any one job they hold?

What is false, clearly for the fine & legitimate purpose of sarcasm, is your definition of "liberty".
If another poster employs this same commentary method, then it is fair game for them too.
We should allow others to do as we do without insult. I try to be fair too. You don't see me
upbraiding others for posting mirthful videos or writing bad limericks, do you?

 

[Sunstone]

If another poster employs this same commentary method, then it is fair game for them too.

All you ever see are equivalences.

 

[Revoltingest]

All you ever see are equivalences.

And you find naught but differences.

 

[freethinker44]

Like this one?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3560272-post25.html

When something portrays what actually happens it isn't a strawman, it's reality.

 

[freethinker44]

The difference is that we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.


There is no constitutions right to drive a car.

In a discussion about what laws should be, simply stating what the laws are is a poor defense of them. I mean, you're basically saying it should be legal because it's legal, which is fine by me. It's easy to defeat something if there is almost no defense for it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And people wonder why they're called "Gun Nuts"

I've never wondered that before.

 

[freethinker44]

You can only draw legally if a reasonable person would believe he or someone else is in. imminent danger or grave bodily harm.

Or if you see an unarmed black teen in white neighborhood.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or if you see an unarmed black teen in white neighborhood.

When something portrays what actually happens it isn't a strawman, it's reality.

The problem is that in your & Sunstone's rabid anti-gun rights reality, you may use histrionic sarcasm, but
you'd deny that to the loyal opposition. The facile naming of logical fallacies does not alter this hypocrisy.