Lawyers, doctors, or guns

bmark · Aug 31, 2001

It's frustrating that so many people are willing to jump on an issue one way or another without truely understanding the issue. The instrument used to harm another person is not the issue, the people using the instruments are the problem. How many accidental deaths are caused by cars every year? Is the solution to ban all cars? Maybe we could install ignition locks to prevent accidental start ups. What about cigarettes? We know they kill people yet there's no ban on those, although the government does feel the need to make us wear seatbelts to protect ourselves (I guess the anti-seatbelt lobby isn't very strong).

What a screwed up world we live in!

cowboydoc · Aug 31, 2001

Well said bmark.

toddler · Aug 31, 2001

None of us is jumping on the band wagon here, we're just poking fun at the statistics bmark.

Cigarettes don't kill people. They just speed up a natural process. Live long enough and we're all gonna develope heart disease or cancer. Cars don't kill either, cars + people kill on occasion. It's a risk most of us are willing to take. Same thing with guns.

I'm not pro gun control because I dislike guns. Actually, I think they're pretty neat tools/toys/machines/weapons... Depends on the intended use of the owner.

I'm pro gun control because I think it keeps them out of the hands of people who might abuse them, plus, I don't see an emergent need to own one for anyone. I'm at one extreme on the gun control issue on this board, and in the minority, but it's not because of statistics.

As to car control. I'd be anti car control because if you depend on a car to get your kids to daycare and get your self to work, a long wait to get ok'd for one might cause undo suffering. I'd be happy to see a requirement for recertification of a drivers license.

Yes, it's a screwed up world, but it's the only one we've got, so let's not take light hearted internet posts too seriously.

Todd

CVHoss · Aug 31, 2001

A small sampling.
http://cvproj.home.texas.net/stdismas/politics/armed.htm

Hoss

fishman · Aug 31, 2001

Excellent post, Hoss. I'd bet in every one of those instances, the honest citizens involved were very glad they had a firearm to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Did they need them? . . . Of course not. Society (i.e. the rest of us) would not cease to exist after their demise. Small comfort to the victims.

It is incomprehensible to me why people in a free society would voluntarily give up freedoms that their ancestors fought and died for.

Some quotes of interest:

Thomas Jefferson
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Samuel Adams
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

James Madison
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Paine 
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

And lastly Patrick Henry
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

These are just a few of the people that thought ownership of arms by private citizens was a necessity.

toddler · Aug 31, 2001

Not sure Hoss, was that post a response to me, or just to the thread.

Each account says the "citizen was licensed" to carry the gun. I have no problems with people obtaining a gun legally, or with the government making it somewhat difficult to do so. If you feel strongly enough that you need a gun, go for it. I think you should be willing to go through an instruction course and a waiting period. I took a test for my drivers license and did a bunch of paperwork to register my car, get insurance.... Seems reasonable given the potential harm I could do while driving. Gun control laws seem reasonable to me. Again, just my minority opinion.

Regarding that site, the 2 million number seems useless without more detail. Is that USA, world wide, including police, army....? Strikes me as another example number manipulation for the site to post it without details. If they want to be taken seriously, they should post their sources with their numbers, or did I miss that part?

Todd

toddler · Aug 31, 2001

Fishman,

Who's trying to outlaw owning or carrying guns?

Todd

fishman · Aug 31, 2001

Toddler,

I refer you to my last post, particular this quote from Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

BTW, there are still some short-sighted states that don't allow public citizens to carry arms for their own protection.

For more information see
http://www.nraila.org

I propose that Liberty is lost incrementally, except in the case of war. This is not a new concept, I just don't know who said it first.

Anonymous Poster · Aug 31, 2001

Driving a car in this country is a previlege, bearing arms is a right. Previleges can be revoked by goverment because they created them, rights decend from God and cannot be revoked, infringed upon, but not revoked.

B. Franklin
Those who would sacrifice their rights to obtain freedom, deserve neither rights nor freedom.

toddler · Aug 31, 2001

Clearly a better site Fishman,
Couldn't find what states you refer to, but can't surf for too long right now. In those states, is it concealed weapons that are banned, or simply carrying a gun at all?

Todd