Boy Of Four Shoots Babysitter [with shotgun]

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Whether or not I own a gun is no concern.

And even though it's different it is the same type of irresponsibility. The father of that 4 year old is no better to me than the parents or adults in Africa who FORCE children to use weapons.

Most of the time parents don't force their children to use weapons, most of the time parents are being forced by others. or they just take the children away.

It is just weird that a lot of people think that guns in home helps to protect, but it causes more problems by using them.

 

[Calboner]

I would like to see you defenders of gun rights explain why the same arguments do not apply to the private ownership of machine guns, missiles, bazookas, rockets, land mines, and so on. Or perhaps you think that they do apply? Why draw the line at guns?

 

[ScorpioSlut]

Most of the time parents don't force their children to use weapons, most of the time parents are being forced by others. or they just take the children away.

It is just weird that a lot of people think that guns in home helps to protect, but it causes more problems by using them.

If you read I said "parents or adults".


And where are your statistics to prove this?


Illegal guns are owned in every country and that fact is undeniable. If someone is going to use an illegal gun to enter my home and try to harm me why should I, a law-abiding citizen not have the right to own a gun legally in order to protect myself?

The same goes for any gun crime. If I have to fear the use of illegal guns I should have the right to protect myself with a similar weapon while still abiding by the law.


You fail to see that the problem lies with those who own and use the guns rather than the guns themselves.

Problems are caused by irresponsible firearm owners and users....not by the ability to own a firearm.

 

[ScorpioSlut]

I would like to see you defenders of gun rights explain why the same arguments do not apply to the private ownership of machine guns, missiles, bazookas, rockets, land mines, and so on. Or perhaps you think that they do apply? Why draw the line at guns?

Because those are all classified as military grade weapons. The right to own guns is for self-preservation. You do not need a machine gun, bazooka or land mine to protect yourself in situations outside of war.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Nono, I see that it is the person who has the gun is the quilty one. But I can't understand that you have the idea to owe a gun, to protect yourself, that is wrong too. It sounds like you are expecting people going in your house with shotguns etc to shoot you. And you will protect yourself with one simple gun.
Just don't get guns in your house, how will you ever feel safe when you have a gun. I feel safe without a gun.

 

[ScorpioSlut]

Nono, I see that it is the person who has the gun is the quilty one. But I can't understand that you have the idea to owe a gun, to protect yourself, that is wrong too. It sounds like you are expecting people going in your house with shotguns etc to shoot you. And you will protect yourself with one simple gun.
Just don't get guns in your house, how will you ever feel safe when you have a gun. I feel safe without a gun.

The key word is self-preservation. That does include protecting yourself from others who have guns and you'd be surprised how many robbers with guns are deterred when encountering an intended victim who is also armed. Many times the criminal flees and no shots are ever fired. Do some research.

Also included in self-preservation is the ability to provide food for yourself that you don't have to pay for. There are many people in America who still provide the majority of the food they and their family consumes by themselves through hunting and growing.



Once again....OWNING GUNS IS NOT THE PROBLEM.....the problem is only when an irresponsible person owns a firearm and does not secure it properly from their children and those who do not know how to use them properly.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Yes, come to Canada, our weapon of choice is knives.

 

[devron]

I would like to see you defenders of gun rights explain why the same arguments do not apply to the private ownership of machine guns, missiles, bazookas, rockets, land mines, and so on. Or perhaps you think that they do apply? Why draw the line at guns?

Classifications. The same argument can be made for anything. For instance, people who talk about freedom of speech, but that doesn't apply to inciting rioting, threatening people, slander, etc. Why not all or nothing for that freedom as well?

 

[HazelGod]

Lethal force is the pragmatic conclusion to philosophical difference of opinion. Our founding fathers knew this long before Nazi stormtroopers began rounding up Jews at gunpoint.

In any disagreement between an armed party and an unarmed party, the victor is a foregone conclusion. When both are capable of force, then both are forced to discuss their differences diplomatically. The framers of our society intended that our citizens never find themselves on the short end of that exchange in dealing with any power...be it another individual or our government as a whole.

You are free to place your trust entirely in your government and its police force. Personally, I think you're an idiot to do so, but that's your right and I wouldn't attempt to force my viewpoint onto you. I expect the same courtesy from you...but remember which one of us is armed before you even voice the idea of forcing me to adopt your view.

 

[Calboner]

I would like to see you defenders of gun rights explain why the same arguments do not apply to the private ownership of machine guns, missiles, bazookas, rockets, land mines, and so on. Or perhaps you think that they do apply? Why draw the line at guns?

So far, two replies:

Classifications. The same argument can be made for anything. For instance, people who talk about freedom of speech, but that doesn't apply to inciting rioting, threatening people, slander, etc. Why not all or nothing for that freedom as well?

The argument seems to be that not all kinds of speech fall under Constitutional protection, so not all kinds of weaponry fall do so. This does not answer my question, but merely suggests a basis for an answer. A genuine answer would be to explain what the relevant "classifications" are, and why ownership of weapons within some of them should be protected and within others not. ScorpioSlut's reply does that:

Because those are all classified as military grade weapons. The right to own guns is for self-preservation. You do not need a machine gun, bazooka or land mine to protect yourself in situations outside of war.

But I am not convinced that this distinction is adequate to the arguments that are made in support of a right to private gun ownership. One argument that is made is that citizens, individually, need to have access to guns to protect themselves against attacks by other citizens or residents. But what about this argument?:

Guns are the final guarantor of American freedom exactly as they were when this country was created.

This may be so; but when this country was created, guns such as individual Americans had were military-grade weapons. If the basis of gun rights is the protection of "American liberty" -- which I take to mean the protection either of Americans collectively against invaders or of individuals against the federal government (another argument that I have encountered, though not yet in this thread) -- then I don't see why that argument does not extend to military weaponry as well. A gun may protect you against somebody else who may be armed with nothing worse than another gun, but it's not going to afford much protection against those with military weaponry.

 

[Deno]

My dad has 3 shotguns he's collected over the years from hunting and my brother has 6 rifles of different caliber including a few muskets. There is no reason in the world they shouldn't be allowed to own these. Just because some people have allowed there rights to bare arms be taken does not mean Americans should not fight to keep there rights to bare arms. I can't believe no one wonders what makes a 4 year old feel its ok to shoot someone because they stepped on there foot.

 

[2322]

This may be so; but when this country was created, guns such as individual Americans had were military-grade weapons. If the basis of gun rights is the protection of "American liberty" -- which I take to mean the protection either of Americans collectively against invaders or of individuals against the federal government (another argument that I have encountered, though not yet in this thread) -- then I don't see why that argument does not extend to military weaponry as well. A gun may protect you against somebody else who may be armed with nothing worse than another gun, but it's not going to afford much protection against those with military weaponry.

Common firearms may not provide much protection against those with military weapons, I'll grant you that. Where the balance is righted is by the sheer numbers. An armed population makes for a lethal guerilla force. Those weapons, combined with other home-made armaments, can effectively stop an army in its tracks. I need point no further than Iraq to show what an armed civilian force can do against invaders even when the partisans are in the great minority of people. I state that merely as a fact, so please do not take it as an indication that I support attacks against allied personnel.

Right now, even if the US government tried to use the armed forces against Americans, they could not successfully do so. This keeps the government in fear of the people, as intended by the founding fathers.

The issue of private ownership of military weaponry is not entirely settled. There are people who own military-grade weaponry though it is very costly. Private Americans have owned, or do own, some pretty sophisticated stuff. This is the arms collection of Connecticut resident Bruce Stern (not Charlton Heston as erroneously reported). Not exactly a .38 in a shoebox under the bed. Mr. Stern is not alone. Some private citizens own tanks, APCs, mortars, cannon, and other things.

 

[2322]

SO u are mad that I disagree. Okay, it is in other countries too, but the best known is still the USA. Can't help it. It just is. And I (speaking for myself) disagree with the fact that people have guns at home, by that I mean that it is too easy to get a gun there. End of discussion.

Not so. In The Netherlands, any subject who is a member of a hunting or sporting club may get a permit to own a rifle or shotgun. That shotgun could well have been sitting in a closet in The Netherlands just as it was in the US.

The only reason the child got hold of this weapon was because it was stored in a grossly negligent manner. I grew-up with guns in the home, both handguns and long arms. I NEVER touched them despite the fact they were improperly stored. My parents impressed upon me the danger of these items and I listened to them. In retrospect, they should have been more careful however I must point out that guns have been around long before gun lockers and in many homes were kept loaded in an easy-accessible place yet horrors such as this incident never happen.

You may as well ban kitchen knives simply because some people choose to use them as lethal weapons.

Most of the time parents don't force their children to use weapons, most of the time parents are being forced by others. or they just take the children away.

It is just weird that a lot of people think that guns in home helps to protect, but it causes more problems by using them.

Not so!

In 1997, he [John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime] said there were about 440,000 violent crimes and 9,000 murders committed with guns. By contrast, there were over 2 million violent crimes prevented through the use of guns.

Another myth—that America has a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns—also crumbles under scrutiny. Lott said that while the overall international data are inconclusive, the facts show that states in the U.S. with the highest gun ownership rate have the lowest violent crime rate. More significantly, states with the biggest increases in gun ownership have had the biggest relative drops in violent crime. Another misleading claim is that 13 children a day die from guns. But these “children” can be up to 19 years of age. Nine of those 13 deaths a day involve 17,18, or 19 year-olds—primarily gang members fighting each other. But pictures of innocent 7 or 8 year-old victims are typically shown. -Accuracy In Media

In 1994, guns prevented over 2 million crimes in the US and in most cases all that was required was that a gun be displayed by the potential victim. This is the Department of Justice's own figures. Consequent years have proven the same thing: privately owned firearms prevent far more crimes than they cause.

You might think that all Americans have been shot at given European ideas of what living in this country seems to be like, but the fact is the one and only time I've had loaded guns (6 of them in fact) pointed at me in fear and anger happened when I was in the United Kingdom. Yes, that's right, the UNITED KINGDOM. Europe.

 

[Calboner]

Some private citizens own tanks, APCs, mortars, cannon, and other things.

To tell you the truth, I am much less afraid of a few people with weapons like those, who are not likely ever to use them, than I am of the millions of people with ordinary firearms, some of whom are eager for a chance to use them.

In 1997, he [John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime] said there were about 440,000 violent crimes and 9,000 murders committed with guns. By contrast, there were over 2 million violent crimes prevented through the use of guns.

I would not give credence to the claims of John Lott without considering the numerous subsequent studies that contest them (list at Wikipedia).

 

[2322]

I would not give credence to the claims of John Lott without considering the numerous subsequent studies that contest them (list at Wikipedia).

Which is why I then cited the Department of Justice; an agency which, arguably, has an interest in disarming citizens.