Gun Tragedy, 5th grader suicide

[DragonLady]

License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

I disagree. Especially in the case of poor people who purchase/keep guns for the primary purpose of providing food for themselves & their families. If they can't afford the license fees, they can't afford the guns. If they can't afford food either, then you're forcing them onto public assistance.


Oh...I forgot. We took that away too.

Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument....

But the licenses have to be purchased before or with the guns. Where the guns are kept afterward is irrelevant.

 

[John Harrison]

1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

It was more of a comment on right/priviledge, not on levels of control.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

I suppose that technically, it isn't banning guns, as long as you choose to not live in those areas any more. I like how you dilute it down to just fees=ban and then call me paranoid. Is it paranoid if it has actually happened?

3. Oh yes it DOES happen with drivers' licenses! You screw up bad enough and often enough on the road and "the government" will take it off you, no worries! Unless they give drivers' licenses out in cornflakes boxes in your state? Or issue you one on your 17th birthday as a present?

I wasn't talking about screwing up, was I? It's like going to renew your drivers license and it suddenly costs $250 and you have to apply 4 or 5 times because somehow your application keeps disappearing during the process, then the DMV must decide if you have a good enough reason to need a license.

 

[shanek]

1. "...the right to bear arms is not infringed." Umm, where does it say there that it must be "without any control"? It simply "allows" the right to bear arms.

The mere fact that the Constitution does not mention a control means that the government does not have the power to implement such a control.

2. License fees => banning guns. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your guns away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

Let's try this another way:

2. Income Tax => Payroll tax. Argument in absurdem. Taking it to its illogical extreme. But if you think that the "big bad government" is gonna take your hard-earned money away by stealth, I'm sure there's a shack in the Montana woods just waiting for you.

That was the same basic argument made in 1913 about the Income Tax amendment. Everyone said it was absurd, and Congress promised that the Income Tax would "not touch one hair of a working man's head."

Government intrusions never stay put.

 

[shanek]

Where did I say that you couldn't/shouldn't have guns on your own property, licensed or otherwise?! An irrelevant argument, and you are putting words in my mouth, Shanek.

I put words in no one's mouth. I merely illustrated one more difference between a driver's license and a gun license that John missed.

 

[a_unique_person]

I put words in no one's mouth. I merely illustrated one more difference between a driver's license and a gun license that John missed.

It's still a pretty irrelevant point. You also don't need to check the tyre pressure on a gun.

 

[shanek]

It's still a pretty irrelevant point. You also don't need to check the tyre pressure on a gun.

What the heck does tire pressure have to do with getting a driver's license???

It's not at all irrelevant. The government can justify a driver's license on the roads because it owns the roads. It can't force you to license your cars on your own private property. Likewise,the government could (and does) restrict the carrying of firearms in its buildings, but it shouldn't have anything to say about people carryng guns on private property.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/22/1056220477206.html

boy shoots his father after argument about doing his chores.

Boy, 11, shoots his policeman father
June 23 2003

A boy, 11, was arrested yesterday after he fired five shots at his father after an argument about chores, hitting him once in the chest, police said.

The bullet that struck Steve Worley failed to break the skin and may have been faulty, said Fountain Police Chief John Morse. Mr Worley, a police officer in nearby Colorado Springs, was treated in hospital and released.

 

[DragonLady]

What in the world were the kid's chores?

Sorry, but this makes me really wonder what the kid was expected to do that he was willing to shoot his father. I've heard enough sick stories in my life to give him the benefit of a doubt.

 

[Zep]

I disagree. Especially in the case of poor people who purchase/keep guns for the primary purpose of providing food for themselves & their families. If they can't afford the license fees, they can't afford the guns. If they can't afford food either, then you're forcing them onto public assistance

I thought Davey Crocket died some time back...

The vast majority of (dare I say all?) modern gun owners need hunt no further than the local supermarket or corner store to "provide food for themselves & their families" these days. Unless you mean that they regularly need to use guns to do this too, as in a stick-up? I'd call that fairly illegal not to say dangerous, wouldn't you?

Zep

 

[Zep]

John Harrison: I like how you dilute it down to just fees=ban and then call me paranoid. Is it paranoid if it has actually happened?

OK, then who wrote this?

The reason many gun owners are wary of licensing schemes is that over time the fees are increased and requirements are gradually changed to the point where it is almost impossible for a citizen to obtain a license, thereby essentially banning gun ownership.

Zep

 

[DragonLady]

The vast majority of (dare I say all?) modern gun owners need hunt no further than the local supermarket or corner store to "provide food for themselves & their families" these days. Unless you mean that they regularly need to use guns to do this too, as in a stick-up? I'd call that fairly illegal not to say dangerous, wouldn't you?

You must live in a mighty small corner of this big nation of ours!

I know that for most urban/suburban people it's easy to forget that there are places all over the country where people do not simply hop in the car & drive a couple of blocks to a "local supermarket". I, for one live almost 30 miles from one. My immediate neighbors grow much of their own food; they raise chickens & rabbits, have a beautiful garden, and probably hunt, too (although I've never asked). My father lives in an area even more remote; where people regularly get together to butcher the cattle and/or hogs they've raised. Many of the people in his area don't even have electricity and have to haul their own water in. And for them, hunting isn't a recreation or a hobby, it's 'shopping for dinner'.

Haul out a map and look at some of the huge, remote expanses of wildnerness and "undeveloped land" in the US, and consider that there are people living on most of it. They live in recreational vehicles, they live in homesteading cabins, they live in dugouts and shacks, and beautiful homes...but live there they do.

Some of them are 'survivalists' and pride themselves on being independant and able to take care of themselves without the modern social structure they have no faith in or simply find abhorrent. Some are simply exclusionists or 'hermits', and just want to be alone. And many are deeply religious -often of unusual or 'alternate' faiths- and find peace and solace in the wilderness. There are those who simply like the beatiful views, the fresh air, and time to pursue hobbies and interests that don't come out of a plastic bag at Wal~Mart.

But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.

 

[a_unique_person]

But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.

hunting as a means of providing for anything more than a token part of the population would not be sustainable.

 

[John Harrison]

OK, then who wrote this?
Zep

I did. It has happened in places like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington DC...

 

[Zep]

I did. It has happened in places like Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Washington DC...

So you are saying...what? Some places in the USA are harder to get gun licenses than others due to cost? Gee, with the propensity for gun ownership, maybe the state governments saw another means of income to afford their state-provided facilities besides direct taxation. "User-pays"???

Zep

 

[Zep]

DragonLady: You must live in a mighty small corner of this big nation of ours!

Sure!

DragonLady: Haul out a map and look at some of the huge, remote expanses of wildnerness and "undeveloped land" in the US, and consider that there are people living on most of it.

How many? US population is, what, 250 million? Let's be generous and say 250,000 such folks country-wide. OK, that's 0.1% of the population. So that means EVERYONE should have guns on that basis?

DragonLady: But what most of them have not done is mastered the art of throwing a boomerang, using a spear, or preparing their dinners by chasing it off a cliff to die in little pieces at the bottom. Nope. They use guns.

You haven't read my posts at all, have you. Quote from me: Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others.

So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for? Like I said, they don't need to hunt through Wal-Mart... Then again, that COULD be a good attraction for the shoppers - "Bag Your Own Dinner ... With A 12-Gauge!"

Zep

 

[DragonLady]

You haven't read my posts at all, have you. Quote from me: Certain guns are a useful practical tool in some situations, and a worthy recreational sport for others.

I confess. I've read every post in this topic; but I'm new here and still haven't sorted out all the various posters and their positions. I'll try to re-read everything sometime tomorrow, and try to make sure I've sorted everybody out according to position & points made. Also, I see now you are in Australia. I should've checked before I posted.

How many? US population is, what, 250 million? Let's be generous and say 250,000 such folks country-wide. OK, that's 0.1% of the population. So that means EVERYONE should have guns on that basis?

Huh? The point being debated was gun licensing fees. I pointed out that some people use guns to hunt for food they couldn't afford to buy...and you made the remark about supermarkets and stick-ups. I never said everyone should have guns.

So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for?

What happened to "worthy recreational sport"? And what about self-defense? I do believe that 100 percent of the US deserves to be able to defend themselves by some means -be it guns, the martial arts, trained dogs or whatever.

If they were, we wouldn't need so many police officers...who in turn wouldn't need to be paid...thereby eliminating the need for the extra revenue to cover the costs of other state-provided facilities.

 

[John Harrison]

So you are saying...what? Some places in the USA are harder to get gun licenses than others due to cost? Gee, with the propensity for gun ownership, maybe the state governments saw another means of income to afford their state-provided facilities besides direct taxation. "User-pays"???

Zep

Cost is only part of it, and you're ignoring the rest(see below, they involve one or a combination of the following). Are you even reading my posts?

Cost, such as NYC $350 up front non-refundable application fee, although it doesn't really matter since they only really issue them to celebrities and politicians.
Discretionary license (NY, MA, CA, etc)- You can be denied for any reason even if you pass all background checks and can afford the fees.
Registration - Pass a law that all guns must be registered, then stop registering any guns (Chicago). Neat.

 

[shanek]

So where does the other 99.9% of the US need guns at home for?

I just have to repost the quote that used to be in my sig:

"The Right to Bear Arms is not the Right to Hunt Deer. Our Founding Fathers were not worried about having the right to hunt taken away from them. The right to bear arms is the right to arm one's population in case an unjust government needs overthrowing. Right now, the right to bear arms is the only form of term limitations we have in the Constitution. That's why we need Uzis." —Tim Slagle

 

[John Harrison]

That's a good one, although it seems that this thread has bit the dust.

 

[Cleopatra]

Sorry everybody, I apologize for my late response but this thread needs thinking and time

But as to the intent of your question, probably a bit of all three; but in the end the child has to bear the final responsibility. We parents simply are not Gods...we can tell them the rules, enforce the rules whenever they're broken, and hold them responsible for their actions after the fact.[...]

[...]
If so, then the onus has to remain on the child. That might be hard to swallow (and believe me, as a parent it is), but in the end the kid has to take responsibility. If he or she knew s/he was breaking the rules & doing something wrong, then how on earth can you hold a parent responsible?

So, let me see if I got this right. YOU decide to own a gun and you think that your child is to pay for the rest of its life the consequencies of your decision? Interesting!

I hope you didn't mean this question in the flippant manner it sounds? It sounds as if you're implying that I would think some food would be more important to me then your child's safety or well-being? I'll hold off comment here, because I don't quite understand what's meant.

Frankly, if you didn't make the connection between the meat in your freezer and the victims of gun onwership, I wouldn't even think to post this but this is another thing that I find interesting in your logic. You don't hesitate to make any possible comparison in order to support your opinion about gun ownership. Maybe I must reconsider mine...it seems that guns are uber alles...

Hmmm...without guns (and other weapons), our 'modern way of living' wouldn't exist.

Now we are talking Dragon Lady , now we are talking. This is where my disagreement lays. Exactly. You are right! At the beginning we needed guns... and we used guns and we got involved in wars just because we visioned societies where guns wouldn't be necessary... We created Constitutions in order not to need guns... Don't tell me about the American Constitution that it allows arms. I know that you have the right to own arms. I wonder though why don't you use nucler arms to protect yourselves... they are legal and they are more effective, you know.

So I can't really claim either one is a "neccesity" in our modern lives.

In a world that there is a need for guns still, cars are not necessary, your are right... we should have the horse carriages your ancestors used in the Wild West...