Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What do you beleive about firearms then?

For me, the second ammendment is absolute and should not be infringed. Any form of control is an infringement, even requiring people to own a firearm is an infringement. It is a right. Not a privalege.

Do you feel the same way about free speech? Should that not be infringed even in the slightest?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by phreak

target shooting

Ahhh, practice killing.

look at all the uses we are thinking of.

[Thorgrim]

Time to bump an old thread

[Diamond Cross]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Do you feel the same way about free speech? Should that not be infringed even in the slightest?

Except where it causes harm, such as shouting fire in the theater, but otherwise even unpopular beliefs such as NAMBLA and racist idealism should have the right to be expressed. Free speech must apply to everyone or it is not free speech.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Except where it causes harm, such as shouting fire in the theater....

So you agree that there is a line then? That a right cannot be absolute?

Why then do people get all freaky about background checks, waiting periods and registration?

[Diamond Cross]

Because it turns average people, ordinary citizens into criminals just for having one. It shouldn't be that way. A person should not be considered a criminal just for owning a firearm.

And committing a crime with a firearm is like like shouting fire in a theater. But it has nothing to do with the right to own a firearm.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Because it turns average people, ordinary citizens into criminals just for having one. It shouldn't be that way. A person should not be considered a criminal just for owning a firearm.

Kind of going in circles here, but does the fact that I have to register my car turn me into a criminal?

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

And committing a crime with a firearm is like like shouting fire in a theater. But it has nothing to do with the right to own a firearm.

It was a simple comparison of rights and the limits we are willing to take them.

[Diamond Cross]

Yes it does. A car is nothing more than a ramming machine after all, and thousands of people are killed by it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yes it does. A car is nothing more than a ramming machine after all, and thousands of people are killed by it.

Alrighty then. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't think registering my car is being treated like a criminal.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

More people die by car accidents than by firearms each year.

Technically yes, but do you know the actual stat?

~39,000 fatalities by car crash (FARS Web-Based Encyclopedia)
~35,000 fatalities by hangun (Emerging Strategies: Gun Violence Prevention - Introduction)

That's not exactly a smoking gun (pun intended).

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Ahhh, practice killing.

look at all the uses we are thinking of.

ok, so we'll use your method for classification and answer this question

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So lets see. A gun has 2 uses. Kill and threaten to kill.

How many uses does a car have?

a car can transport people, and their things...... Look at that! I guess a car has two uses too!!

[R-Type]

It's pointless to ban specific items out of fear or safety. Any attempts at that have sorely failed at everything except costing us a ton of public money (just look at the 'war on drugs'). If there's a desire to commit harm, a way will be found. should we ban rocks too? they can be used to kill. how about common household chemicals? They can be easily used to make lethal explosives. ..and then there's the 21st century holy grail that politicians fear the most: The computer hacker. After all, what other nonviolent, victimless crime earns someone 99 years in prison? I guess they think general purpose computers are evil and should be banned in favor of locked-down single-use devices that only do government/industry's biddings, right? I know, lets just lock everyone in cages from birth and live like the borg. There, no crime.

You want to cut down on gun deaths? How about finding the systemic reasons people want to kill each other and reduce them?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

~35,000 fatalities by hangun (Emerging Strategies: Gun Violence Prevention - Introduction)

You need to use the right numbers.

There are ~16,000 murders every year by all types methods. ~66% are from firearms, so that is 10560. Nice how that anti-gun site bumps up their numbers 300%. That number contains suicides, accidents and self defense then it is inflated.

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So you agree that there is a line then? That a right cannot be absolute?

Why then do people get all freaky about background checks, waiting periods and registration?

Because we have many people in govt that want to take away our right to own weapons.



If this was a perfect world, I would have no problem with people being required to show they can safely use a firearm before a purchase. But this isnt. In this world, those in charge would make the test outrageously expensive, hard to schedual and very expensive. The same basic thing they did to keep blacks from voting.



And target shooting isnt just pracitced killing. It is a sport and a hobby. When I go shooting I dont go to make myself a better killer, I go to get better, have some fun, and blow off steam.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

You need to use the right numbers.

There are ~16,000 murders every year by all types methods. ~66% are from firearms, so that is 10560. Nice how that anti-gun site bumps up their numbers 300%. That number contains suicides, accidents and self defense then it is inflated.

It's deaths. Period. They don't make the distinction between suicides by car and accidental deaths in a car. Why make the distinction as it pertains to guns? And is someone who was shot with a pistol any less dead than someone who was shot with a rifle? <no> Then count that, too.

35,000

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

It's deaths. Period. They don't make the distinction between suicides by car and accidental deaths in a car. Why make the distinction as it pertains to guns? And is someone who was shot with a pistol any less dead than someone who was shot with a rifle? <no> Then count that, too.

35,000

I would have to agree. If you're not counting only murders by autos, then you shouldn't only count murders by firearms. Equal statistics to make a comparison.

[JSmythe]

You need a reason why guns should be legal? How about reason number one, the most fundamental principle in all of American history: the defense against tyranny.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I would have to agree. If you're not counting only murders by autos, then you shouldn't only count murders by firearms. Equal statistics to make a comparison.

Ok lets compare accidental deaths to accidental deaths.
40,000 to ~1000.

Originally Posted by 7960

It's deaths. Period. They don't make the distinction between suicides by car and accidental deaths in a car.

because suicide is a person's choice.


Why would any sane person consider counting those towards firearm deaths ? If they chose a noose or pills or jumped, they would still be dead.

Why make the distinction as it pertains to guns? And is someone who was shot with a pistol any less dead than someone who was shot with a rifle? <no> Then count that, too.

35,000

Why are you asking me ? They are the ones that made the distinction among types of firearms.

Chances are very high they did it so they could argue they werent going to ban hunting rifles/shotguns but only those evil handguns. Most people have good memories/feelings of the deer hunter who uses his weapon for 1 weekend a year.

[TheScatman]

my question: is it Constitutional for the US federal government to regulate a transaction that occurs wholly within one state? for example when i buy a gun down the street can the federal government regulate it and requrie a background check? Im pretty sure a plain reading of the Constitution says no

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Ahhh, practice killing.

look at all the uses we are thinking of.

Do you consider SCA members who re-enact medieval warfare with foam swords and arrows "practice killers"? Archers? Fencers?

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by archangel003

Do you consider SCA members who re-enact medieval warfare with foam swords and arrows "practice killers"? Archers? Fencers?

Do you think clay target shooting would exist if guns were never used to kill? Would someone just have come up with firearms for that alone?

And in a twisted way, yes SCA is like practice killing. They are practicing a martial form (badly) that was based on killing. Now it is more of a culture/historical thing.

I did something kind of similar for a living for over a decade. It was always presented as martial and I could certainly use any number of medieval weapons in real life if the situation arose.