Acceptable Gun Laws

[Shane Tuttle]

No need to get that technical, that is not where I am going. However, comparing an explosive like C-4 to small amounts of gasoline in your garage is a stretch (set off a block of C-4 compared to a gallon of gas and see) and yes if you had enough gasoline (like an underground 10000 gallon tank) it would be regulated and probably inspected by the government.

I calculated approximately 300 gallons worth of flammable liquids in my shop alone. Again, you are splitting hairs. Again, my point is anyone can store plenty of flammable fluids that can easily cause catastrophic damage to not only my home, but my neighbor's. If you can't see this point there's no more need for me to debate. And, by the way, gasoline ignites quite a bit easier than C4.

Reread my quote. I acknowledged that it didn't stop use but it DID stop homemade labs which were a huge health problem to the addict's neighbors.

Fair enough. Then I redirect. You really think homegrown labs have all but stopped because of the law abiding citizen can only buy one box of Sudafed? Maybe you need to look a little closer around town instead of seeing it no longer reported on the 10 o'clock news...

Hell, look at smoking. You think that isn't costing you money? (I assume you don't smoke here as I don't) It sure does and so whenever they want to tax it I vote yes to pay for the medical costs associated with it.

To keep from drifting, I'll just say this. I can't stand cigarette smoke. I do whatever I can to stay away from it. I hate the smell of nicotine on smokers' clothes, their house, cars, etc. I hate sitting in a non-smoking area of a restaurant right next to a smoking area. But I DO NOT SUPPORT taxes on tobacco products nor do I support smoking bans in private establishments. You think the government is going to just drop the programs funded by tobacco taxes if users quit and the revenue isn't nearly as much? This is a whole 'nuther topic of discussion. The cost of me, the taxpayer isn't because of smokers. This is one key issue that you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong park. Hey, while we're at it, would you support an environmental tax on ammunition due to the chemicals released in the air when we fire our guns at the range? Would this be a reasonable gun law to you?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I calculated approximately 300 gallons worth of flammable liquids in my shop alone. Again, you are splitting hairs. Again, my point is anyone can store plenty of flammable fluids that can easily cause catastrophic damage to not only my home, but my neighbor's. If you can't see this point there's no more need for me to debate. And, by the way, gasoline ignites quite a bit easier than C4.

No I am not spliting hairs but rather I am pointing out illogical comparisons. Your flammable materials in your garage do not pose the same hazard as high explosives and that I agree is beyond debate. And BTW equal amounts of C4 to gasoline does not make the same boom.

You really think homegrown labs have all but stopped because of the law abiding citizen can only buy one box of Sudafed?

I think that addicts and meth makers can no longer go into Costco and buy bulk Pseudoephedrine to make meth in their homes and that is because LE has reported it not the media. Unless you think they are lying.

But I DO NOT SUPPORT taxes on tobacco products nor do I support smoking bans in private establishments.

I do and will continue to for the reasons stated. If smokers can get the votes to change it then I guess we'll have smoking in restaurants again.

Hey, while we're at it, would you support an environmental tax on ammunition due to the chemicals released in the air when we fire our guns at the range?

Not unless you could prove it was a danger to others. I do support efforts that regulate lead in some hunting areas and so do many hunters. I have read that if you go to Thunder Ranch it is lead free.

 

[OnTheFly]

Wow...there is some great discourse going on here. Some very well thought out and compelling arguments.

My thoughts on gun laws...

There are many laws on the books regarding criminal acts with guns. Why do we have to clutter the books with gun specific legislation? Shouldn't it be equally as heinous to commit a crime whether the perpetrator used a knife, gun, or baseball bat? Why do we allow the laws to target guns? Why not target the evil doers for their acts or intent?

I don't believe in laws that allow the government to track ownership of guns.

I also don't believe in laws that unreasonably increase the cost of our right. It would be no different than the government adding fees, taxes, and surcharges to the process of becoming a registered voter. They could easily price many people out of the right to vote. If there are costs associated with supporting 2A rights (or any rights for that matter), the people (and I mean ALL the people) should bear the cost so as not to diminish these rights.

Fly

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Not quite the same thing as motorcycles nor their use are protected or even mentioned in the Constitution. However, just for the sake of argument, why stop at forcing people to wear helmets? Why not ban motorcycles and any other motorized vehicle that will go in excess of 70mph while we're at it? The reduction in auto accidents would certainly save the taxpayers some money wouldn't it? Of course few people would support such extreme measures right away, but the point is you begin down a slippery slope.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

Point of fact I'd be a lot more nervous about my neighbor having an anhydrous ammonia tank or a leaky propane cylinder as both of those are probably more likely to cause an accident than C4 or a Rocket Launcher. Basing laws on someone's feeling of safety, while it may sound nice and utopian, unfortunately just isn't feasable. Afterall, if we couldn't have anything that made someone feel unsafe then we wouldn't be able to own any type of firearm at all, most types of automobile, or most species of animals that are commonly kept as pets. Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope. I could very easily say that your German Shepherd's teeth, that snubby revolver that you carry in your pants pocket, and your SUV's emissions make me feel unsafe. Does that mean that all these things should be banned? Certainly there are people out there who think so.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

No I am not spliting hairs but rather I am pointing out illogical comparisons. Your flammable materials in your garage do not pose the same hazard as high explosives and that I agree is beyond debate. And BTW equal amounts of C4 to gasoline does not make the same boom.

You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid. If you think 300 gallons of flammable liquids won't do any damage to my neighbor's home, that's plain ignorant.

I think that addicts and meth makers can no longer go into Costco and buy bulk Pseudoephedrine to make meth in their homes and that is because LE has reported it not the media. Unless you think they are lying.

Man, do I really need to make my points that simple? Just because they regulated the number of boxes of Sudafed one can buy doesn't mean meth labs in homes are almost nonexistant. Drug users will just find another way, just like criminals that want to use a gun for a crime. You can support the ban of automatic firearms, but a criminal can still get access to them. Anyone that thinks they can't is living in a dreamworld. Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

I do and will continue to for the reasons stated. If smokers can get the votes to change it then I guess we'll have smoking in restaurants again.

Sorry to hear that you're willing to give up liberty for "safety" and security...

Not unless you could prove it was a danger to others. I do support efforts that regulate lead in some hunting areas and so do many hunters. I have read that if you go to Thunder Ranch it is lead free.

I don't need to prove it. It's already been proven. And again, I'm sorry that you're willing to give up liberty....

I'll be looking forward to seeing those stats about taxpayer dollars being spent on those medical bills for the helmetless motorcyclist...

Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

I wish I could have just said this and be done with it...

 

[cjw3cma]

Context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

Preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment cannot stand on its own; it must be kept in context with the preamble to our Constitution. With that stated, gun laws are allowed by the Constitution at both the federal and state levels.

Too bad there isn't an enforcement clause in the Constitution that states, when a law affecting the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution overall is enacted by the Congress, it shall be enforced.

 

[44 AMP]

The thin line

With that stated, gun laws are allowed by the Constitution at both the federal and state levels.

And so, where does one draw the line between "laws allowed" and "infringement"? I have my answer, Sarah Barady has another.

I'll say it again, I see no point to laws that place restrictions and requirements on gun ownership.

I do see the utility, usefulness, and need for laws that provide restrictions on, and punishments for, improper and unacceptable gun use.

The majority of laws on gun use are not considered gun control laws.

A law saying you can't shoot rabbits (or anything else) from the back of a moving streetcar is fine with me. A law saying you can't buy a magazine that holds more than 10 (pick a number) of rounds is not.

Gun control laws, particularly in recent decades, have all focused on ownership and possession restrictions. Either outright bans on private citizens being allowed to purchase certain items, or requirements that the citizens prove to the govt that they are "responsible" enough to own a gun, by some kind of licensing process.

Myself, I can live with the laws as the currently exist, although I would be much happier with the laws as they existed when I began shooting as a hobby (pre 1968). I see no benefit from the endless addition of rules and restrictions about ownership and acquisition, except to aggravate people like me, and give the govt another source of income, including that derived from the otherwise innocent people who run afoul of gun control laws.

But that's the whole point in the long run, isn't it? By making legal gun ownership as complicated and expensive as they can, they discourage people from doing it. Given enough time, the number of legal gun owners will drop to the point where they are inconsequential. It isn't, and never was, about public safety.

 

[USAFNoDak]

44 Amp posted:

It isn't, and never was, about public safety.

You said a mouthful there 44 Amp. Besides, despite a quite significant increase in the number of guns over the past 30 years, we've seen a decline in violent crime rates, with a small, exceptional, increase (blip) in 2007.

The crime rates never went up when the "so-called-assault-weapons" ban expired in 2004 as was predicted by the anti gun rights crowd. They crowed like roosters that cops would be gunned down left and right by these guns. They yelled that terrorists would now be able to get deadly weapons to kill innocent americans. That did not happen in any widespread manner. They were flat out wrong, again.

The government conducted a study over the 10 years the ban was in place. Predictably, the ban had no effect on crime rates. At least, the effect was minimal enough to be insignificant. Thus, it was allowed to lapse, despite the screaming meemies on the left, such as Feinstein, Schumer, Gore, the Clintons, Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, Paul Helmke, and others.

Gun control is "sold" to the public as a "public safety measure". It is nothing of the sort, and numerous, intelligent, well informed, posters have provided logical reasoning as to why it is not a benefit to public safety in their posts above and in many other threads in these forums.

The anti's will seldom, if ever, admit defeat, however. They've backed off for now on trying to pass a new assault weapons ban, as Barack and his cronies would love to do. They know the resistance is too high right now. As Ahhhnold says in many of his cheesy action flicks, "They'll be back!" You can count on it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid.

Tuttle and Webley, here is what I think you are missing. Lots of things in the world have a potential danger if misused or when care is not taken with their use. You can pick a million things that can adversely impact another person's safety and say "What about banning/regulating these?" It is a strawman.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum. Many of the items you and Webley mention are in fact quite regulated and prohibited to own without condition and use in certain places and in certain ways. They may not require all the same regs but they are in many cases controlled. In Germany, on most of the Autobahn there is no speed limit. Here there is. However, getting a driver's license in Germany is very hard, requires a lot more training and is expensive while most people there don't own cars. In the USA a monkey can get a driver's license and most own cars so the trade off is that we have speed limits and Germany doesn't. No free lunch.

The issue of the thread is firearms. We have a RKBA but it is a limited right subject to regulation as are all rights in the BOR. Lots of things can be dangerous but our society has determined that firearms are especially so (they are, for the most part, designed to kill) and therefore they are regulated more than a brick is. You can argue that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick but that argument won't hold in public discourse and only gun nuts will listen to you.

Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.

Sorry to hear that you're willing to give up liberty for "safety" and security...

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

I'll be looking forward to seeing those stats about taxpayer dollars being spent on those medical bills for the helmetless motorcyclist...

Here is a link about helmets. http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html Even though it does not cite exact costs for paying for indigents it does speak to the Health Care costs which most of us pay if we have insurance. Bottomline; people who don't wear helmets and ride motorcycles and crash cost you and me more money than if they wore them. I don't want to pay that bill so yeah I will vote to reduce some other's liberty that I might have to pay for later.

Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

Another strawman that both the Brady's and the NRA use. There is no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process.

 

[cjw3cma]

I'll say it again, I see no point to laws that place restrictions and requirements on gun ownership.

I for one do not want a mentally disabled individual to have a firearm until such time that a consensus of qualified experts have seemed it not harmful to the general public. Same goes for a convicted felon (of any charge); once you cause harm to our citizens you lose your rights until deemed otherwise as stated above.

But the majority of what you stated I agree with wholeheartedly.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.

Nowhere did I say we should have no laws. Seeing that yet again you contorted the context of my statements I can understand where you think it isn't rational.

Tell me how gunowners benefit from only having 10rd magazines, not being allowed to own autos, can't even own a semi-auto handgun? Your denial that the there's no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process is invalid. You think we can vote for supreme court justices?

Bottomline; people who don't wear helmets and ride motorcycles and crash cost you and me more money than if they wore them. I don't want to pay that bill so yeah I will vote to reduce some other's liberty that I might have to pay for later.

Hey, while you're at it, why don't you push for banning motorcycles altogether? The injury/death rate is enormously higher than driving a car. Surely our insurance rates would be a couple bucks less if that happens. That way, the whole helmet issue would be taken care of in a jiffy and we'll all be a few bucks richer and safer...:barf:

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

Might as well substitute C4 with AR15s, too. I'm pretty sure you'd be OK with that, also. The big difference between your beliefs and mine is I actually have a hard line where enough is enough. I see my beliefs are pretty easily supported by the Constitution, BOR, and the Founding Fathers' intentions. You seem to base "reasonable regulations" on what the flavor of the month is. Ever put a frog in a pot of cool water and slowly turned up the heat?

I think it's best I bow out. I've tried to explain the best I can but others here are better at stating basically what I think.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid.

Tuttle and Webley, here is what I think you are missing. Lots of things in the world have a potential danger if misused or when care is not taken with their use. You can pick a million things that can adversely impact another person's safety and say "What about banning/regulating these?" It is a strawman.

TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe. I brought up SUV's and dogs not to compare their possible danger to firearms, but to illustrate the fact that feelings of safety cannot be the deciding factor in what is legal and what is illegal. Attempting to turn my argument into something that it is not and then refuting it as ridiculous is, by definition, a strawman.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum. Many of the items you and Webley mention are in fact quite regulated and prohibited to own without condition and use in certain places and in certain ways. They may not require all the same regs but they are in many cases controlled.

Really, are SUV's more difficult to purchase than hybrid cars? No, in most places they're not. If you can afford one then you can obtain one. There you don't have to pass a special test, make an application process, or get some public official's permission to buy an SUV. Yes, certain breeds of dog are banned in certain localities, but this isn't really all that different from the gun bans in places like Chicago or the assault weapons bans in places like California that so many of us believe to be unreasonable and unconstitutional.

The issue of the thread is firearms. We have a RKBA but it is a limited right subject to regulation as are all rights in the BOR. Lots of things can be dangerous but our society has determined that firearms are especially so (they are, for the most part, designed to kill) and therefore they are regulated more than a brick is. You can argue that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick but that argument won't hold in public discourse and only gun nuts will listen to you.

Yet another strawman argument. No one has said that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick so you're refuting something that was never an issue to begin with. What we are saying is that many types of firearms are not so deadly that they warrant stricter regualtion than other types of firearms. You're attempting to make the discussion broader than it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.

The point is most gun laws are redundant and serve only to place unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens. A law is only as good as the people who respect and obey it. Supposedly, the point of a gun ban is to reduce violent crime. However, a person willing to commit a violent crime obviously has no respect for the law and therefore will likely have little concern for a broken gun law. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, is prevented from owning something so that he can't do something that he never would have done in the first place. Our point is not that we should have no law, but rather that the laws and penalties for violent crime are, for the most part, sufficient and that most gun laws do little to prevent such crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

Another strawman that both the Brady's and the NRA use. There is no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process.

Really, so why is the city of Gary, IN still able to bring frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Why do we have the '89 Assault Weapons Import Ban which was never voted on by Congress yet still enforced? Why do we have the ATF, whose employees I do not select or vote for, continually harassing law abiding gun owners. Why has the Secretary of Homeland Security, who was appointed rather than elected, labeled anyone who owns a gun as a potential terrorist who should recieve extra scrutiny from law enforcement?

When you enact a law for a certain reason, you set a precident. Banning something based solely on someone's feelings of safety leads to certain questions: "If we can ban this to make you feel safe, why can't we ban that to make me feel safe?" "Why is your feeling of safety more important than mine?" "Why am I being discriminated against?"

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,

In a word; Horse Hockey!

The OP is about reasonable gun laws. Every single time one of these threads comes up yourself and a predictable group of others pop up and use the same old tired strawmen arguments starting with;

We should have very very little or no regulation of firearms because;

a. They are no more dangerous than (take your pick) kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, gasoline etc.

and

b. Only law-abiding citizens will obey laws and criminals won't so the laws are useless.

and

c. I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)

TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum.

No reference to feelings. Strawman, refuted.

Go back and read the thread and we you will see all those predictable references to cars and gasoline and whatnot. These are tired strawman arguments and will not play in the public forum any more than will the emotional arguments of the Brady's.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.

You can do better than this guys!

 

[44 AMP]

The differences are subtle, and not easily grasped by some

But they exist nonetheless.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous

TG, I guess we ought to agree that we assess risks differently.

I do not see guns as inherently dangerous. Unlike explosives and flammables, which, under the right conditions can "go off" by themselves, and therefore pose a valid risk to public safety, guns cannot. It takes deliberate human action for a gun to be "dangerous".

Knives are designed to cut things. Swords are designed to kill. And while we have laws about the public use and carry of such implements, we don't have those kind of laws about purchase and ownership, generally. They are heading that way in England, now that they have banned guns and are finding out that taking away legal gun ownership doesn't solve their problems, it only creates new ones.

Do I favor mental deficients (those unable to understand the consequences of their actions) being allowed to buy guns? No. Nor do I feel they should drive cars, play with matches, handle sharp objects, or hold public office. But until, and unless, they are so adjudicated, forbidding them their rights (in the name of public safety) is IMHO the wrong thing to do, the same as it is wrong to do to mentally competent people, without proven cause.

When someone harms others with a gun, knife, gallon of gas, or whatever, punishment should be certain, swift, merciless, and come down on them like the hammer of the gods (allowing due process, of course). But until then, we should be allowed to own such property as we wish, unfettered by govt. restrictions. That is my risk assessment. You are, of course entitled to disagree. And in our system, if there are more of you than there are of me, your way becomes law.

The first rule of medicine is (supposedly) "do no harm". Too bad it isn't the first rule of politics as well.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

a. They are no more dangerous than (take your pick) kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, gasoline etc.

I've never said that and I challenge you to point out where I have (taking the context into consideration of course). My comparison to vehicles and animals was explained at length in my previous post and nowhere did I suggest that they are equally dangerous as firearms.

b. Only law-abiding citizens will obey laws and criminals won't so the laws are useless.

Nor did I say that. I said that the majority of gun laws are redundant because there are already far more serious laws with much more severe concequences against violent crimes. Violent crime, after all, is what gun control is supposed to prevent isn't it?

c. I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)

As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets. Whether or not I own a certain type of gun affects my neighbor in no way whatsoever unless I misuse that gun. Because a single-shot rifle can cause injury or death if misused just as easily as an AR-15 can, I see no reason that one should be more heavily restricted than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum.

No reference to feelings. Strawman, refuted.

In post #48, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. However, as 44 AMP mentioned earlier the devil IS in the details. Lots of arguments can be made about what infringes on the rights of others.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

You do not think your neighbor should be able to own certain things because you don't feel safe if he does. Regardless of the fact that other common and perfectly legal items represent just as much a safety hazard to you as the items you mention, those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

Go back and read the thread and we you will see all those predictable references to cars and gasoline and whatnot. These are tired strawman arguments and will not play in the public forum any more than will the emotional arguments of the Brady's.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.

By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I've never said that

Sure you have. You started in post #84 by building two strawmen.

First, this whole idea that I have advocated making laws based on feelings which is a kind of put down implying those like me who might advocate regulating firearms as overly emotional and irrationally scared of firearms and not logical. After that subtle smear, then going right into the German Shepard's teeth and SUV emissions which was the second strawman.

Pretty lame. Nowhere, in any of my posts have I advocated feelings having anything to do with whether we should regulate firearms. I spent many decades around firearms and military weaponry and been in combat. I am not afraid of firearms but I am opposed to untrained, unrestrained people having access to things like explosives and heavy military weapons with little or no regulation not because I feel bad about these weapons but because I know the damage they can do with irresponsible/evil handling. That is knowledge and experience, not a feeling.

and I challenge you to point out where I have

That was easy. Go to this thread; http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299021 which is one you started awhile back. There are so many of them there that I couldn't list them all but here are a few; Posts # 51, 76, 78, 93, 196. On and on and you added shovels I think at one point to the list. Trying to argue that firearms are not inherently dangerous because they possess no will of their own which is not what inherently dangerous means.

Eventually, on this thread you would have got to that but I remembered our previous debates and preempted it.

As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets.

I have and it is quite self evident to a thoughtful person that as our society has evolved and grown more complex many actions individuals take, that years ago would have had no impact on others, do so today and therefore make many of our actions subject today to regulation.

those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

I am not putting words in your mouth, just exposing your argument with your words. Such strawmen arguments play well with hard core gun enthusiasts but they don't with the voting majority public. There are lots of gun control laws I oppose but I do look at the reality of firearms in that they are weapons, designed to kill and are inherently dangerous and are recognized as such by business, insurance companies and non-gun owning people. I do not try to trivialize that by saying that this recognition is based purely on irrational emotion and that there is no logic or rational thought involved.

Webley, you appear to be pretty smart and debate well, I think you can build a better case opposing gun control than using these tired old strawmen. Of course I am assuming you want to have real change in gun laws and are not just playing to the crowd on this forum. If you wish for those changes I recommend you drop the comparisons of firearms to anything other than what they are; dangerous weapons designed to effectively kill people. If you don't, all your other arguments will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Can't help but think I'm being taunted for an encore. Whether or not that's the case, I'll concede that I lied and post again. Don't think it will make a difference since no matter what I state it's either strawman or it gets twisted, but I can't help myself...

Here's one question I'd like to see answered.

Tell me how gunowners benefit from only having 10rd magazines, not being allowed to own autos, can't even own a semi-auto handgun? Your denial that the there's no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process is invalid. You think we can vote for supreme court justices?

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

Well, we did have a pretty smart guy that helped form the country we live in today that stated "Giving up a little liberty in exchange for safety deserves neither". So, is Mr. Franklin giving strawman arguments? Since you won't accept analagies, then I give actual laws set in place. Take the quote I stated above and tell me it's still strawman.

I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)

You didn't prove one thing to support your case. People can misuse/abuse any right/liberty they have that affects others. You want to take liberties from the vast majority that will excercise prudence for the few that MAY abuse it. Placing unneeded laws AUTOMATICALLY take liberties away from the majority while the few that MAY abuse it will still take action. If you can't understand this simple issue, there's nothing else to say except we have to agree to disagree.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.

Sometimes the simplest of laws in placed based on statements/beliefs make the most sense compared to having literally thousands of needless laws. The whole "risk assessment" bullcrap would be a moot point if we had simple laws based on my said documents and just enforce them. You really think that America is actually safer because a law abiding citizen can't currently own an automatic firearm? Semi-auto handgun? Handgun at all?

So to be supportive of laws just because the general public made it so "due to risk assessment" and actually think it's valid compared to our beliefs based on the very documents and Founding Fathers' intent really makes me think your idea is the epitimy(sp) of a strawman.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

You support the ban on automatic firearms, don't you? I would go as far as to say you do support firearms to be illegal.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Can't help but think I'm being taunted for an encore. Whether or not that's the case, I'll concede that I lied and post again.

Not at all. I might challenge you but taunting is not my intent as it is disrespectful. You are not lying either. You have me mixed up with another poster who is on T&T a lot. (hint)

Take the quote I stated above and tell me it's still strawman.

It is not. However, did you notice I put these "" around liberty in my post. That was I guess an abortive attempt at sarcasm since I think if 'ole Ben were around today he would think folks having unregulated access to modern day military weapons appalling. I think that particular liberty is not protected by the COTUS and so is not legitimate liberty.

You didn't prove one thing to support your case.

What I have done is provide evidence to support my case but you do not accept it which makes this statement:

we have to agree to disagree.

correct.

You really think that America is actually safer because a law abiding citizen can't currently own an automatic firearm? Semi-auto handgun? Handgun at all? ...You support the ban on automatic firearms, don't you?

Law abiding citizens can own all those weapons you mentioned, they are not illegal but they are regulated and I think that is good. But more to the point; I think the idea of any gun, anyone, anywhere and anytime to be ludicrous.

whole "risk assessment" bullcrap would be a moot point if we had simple laws based on my said documents and just enforce them.

Tuttle, what you and Webley aren't getting is risk assesment and other methods of making decisions are how we arrive at conclusions logically and then use to make laws concerning public safety. This is not about feelings or emotions even though they might evoke the process. I am not saying the process cannot be flawed but that is how the legislative process is supposed to work. John Adams wrote some good stuff about this.

Let me state this again for you and Webley, Laws do not prevent anything they are no more than words on a page. They codify legal and/or illegal action. Enforcement, and the threat of it coupled with civic virtue ensure compliance or sanction. Or as the Bible says, "The purpose of the law was to show that we are sinners." Romans 7:7-8

 

[Shane Tuttle]

Law abiding citizens can own all those weapons you mentioned, they are not illegal but they are regulated and I think that is good. But more to the point; I think the idea of any gun, anyone, anywhere and anytime to be ludicrous.

You are wrong as the day is long. You haven't lived or even checked laws in Cook County Illinois, have you? What about the laws California, Maryland, etc. that ban certain semi-auto handguns? You're completely ignoring the current laws that do in fact infringe on individual rights and liberties. Regulated? Well, if I was one rich bastard I guess I can afford an M4 after going through paying through the nose for a Class III license, fees, etc. But for you to simply give this a pass that it's all but illegal shows that you're not considering reality. Antis love the word "regulate". They regulate the snot out of stuff that basically keeps it out of reach for the law abiding average citizen.

And I do sheepishly agree with any gun anyone issue. There ARE certain laws that should be in place. This includes certain cases of mentally impaired, etc. But this is about as far as I go.

Let me state this again for you and Webley, Laws do not prevent anything they are no more than words on a page. They codify legal and/or illegal action. Enforcement, and the threat of it coupled with civic virtue ensure compliance or sanction. Or as the Bible says, "The purpose of the law was to show that we are sinners." Romans 7:7-8

So? I don't disagree with that. This is a double edged sword. Why in the world do you need to make a law that you're not going to enforce? I never assume lawmakers just whip up a rule on a piece of paper for the fun of it.

 

[Webleymkv]

TG, I really expected better from you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I've never said that

Sure you have. You started in post #84 by building two strawmen.

First, this whole idea that I have advocated making laws based on feelings which is a kind of put down implying those like me who might advocate regulating firearms as overly emotional and irrationally scared of firearms and not logical. After that subtle smear, then going right into the German Shepard's teeth and SUV emissions which was the second strawman.

Pretty lame. Nowhere, in any of my posts have I advocated feelings having anything to do with whether we should regulate firearms. I spent many decades around firearms and military weaponry and been in combat. I am not afraid of firearms but I am opposed to untrained, unrestrained people having access to things like explosives and heavy military weapons with little or no regulation not because I feel bad about these weapons but because I know the damage they can do with irresponsible/evil handling. That is knowledge and experience, not a feeling.

In post #48, you stated that your neighbor should not be able to own a rocket launcher or C4 because that infringes upon your right to be safe. I countered that a tank of anhydrous ammonia or a leaking propane cylinder could also represent a significant threat to your safety should theybe misused or simply neglected. Because you did not argue this point, I presume that you do not refute it. However, as you've not advocated making the items I mentioned illegal while maintaining that the items you brought up should be, one must logically conclude that rocket launchers and C4 in the wrong hands make you feel unsafe while propane tanks and anhydrous ammonia do not. I have seen the destruction that intentional misuse or even simple accidents with propane cylinders and anhydrous ammonia can cause and it makes me nervous when I'm around these items. If I said that these items should be illegal or restricted as heavily as C4 and Rocket launchers because they represent a threat to my safety, I would probably be laughed out of the room, even though they really do represent a significant threat to my safety if misused. Your perception of something's potential danger, and the resulting lack of a feeling of safety, in and of itself is not sufficient justification to ban something.

You brought C4 and Rocket Launchers (both non-firearms) into the discussion, I simply used your own example to illustrate my point. Just because you percieve one type of gun to be more dangerous than another does not make sufficient justification to ban it, you have to prove that the ownership of that gun represents a public safety hazard that is significantly greater than the ownership of another. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do that.

Also, with regards to your military service, that really has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. One does not have to serve in the military to be able to understand the possible consequences of misusing firearms nor anything else. This is a simple attempt to argue from authority, but that authority does not impress me with regards to the current discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
and I challenge you to point out where I have

That was easy. Go to this thread; http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=299021 which is one you started awhile back. There are so many of them there that I couldn't list them all but here are a few; Posts # 51, 76, 78, 93, 196. On and on and you added shovels I think at one point to the list. Trying to argue that firearms are not inherently dangerous because they possess no will of their own which is not what inherently dangerous means.

Oh come now, surely you are able to see that nowhere in any of those posts did I say that a car, SUV, canine, or shovel is just as dangerous or more dangerous than a firearm. You've taken my posts completely out of context, and I think we both know that. In the majority of the posts I reference, I am simply using example of other items to demonstrate that a firearm is not the only tool that can be dangerous if misused, nowhere do I state that these other instruments are equally dangerous. Either you can't see the forest for the trees or, more likely, you're trying to use mere illustrative examples as red herrings to draw the discussion away from the inherent weakness of your own argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets.

I have and it is quite self evident to a thoughtful person that as our society has evolved and grown more complex many actions individuals take, that years ago would have had no impact on others, do so today and therefore make many of our actions subject today to regulation.

Here you partake of three different fallacies all at the same time. First you "beg the question" by simply contradicting me and restating your own claim rather than actually providing any support. Secondly, by saying that it is "self evident to a thoughtful person" you engage in a subtle ad-hominem attack but suggesting that anyone who dones not see it your way must not be thoughtful. Finally, there is an extremely subtle appeal to ignorance within your ad-hominem attack as it is a challeng to me to either find your support for you or prove your claim to be wrong as being unable to do so would suggest that I am not a "thoughtful person."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Blatantly out of context. The items you mentioned in the passage that I quoted were not firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

I am not putting words in your mouth, just exposing your argument with your words. Such strawmen arguments play well with hard core gun enthusiasts but they don't with the voting majority public. There are lots of gun control laws I oppose but I do look at the reality of firearms in that they are weapons, designed to kill and are inherently dangerous and are recognized as such by business, insurance companies and non-gun owning people. I do not try to trivialize that by saying that this recognition is based purely on irrational emotion and that there is no logic or rational thought involved.

You most certainly are. You are attributing statements to me that I never made and have made very clear that the meaning you seem to take issue with and want to refute was not intended in the statement you are so quick to partially quote or take out of context. By attributing something that I never said to me and then refuting it in a devastating way, you are by definition partaking in a strawman argument.

Webley, you appear to be pretty smart and debate well, I think you can build a better case opposing gun control than using these tired old strawmen. Of course I am assuming you want to have real change in gun laws and are not just playing to the crowd on this forum. If you wish for those changes I recommend you drop the comparisons of firearms to anything other than what they are; dangerous weapons designed to effectively kill people. If you don't, all your other arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Likewise, you appear to be quite intelligent: certainly intelligent enough to take the context of a statement into account when interpreting it's meaning and purpose. I think you and I both know that my mention of items other than firearms was meant for nothing more than illustration and that focusing on them as you have is nothing more than a red herring. Point of fact, you introduced non-firearms into this discussion (specifically C4, rocket launchers, and motorcycles) but I agree, let's get back to firearms and leave the sophistry behind. Perhaps you would explain to us exactly how an MP-40 represents a significantly greater public safety hazard than a Kel-Tec Carbine with a 33-round Glock 18 magazine or why it is so much more dangerous for a college student with a valid CCL to carry on campus rather than at Wal-Mart as these are the types of laws that I take issue with.