View Single Post
Old January 2, 2013, 12:20 PM   #149
Spats McGee
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,490
Originally Posted by overthere
. . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence . . . . gun violence. . . . gun violence
Why is "gun violence" any worse than airplane violence or fertilizer violence? The discussion needs to be about violence, period.

Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .- When people say that there is no such things as gun owner responsibilities, only gun owner rights. Tiresome as it is, the analogy with the first amendment not giving the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater is relevant. There need to be responsibilities that come along with gun ownership, such as making a reasonable effort in keeping guns away from minors and other individuals that should not have access to guns (as one example). To state that the second amendment should infer only rights and no responsibilities is invalid. There are regulations around gun ownership and there needs to be regulations around gun ownership. . . . .
One important distinction that needs to be made in that "fire in a theater" analogy: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an intentional act, with reasonably foreseeable consequences (a stampede) that may result in injury or death. Mind you, I am not arguing that gun ownership does not come with responsibilities; it most certainly does. Tort law already provides for remedies for things like negligent use or entrustment, though.

Oh, and there are already regulations around gun possession. (Ownership is a different kettle of fish, and I think that any real danger comes from possession, not ownership.) As an example, see 18 U.S.C. 922.

Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .- When people use the way too common 'two wrong things make a right' argument such as "Well cars kill people too, let's ban cars then". Automobiles are highly regulated, as is the ownership and operation of automobiles. . . . .
Operation of motor vehicles is regulated. I'm unaware of any regulations on ownership, though. What's happened in the last 3 weeks is a huge push to regulate ownership of firearms, on top of already-extensive regulation on posession and use.

If we were to treat ownership of guns in the same way as ownership of automobiles: (1) there'd be no minimum age to purchase; (2) no background check would be required; (3) there would be no license required as long as the driver stayed on private property.

Originally Posted by overthere
. . . .I wish that there could be a sensible discussion around gun violence with true cause and effect being examined, based on data rather than emotion. To try to determine what can be done to reduce gun violence. Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?
1) I hold my right and responsibility to protect myself and my family inviolate, regardless of data. I care about more than just how many people care killed. I care about which ones are killed. What's more, I hold your right and responsibility to protect yourself and your family to be inviolate.

2) "Why is it that a reasonable dialog cannot be held about reducing gun violence?" Over several decades, gun owners have been more than reasonable, even accomodating to the anti-gun crowd. The latter have proven themselves to be unreasonable. We tried it the gun-control way, and it failed.
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Page generated in 0.03738 seconds with 7 queries