Common Sense Gun Control?

[HGUNHNTR]

An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.

 

[rustedangel]

As a lawyer I once interned for said: "I believe people ought to have the right to shoot themselves in the leg if they want to. I mean it's their leg!".

Edit: I think Pigoutultra's comparison still stands. Guns can be used to cause harm, or they can be used responsibly. The crime in a gun crime is not that you hurt someone with a gun, it's that you hurt someone. In my mind murdering someone with a gun is not materially different from murdering someone with a knife or chainsaw. Similarly, you can hurt someone while in an altered state on drugs, or while drunk, but it's not the altered state that is the crime, it's the harm. I drink to mild inebriation on a semi-regular basis without harming anyone, and I think that many people can use many drugs in a similar fashion without ever harming anyone. Personally, I think that in general when you get into the business of trying to prevent bad things from happening because object X is "too dangerous" you create a lot of negative and unanticipated side effects.

 

[NavyLCDR]

An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.

I was going to stay out of this. Oh well.....

The Brady Campaign uses the same argument about banning guns. When it is pointed out to them that cars kill more people every year than guns do, and yet there is no effort to ban cars, the anti-gun crowd will claim that guns are specifically designed to injure and kill, whereas cars are not, therefore it's OK to regulate guns or ban them altogether, but those same regulations and bans should not apply to cars.

 

[Pigoutultra]

Gun Hunter, I'm not saying they should be combined ever. And it could be argued that when you are carrying your mental state is much different than if you were not carrying. You are more tolerant and alert. If you are ever in a situation where you have to use a gun and kill an assailant, there is no doubt that your state of mind will be altered for a long time as you cope with taking the life of a fellow human. What I argue is that if what I am doing is not violating any one's rights, then I should not be punished and have my own rights violated. Telling someone they can't own a gun or they have to sift though a pile of bs forms and jump through hopes is a violation of their rights. Telling someone that they cannot use a substance in the privacy of their own home is a violation of their rights as well. If on the other hand someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they should be punished for the crime, but people would own guns and don't commit crimes should not be punished, same goes for drugs. And just to clarify in case someone is getting the wrong impression, I have never used any "illegal substance" in my life, never drank, smoke, snorted, slamed, hit, or dropped anything.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

I'm totally on board with you Navy, I was just pointing out the fact that I can drive down the street with a gun in my hand, or drive down the street smoking cocaine and the possibilities that arise from the presence of each variable vary greatly.

I guess you could argue that guns were designed to protect life--just it is the last ditch effort when all other measures have failed.

 

[Sky]

The Journal of the American Medical Association recently reported that As many as 106,000 deaths occur annually in US hospitals due to adverse reactions to prescription drugs that are properly prescribed by physicians that use them as directed by the drug companies.

Legal FDA approved drugs Probably kill more a year than the other stuff.

Is a double post from #24

 

[happygeek]

An important distinction between gun use and drug use regardless of legality is the fact that guns do not alter your mental state, drugs most certainly do.

So we should ban alcohol? After all
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39938704/ns/health-addictions/

Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study.

British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.

Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamines, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects and harm to others, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower.

The Prohibitionists of yesteryear used many of the same arguments that are today used for banning marijuana. We tried it their way and it got a lot of people killed, and the perverse thing is that alcohol consumption went up (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm).

Personally I can't believe that Prohibition II has lasted this long without more people being against it and voting accordingly. Honestly I'd have to agree with Pigoutultra that Drug Control more than likely has gotten considerably more people killed than Gun Control, and that's just in this country. It's killing a good many more down in Mexico.

 

[rustedangel]

...I can drive down the street with a gun in my hand, or drive down the street smoking cocaine and the possibilities that arise from the presence of each variable vary greatly.

Non sequitur. You are comparing a responsible and safe use of a gun (having one while driving) to an irresponsible and unsafe use of a drug(operating a vehicle while intoxicated). Driving while intoxicated, whether by alcohol or some other substance, is comparable to shooting without a proper backstop, improper trigger discipline, or some other violation of gun safety rules.

 

[Pigoutultra]

I don't know about you guys but I believe people with mental illnesses should not be barred from legally owning firearms either. You are punishing someone for something they can't change and if they haven't committed any crimes they should have the same rights as we do. I also believe that a non-violent felon should be able to get their record expunged much easier and it would also help if felony actually meant felony. For example, if you are driving along and you have a gun and are pulled over for speeding in a school zone you are screwed because of the unconstitutional Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^ Rusted Angel--Hey man ya got me, I'll buy that. I guess I had just never thought of a reasonable way to use narcotics, you present a sound argument...I suppose you could---thanks!

Happygeek- I love alcohol I am certainly not suggesting banning anything, just pointing out perceptions.

 

[rustedangel]

HGUNHNTR - I know a few people who occasionally indulge in MDMA, mescaline, and cocaine for recreation. They have jobs, some of them have college education, and are otherwise productive members of society. It's not a choice I make for myself, but I fully support their right as human beings to make that choice for themselves.

The implicit assumption in your statement regarding reasonable ways to use narcotics is that since there is no reasonable way, it is acceptable to prohibit them. I believe this misses the point entirely of what governments should do versus what governments should not do. I do not want governments involved in the business of deciding certain behaviours are unacceptable because there's no good reason to engage in them. Think about it, this is the same argument anti-gun folks use against guns. Certain guns don't have a legitimate function, aren't for hunting, are only designed to kill people, etc. I don't believe you should have to justify your actions to engage in them.

What I think governments should do is help protect the liberties of their citizens. If my liberties end where another person's liberties begin, we have a reasonably good guideline for what is acceptable versus what is unacceptable. I think we all agree that a citizen is 100% capable of owning and using firearms without ever causing harm to another citizen. There are behaviours you have to follow to make sure you are not infringing on another person's liberty, and that is the origin of the rules of gun safety and gun safety culture. Similarly, I personally believe that people are capable of using drugs, if they so choose, without harming others. Certainly, if they harm others they should be punished for doing so, but the crime is not the drug use, it's the act of harming others.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

The implicit assumption in your statement regarding reasonable ways to use narcotics is that since there is no reasonable way,

Nope, not true, I wasn't being sarcastic. I'm serious. You presented a very sound argument and presented it in a way in which I had never viewed recreational drug use. While I would never condone it, I agree with you that as long as you aren't endagering another human being (even indirectly) then have at it.

 

[oneounceload]

One gun a month - when they limit you buying Starbucks or fast food to the same time frame - they're more deadly than my gun..............

Common sense is the misnomer used to whittle rights away and confuse the ignorant public which has been dumbed down by 50 years of public education at the hands of the LBJ Great Society folks

Gun Control is using two hands to put all of your shots in the bullseye - nothing more

 

[Pigoutultra]

Amen, Rusted! I find it disturbing though that the places that should have the most freedom when it comes to the carrying of firearms tend to have the least amount of freedom. Such as schools and parks and federal building. These are all managed by the government and it's the governments duty to defend the liberties granted to us by the constitution not to take them away. I also don't like the idea of people having to "EARN" the right to buy/carry a firearm. That is not what natural law is about, everyone is born with equal and absolute rights. Any infringement especially that done by a government is intolerable.

 

[rustedangel]

I think we are in agreement HGUNHNTR. I apologize if I extrapolated too much from your statement

Thanks for the support Pigoutultra! I live in Seattle, and most people here favor big, heavy handed goverment. The idea that people should be able to decide for themselves what to do with their lives is just a foreign concept to a lot of people I talk to, and it makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

 

[AlexanderA]

There are plenty of armed, pro-Second Amendment "liberals." The problem is that most of "institutional liberalism" has been co-opted by the anti-gun crowd.

When pro-gun "liberals" try to find a voice in pro-gun organizations, they tend to get drowned out by self-styled "conservatives."

Actually, "liberal vs. conservative" is a very shallow way of looking at the political spectrum. It's useful only when choosing up sides in the polarized "tribal" wars.

Political alignment doesn't break down along just one axis. There are at least two axes: economic leftist versus economic rightist, and libertarian versus authoritarian. For example, I would probably come down somewhere in the "libertarian-left" camp. The problem is, at least in America, that the existing parties are strange aggregations of disparate ideas. Thus you have Republicans, for example, espousing some libertarian ideas (gun rights) and some authoritarian ones (restrictions on drugs and abortions).

 

[Nushif]

"Common sense" is a feel-good phrase that has no real meaning, but it is hard to attack because it is so ambiguous.

I'd agree with this one. The term "common sense" can't be defined, so it's largely useless in an in-depth argument.
There's a couple more of those, especially once you delve into the nuts and bolts of arguing philosophy. Sadly though both sides of any given argument love throwing those around as if they were gospel. (No pun intended, actually .. for once. but I'll claim it anyways.)

It's like discussing "redness." What is "red?" How do you define it? Can you point to one particular wavelength and say this is red, and is the next billionth of a micrometer in wavelength no longer red?

It's issues like that, that make a lot of really meaningful topics hard to discuss.

 

[Nushif]

+1

Also, AlexanderA is dead on. Yup.

 

[Pigoutultra]

Abortion is just one of those issues that libertarians can't agree on consistently. They are both pro-rights, just rights to different beings where they are mutually exclusive. It's difficult to come to an agreement on rights when granting someone rights takes away another's rights. Another issue is should pregnant women maintain the right to take whatever substances they please? This is also difficult to agree on just the same as abortion. But let's not get into those debates here, they tend to turn bad.

 

[rstull85]

Most gun laws don't make any sense. They don't want people to buy automatic weapons so the put a $200 tax on a rifle that costs thousands, you cant buy a short barreled rifle (without that tax) but I can pick up an AR pistol with a 7" barrel. Whats the difference between an AR with a 11.5" barrel and a R pistol with the same barrel, the law doesn't make sense (I know why they were implemented and when its just a pointless law). If they want to make a common sense law how about we start teaching basic firearm safety in the classroom. The anti 2A people always claim that if you have kids and keep guns it the house the kid is going to shoot himself, most responsible gun owners either keep their guns lock up or make sure they teach the kids firearm safety but not everyone does. And people that don't own firearms wont teach their kids firearm safety. I know its not the best answer, I don't like that they have to teach sex ed in schools but that might be the only place some of these kids are going to get that information. Just my .02

 

[happygeek]

That's because a AR15 with a 11.5 inch barrel and a buttstock is more concealable than a 7 inch barreled AR15 pistol that doesn't have a buttstock.

Everyone knows that a shotgun with a 18 inch barrel is great for hunting, but a shotgun with a 17 inch barrel is only good for sticking up the corner liquor store.

You have to remember that in 1934 $200 was a LOT of money. I could be wrong, but I think Thompsons sold for just under $200 back then; so they were in effect more than doubling the price thereby putting legal ownership out of reach of average joes.

 

[Pigoutultra]

Happy Geek, just another example of our current two-class system. One class has all the rights and privileges(eg. Qualified Immunity) and the other class(eg. US) has minimal rights and no privileges.

 

[merlinfire]

Everyone knows that a shotgun with a 18 inch barrel is great for hunting, but a shotgun with a 17 inch barrel is only good for sticking up the corner liquor store.

Get it in .410, its good protection against the worm at the bottom of the bottle

 

[Shadow 7D]

Using Both hands and a Proper shooting stance or supports...

As for COMMON SENSE DISARMAMENT

Read the second, read Heller, and then
like drugs
JUST SAY NO

 

[cambeul41]

"Common sense" gun laws = unsupportable by the facts.