Accidental Firearm-related Fatalities Drop to All-time Low

[Contrarian]

I see that being away from this discussion for a week hasn't resulted in an elevation of the intellectual level of the debate.

CSX-TX - If you think, half as well as you spell... we have a problem. Americans have the right to bear arms, however the Constitution says nothing about not requiring yahoos from registering them. You have the right to drive a car as well (not in the Constitution, since they were not invented at the time), BUT because a car in the hands of an unqualifed or impared driver poses a PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD, which my Infidel friend is a threat to other citizens LIVES (if you kill them), LIBERTY (if you confine them to a wheelchair), and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (see the first two).

Now, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that a gun can kill and destroy the lives of innocent American citizens. In fact it happens every single day. The fact that any bone head in certain states (and I'm guessing you live in one of them) with an IQ of 12, with a predillection for drinking too much and "swaggering" (Bush says you guys call it walking) might screw up and shoot an innocent person.... IS A THREAT TO OUR RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. In most civilized states you can't SMOKE in a bar, because it is a PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT. In EVERY state it is against the law to drive drunk because it is a PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT.... but carrying a gun when drunk, in a bar... is a Constitutional right???!! That is convoluted logic at its finest.

Then after this Constitutionally authorized citizen deprives another citizen of his constitutional rights by putting a .45 slug in his head, he can cry and whine like a baby as they strap him to the execution table (I'll also bet he was pro Capital punishment before he screwed up too!!) .... maybe the number of executions in your state (could that possibly be TX??) would go down if the population of that state had the collective brain power of a 10 Watt bulb... and controlled the guns. But then again it would take away all the fun of death row and a major industry in the state.

 

[Gabo]

You need to understand something. The people that are going to use the guns offensively are going to buy them whether they are legal or not.

The people that want something to protect themselves, however, are not going to go out of their way to buy illegal or heavily regulated guns.

When you unconstitutionally regulate or illegalize guns, you are not only risking the lives of many now defenseless people, you are restricting their FREEDOM.


The constitution nowhere mentions the protection from THREATS to life, liberty, and property. Anything can be seen as a threat to life, liberty, or property. When you try and regulate something to prevent the violation of our rights, you are in fact violating our right to freedom in order to do so.

Like the old saying goes, you're fighting fire with fire.

We have no right to rule over those who think differently than us. Just because you may not want to have a gun doesn't mean everyone else doesn't want one. And when you support the restrictions on firearms, you are supporting the limitation to all of our freedoms, the very thing you're "preventing".

What you have created is a cure worse than the disease.

 

[Contrarian]

Let me correct you. I did not say people should be denied the right to have firearms, I said they should be registered and the gun owners licensed, just like owning and driving a car. How does this violate the rights and freedoms of a law abiding citizen? If you have no illegal agenda, why would you object to licensing and registration?

You stated that those looking to use guns "offensively" (illegally?) would try to skirt the law. You are probabily right, but what if an honorable citizens gun is stolen.. or sold to some idiot... or pulled out in a bar fight... or used in a fit of marital rage? It's not always the bad guy who kills someone.

If we have no right to protection under the law, why can you be arrested for driving a car without a license? Or driving drunk? Or any number of other public safety violations? According to what you are saying, every DWI bust is unconstitutional. Think about that.

It use to be acceptable for people to smoke everywhere. Their right to do so. Then the consensus was... let them kill themselves if they want to. Now, it is acknowledged that allowing the smokers their "freedom" presented a public health issue and smoking was banned in most public spaces (in intelligent states) to PROTECT the majority of the people. It is no different with guns. You can have them. You can use them in places where you won't harm innocent people, but you don't have the right to threaten pulic health and safety.

 

[Gabo]

Let me correct you. I did not say people should be denied the right to have firearms, I said they should be registered and the gun owners licensed, just like owning and driving a car. How does this violate the rights and freedoms of a law abiding citizen? If you have no illegal agenda, why would you object to licensing and registration?

I know I would object to licensing and registration because:
1) The government steals from me to pay for the license/registration junk.
2) Licensing/registration restrict who can own/use a gun, basically redefining the second amendment to only include people who the government deems worthy.
3) Freedom is the essense of not being forcefully made to do something. Having licensing/registration is forcing people to do something.

You stated that those looking to use guns "offensively" (illegally?) would try to skirt the law. You are probabily right, but what if an honorable citizens gun is stolen.. or sold to some idiot... or pulled out in a bar fight... or used in a fit of marital rage? It's not always the bad guy who kills someone.

What if someone accidentally lays a used match on the forest floor and it causes the whole forest to catch fire?
Would you advocate making all matches illegal?
Would you require people to get a match users license in order to own and use them?

If we have no right to protection under the law, why can you be arrested for driving a car without a license? Or driving drunk? Or any number of other public safety violations? According to what you are saying, every DWI bust is unconstitutional. Think about that.

This may shock you or put you into disbelief, but technically all of those things would be unconstitutional. But those wouldn't be issues if transporation wasn't government monopolized, but instead ran by private businesses.

It use to be acceptable for people to smoke everywhere. Their right to do so. Then the consensus was... let them kill themselves if they want to. Now, it is acknowledged that allowing the smokers their "freedom" presented a public health issue and smoking was banned in most public spaces (in intelligent states) to PROTECT the majority of the people. It is no different with guns. You can have them. You can use them in places where you won't harm innocent people, but you don't have the right to threaten pulic health and safety.

There is absoultely no reason to make smoking illegal in public areas.
What SHOULD happen is people filing lawsuits on smokers who smoke near them and noticably contaminate their air supply.
Guns, on the other hand, harm nobody when carried. The only harm they cause is when someone is shot. Then that person has every right to go to court over the matter, but trying to prevent it from happening only limits all our freedoms.

 

[Contrarian]

You're views sound almost like those of an Anarchist. Absolute freedom means absolute anarchy. The reason people bind together into a community is to achieve common protections and provide for the common good (hence the derivation of the word). This community, regardless of how large or small requires "governance" to insure that this common protection is organized and enforced. Licensing and registration permits for people to exercise freedom in a manner that PROTECTS the common good. We as a people use the "protection" afforded under licensing to as you say "grant permission" for any number of important or REDICULOUS things. Let's start with some of the favorites of the conservative right.... MARRIAGE!! The government does not have the right to control some psycho from carrying a gun that might kill people, BUT they can say yes or no to whom ever you wish to love and make a family with?? DRIVING!! - There are age and aptitude requirements for any citizen to drive around thousands of pounds of metal capable of accidentally crushing and killing other people. If you don't meet those requirements, would YOU want unskilled drivers on the road? I'm sure you occassionally grumble under your breath about some old lady creating a public hazard driving 10mph down the interstate, as we all do. ABORTION!! Total intrusion into the life of a woman and her reproductive choices under government permission (aka "license"). ALCOHOL - In revolutionary times it was a "right" for farmer citizens to produce and sell their distilled spirits. Now you can't make it or sell it without Federal and state licenses to do so supposedly because it can kill or damage people (forget the tax opportunities). BUSINESSES - What danger does the local grocery store pose, but they must get MANY licenses to sell you food, beer, cigarettes etc... not exactly the same impact as a gun to your head!

I could go on and on... the fact is, if one wishes to live under the protection of a civilized government, they must be willing to give up a certain number of freedoms for that privilege (remember the Patriot Act rhetoric?). The founding fathers created a system of goverment that allowed for freedom with governance under prescribed checks and balances. That is what I am proposing. Have your guns as permitted under the consitution, but, with checks and balances.

While the idea of "total freedom" sounds nice, we all still look to our government to protect us, be it from terrorists slamming planes into buildings, highway safety standards, drunk drivers killing our kids, second hand smoke killing us in bars... or the simple intrusions that some people feel so strongly about like protection of the "institution of marriage"... there is a hypocracy here as in many other arguements that is beyond logic. It is the American way... control certain things is aggressively promoted, but stay out of those things that may intrude on my personal freedom. It would all lead to absolute chaos.

 

[Gabo]

You're views sound almost like those of an Anarchist. Absolute freedom means absolute anarchy.

That's incorrect. I propose a system to maximize the amount of freedom within our country. In order to do such a thing, violation of natural rights must be illegal because it hinders our freedom.

Anarchy is no system at all, where what I propose is the justice system.

You act like the government will not function without socialism, or that special interest programs such as NASA, foreign aid, funding the UN, etc. are essential for our community to survive.

The only prolem with anarchy is that people will treat others unfairly against their will.

What I propose is making that illegal like it should be.

The reason people bind together into a community is to achieve common protections and provide for the common good (hence the derivation of the word). This community, regardless of how large or small requires "governance" to insure that this common protection is organized and enforced.

Who's to say such communities still would not exist? They most definitely would, except the fact that participation would be voluntary. You could still move to a community that has gun laws, has drugs illegal, and has a public school system. The difference is you involve yourself with the community at a voluntary level. If you ever feel like the community is being unfair or not true to its name, you may leave at any time.

It is up to the people to create prevention and proctection methods of their own by their own decisions. All the government needs to do is have a justice system for those people who violate the rights of others.

We as a people use the "protection" afforded under licensing to as you say "grant permission" for any number of important or REDICULOUS things. Let's start with some of the favorites of the conservative right.... MARRIAGE!! The government does not have the right to control some psycho from carrying a gun that might kill people, BUT they can say yes or no to whom ever you wish to love and make a family with??

Of course they have no right to regulate marriage, which is why it should be removed from the government entirely. They have no right to control us in any way.

However, should a common group of people disagree with gay marriage, they can move to a community that prohibits it.

DRIVING!! - There are age and aptitude requirements for any citizen to drive around thousands of pounds of metal capable of accidentally crushing and killing other people. If you don't meet those requirements, would YOU want unskilled drivers on the road? I'm sure you occassionally grumble under your breath about some old lady creating a public hazard driving 10mph down the interstate, as we all do.

Roadways should be privatized. In that way, when people go on the road, they are agreeing to follow all terms and requirements of the business providing them the service.

ABORTION!! Total intrusion into the life of a woman and her reproductive choices under government permission (aka "license").

Abortion is a difficult subject. If the fetus is considered alive (though how to define this is beyond me, everyone seems to disagree), then the mother would be charged for killing someone. However, if it is not considered living yet, there is no problem with abortion.

ALCOHOL - In revolutionary times it was a "right" for farmer citizens to produce and sell their distilled spirits. Now you can't make it or sell it without Federal and state licenses to do so supposedly because it can kill or damage people (forget the tax opportunities).

Government should by no means regulate this. When people buy a product, they are buying that product whether it is safe or dangerous. The point is that they agree to buying the product, so its their own fault if they hurt themselves.

BUSINESSES - What danger does the local grocery store pose, but they must get MANY licenses to sell you food, beer, cigarettes etc... not exactly the same impact as a gun to your head!

They shouldn't have to have all these licenses! All it does is limit our freedom and make it difficult for small businesses to get ahead in the market!

I could go on and on... the fact is, if one wishes to live under the protection of a civilized government, they must be willing to give up a certain number of freedoms for that privilege (remember the Patriot Act rhetoric?).

That's perfectly fine, except the fact that everyone out there has a different definition of what protection is enough protection for them. The forfeiture of thie freedom for that protection should be done through voluntary communities working together for a common interest.

The founding fathers created a system of goverment that allowed for freedom with governance under prescribed checks and balances. That is what I am proposing. Have your guns as permitted under the consitution, but, with checks and balances.

First you say the founding fathers were right, then you blatently disregard them.

The constitution clearly states NO laws may override the constitution in ANY case.

That itself was a check to stop the government from taking away our freedoms.

While the idea of "total freedom" sounds nice, we all still look to our government to protect us, be it from terrorists slamming planes into buildings, highway safety standards, drunk drivers killing our kids, second hand smoke killing us in bars... or the simple intrusions that some people feel so strongly about like protection of the "institution of marriage"... there is a hypocracy here as in many other arguements that is beyond logic. It is the American way... control certain things is aggressively promoted, but stay out of those things that may intrude on my personal freedom. It would all lead to absolute chaos.

Not really. What it would lead to is everyone getting what they want, what they feel is enough protection for themselves.

Everyone would be free to move to a community where they work till May to fund the special interests and protections they desire so much.

However, those that don't want expensive protection can take a chance with their lives and live in a totally unregulated area.

 

[Contrarian]

While I respect your train of thought, it is totally impractical and weak. I am not disagreeing with the Founding Fathers at all. They had the difficult task of assembling a form of government that gave the U.S. the strength of a union without excessive control of the personal freedoms. The Constitution is used as the foundation for all laws, regulations and social codes by which we as Americans live. It's content is up for interpretation, which is what we are doing in this forum. It is not a totalitarian document, hence we all read it and very often gleen different interpretations of the articles and ammendments.

What you are illustrating is almost a commune society which exists within the sphere of it's own small group. A primitive tribal form of existence, where the small group sets a social order, and if you don't like it... move out. How would this help us to become the great nation that we are today? How would this benefit us if we were invaded by a foreign power? Would all the gun toting farmers try to form disjointed militias to protect us from a well organized national army? Welcome to 1776! That is absolute madness!

 

[Gabo]

What you are illustrating is almost a commune society which exists within the sphere of it's own small group. A primitive tribal form of existence, where the small group sets a social order, and if you don't like it... move out.

Not quite. It would in no way be primitive or tribal-like. Just as people nowadays move to certain neighborhoods for their low crime, good schooling, available churches, etc., people could gather together in communities where they pledge certain duties to the community.

What you have essentially is the people governing themselves, though remaining under the golden law of not using FORCE.

How would this help us to become the great nation that we are today? How would this benefit us if we were invaded by a foreign power? Would all the gun toting farmers try to form disjointed militias to protect us from a well organized national army? Welcome to 1776! That is absolute madness!

Like I mentioned before, many people WOULD be concerned with the power of the military. They could devote themselves to a community in which there is a standing, trained military supported by taxes on the citizens.

 

[Contrarian]

I wish you luck in finding a group of people who can live and work together without the structure afforded by our form of government. I find you particularly idealistic when I hear you speak of a society without the rule of force to guarantee conformity. It is a fact of socio-biology, that communities form these structures in order to enhance their ability to survive and prosper. Without a certain degree of conformity forced upon the members of the community, survival, at least of some, is compromised.

 

[Gabo]

I wish you luck in finding a group of people who can live and work together without the structure afforded by our form of government. I find you particularly idealistic when I hear you speak of a society without the rule of force to guarantee conformity. It is a fact of socio-biology, that communities form these structures in order to enhance their ability to survive and prosper. Without a certain degree of conformity forced upon the members of the community, survival, at least of some, is compromised.

You are agreeing with the use of FORCE to achieve something.
You are saying you have a higher claim on someone's life than that person themself.
You are saying if you don't use FORCE to make people do what is right, they will be stupid and do the wrong things and cause suffering to all.

According to your logic, there is asbsolutely nothing wrong with tyranny, so long as it's good tyranny. Nothing wrong with monarchy, so long as its good monarchy.

You are saying in order for the government to protect our rights from violation, it must violate our rights beforehand. This makes no sense.



By natural desires, people group together when they share common interests. These people then work towards a common goal, which they ALL share. However, when you IMPOSE a goal on people, whether it be peace or war, equality or superiority, kindness or hatred, people no longer share a common interest. Some people are content because they get to FORCE others to work towards their goal. But those who don't agree with the IMPOSED interest must suffer under the rule of government.

This is obviously unfair and unjust. Our democratic government was created to get away from IMPOSED visions, to allow a free people to pursue their own individual interests and goals.

But over time, we have once again relapsed into the state of government which we used to have, only different goals are being IMPOSED upon people. While the goals may be different, the means to achieve them aren't. The way to achieve these goals has once again become FORCE, and it costs us our freedom and our individuality.

Our society has BECOME what it so long ago sought to be free of.

 

[globalvision]

contrarian you say Without a certain degree of conformity forced upon the members of the community, survival, at least of some, is compromised, you almost sound like Charles Darwin there. survival of the fitest. i dont see how imposing conformity will increase the likelyhood of survival of anyone. we naturally conform to each other to a certain degree although there are some who have massively divergent views than the mainstream. this does not mean that this is dangerous. freedom that America so cherishes surely encourages differences. to impose anything is tyrannical and dangerous. i think that maybe you have been reading lock and hobbes Leviathan whereby in the state of nature life is solitary, nasty brutish and short. maybe this is true, but the state of nature has never existed so we would hardly know that. the leviathan the hobbes talks about is whereby individuals give up a certain amount of there freedom in return for security. this is true in what government does. i think That maybe you have mad a few mistakes grammatically saying that the government must guarantee conformity. this is not its objective but to prevent individuals from harm, at least from hobbes. conformity then is not the issue here, so from my perspective at least you are wrong in what you are saying.

 

[CSA_TX]

Contrarian

CSX-TX - If you think, half as well as you spell... we have a problem.

Personal attacks on my ability to spell from a liberal, go figure

Now, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that a gun can kill and destroy the lives of innocent American citizens. In fact it happens every single day. The fact that any bone head in certain states (and I'm guessing you live in one of them) with an IQ of 12, with a predillection for drinking too much and "swaggering" (Bush says you guys call it walking) might screw up and shoot an innocent person.... IS A THREAT TO OUR RIGHT OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. In most civilized states you can't SMOKE in a bar, because it is a PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT. In EVERY state it is against the law to drive drunk because it is a PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT.... but carrying a gun when drunk, in a bar... is a Constitutional right???!! That is convoluted logic at its finest.

Perhaps you should research the laws before spouting off. It is against the law in the great state of TEXAS to carry a concealed weapon even with a license into a bar or any other establishment that makes 50% profit from booze. It is also against the law to carry while intoxicated.


:fu

 

[Contrarian]

Liberal or conservative... doesn't matter. The English language is still the English language.... unless it's Texan.??

The law in Texas may attempt to prevent yahoos from carrying guns into the bars, but it sure doesn't prevent them from keeping them in their pickups when they come out!! After they belly up to the bar for a few cold Lone Star beers, they can always go to the local convenience store and blow away the clerk, or put a .44 slug into the head of some guy who looked at his little lady the wrong way.

If they didn't have this "right" (Constitutionally guaranteed), maybe there would be fewer citizens on death row in the not so great state of Texas. Just because something is a law... doesn't mean some macho cowboy won't look to break it!! Just ask our swaggering, Texas President (who happens to be a Connecticut Yankee reject).

 

[Pacridge]

CSX-TX - If you think, half as well as you spell... we have a problem. Americans have the right to bear arms, however the Constitution says nothing about not requiring yahoos from registering them. You have the right to drive a car as well (not in the Constitution, since they were not invented at the time), BUT because a car in the hands of an unqualifed or impared driver poses a PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD, which my Infidel friend is a threat to other citizens LIVES (if you kill them), LIBERTY (if you confine them to a wheelchair), and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS (see the first two).

Couldn't you have made your point without the blatant slap in the face due to spelling errors? You know we all make spelling/grammer errors on here all the time. This isn't your senior year English mid-term. It's an internet debate forum. The later tends to be fairly informal. Personally, I think your argument would carry more weight without the insult. I know I tend to tune out just about anything past a comment like that.

As for the rest of your post. For personal reasons I've been staying out of the 2nd Amend. threads. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying here, but the right to keep and bear arms isn't really optional per the constitution. As you point out there are restrictions on a lot of things that we also have rights to, but those rights don't tend to be so specifically pointed in the constitution.

 

[Contrarian]

If I have offended you Pac, or CSX-TX, for being insensitive, I apologize. Everyone is entitled to their opinion which is what makes our country great, and this forum important.

 

[Pacridge]

If I have offended you Pac, or CSX-TX, for being insensitive, I apologize. Everyone is entitled to their opinion which is what makes our country great, and this forum important.

I'm not at all offended. I just think the debate is more productive sans insults.

Personally, I think you usually use logic and supporting facts/evidence to back up your arguments. Just think they carry more weight all by themselves.

 

[CSA_TX]

No offense here, just proves you Yankees do have an elitist attitude.

 

[TJS0110]

Hi, I'm new, and your post caught my attention. First off, yes, it is wonderful that firearm accidents have lowered (though I would love to hear where this information was quoted from). However it is important to consider that this could be because of more strict gun control laws, which may quickly dissintegrate in Bush's second term. Also, the greatest "accident" of all, murder by firearm, has increased in the last year. I'll get you the statistics if you want them. We still have a higher gun death rate than all European countries put together. To me, this is a more pertinent issue than an accident rate, although both are obviously tragic.

Did you know that more people are killed by household cutlery then accidently killed by guns? Also I would like to know how many of the deaths(non-sccidently) are caused by guns that were procured by illegal means. I would be willing to bet that most deaths(again non-accidental) are caused by illegaly procured guns. I realy think one thing people are ignoreing in theses statistics is that they only look at the numbers not the circumstances. You have to relise that the people who murder people dont use the gun they bought at a gun store. Gang members have other ways of getting assault weapons and other guns.

 

[superskippy]

I'm a full supporter of Gun ownership, and firearm rights so forgive me for playing devils advocate here. :mrgreen:

What if there were no gun's in the hand's of the public? We would not have accidental gun deaths at all now would we?

Again I'll say it again I'm a full supporter of gun ownership and firearm rights just wanted to throw that question out there, "What if we could make it so there were no accidental gun deaths at all? Or for that matter gun deaths?"

 

[TJS0110]

Yes but people who wanted to commit crimes would still get guns and they would kill people but not accidentaly. Only morons leave unlocked guns in there house. i dont know any gun owners who dont lock up there guns. However I do know that some people are stupid. I have a shotgun and I keep it double locked, its in a locked case with a lock through the loading mechanism.

 

[Fantasea]

As the old saying goes, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns."

Now, why is that?

 

[TJS0110]

becuase the law does not apply to crimanals. They'll brake the laws you make, so your only hindering the ability of law abiding citizens to own weapons

 

[Pacridge]

As the old saying goes, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns."

Now, why is that?

"Where drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs."

Now, why is that?

 

[SixStringHero]

Yes, lets ban all fire-arms especially of the non fully automatic variety. After all, prohibition worked out fairly well didn't it?
Long and short of it, you ban guns and the criminals will have a monopoly on their hands.

Okay, sarcasm aside I have one question...did I miss something here? I thought every person who purchases a fire-arm has to be by law registered. I didn't have any complaints when I purchased my gun way back when. I'm a storng proponet of the 2nd Ammendment, but I believe all gun owners like myself should be registered.

I wish people would look more into the statistics instead of expousing rhetoric all the time. I believe West Verginia is a CCW (concealed carry weapon) state. Once CCW was implemented, vioilent crime overall decreased. By contrast look at D.C. which is virtually the murder capitol of the country.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
As the old saying goes, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns."

Now, why is that?

"Where drugs are outlawed, only outlaws will have drugs."

Now, why is that?

I would have expected you to furnish the answer.

Some say it's a genetic fault; others say it is the environment, still others say it is a refusal to become educated, many say it is the fault of the politically correct social programs which have destroyed the concept of family and removed all vestiges of personal responsibility from individuals.

If there's an economic bright side, the product of the latter two reasons has served to enhance the vocational stability of those employed in the law enforcement, justice, penal, and parole segments of government by ensuring a steady supply of miscreants to be dealt with, thereby keeping them busy.

Of course, the taxpayers get screwed on both ends. First they have to pay to produce the villains; then they have to pay to catch them, try them, jail them, and then attempt to rehab them.

As someone in this forum observed earlier, if all the money is taken from a person who has it and it is given to a person who has none, in less than a year, each will be in the exact same former financial position because each will continue to do what he has always done.

Now why is that?

It is further observed that while some people may be taken out of a slum, the slum can't be taken out of some people.

Now why is that?

Then, of course, there is the old adage, "Birds of a feather flock together."

But, you really knew all of that, didn't you? You were just testing me, weren't you?.