If 90% of the people want background checks then ... [W:486]

[sangha]

As have I. But the one time I could have used a firearm to prevent a possibly lethal beating, I did not have one. Do I disagree that there are times that it may not be prudent to carry a firearm? Certainly. You imply that you would prefer to deny the choice to be armed to everyone under all circumstances. All because you have never needed one.

I implied nothing of the sort.

 

[BretJ]

No. The fire and stuff analogy.

It's not an analogy. I have a fire extinguisher to render aid or protect a life. I cannot put out a fire by hoping it never happens or bare handed. A fire extinguisher is the best, safest tool.
I have a trauma kit to render aid or protect a life. I could render aid or save a life without it but the trauma kit contains equipment and materials that increase my chances of being successful. I carry a firearm to render aid or protect a life. I could do it by hand if I have a tactical advantage and am able to overpower a single assailant. However, that puts me at greater risk of injury or death. A firearm gives me greater potential for being successful. Notice that i used the word potential. It's not a guarantee you will be successful. It's still better than hoping you will live long enough to give a description or watch someone being killed and wishing you could stop it.

 

[Danbury]

It's not an analogy. I have a fire extinguisher to render aid or protect a life. I cannot put out a fire by hoping it never happens or bare handed. A fire extinguisher is the best, safest tool.
I have a trauma kit to render aid or protect a life. I could render aid or save a life without it but the trauma kit contains equipment and materials that increase my chances of being successful. I carry a firearm to render aid or protect a life. I could do it by hand if I have a tactical advantage and am able to overpower a single assailant. However, that puts me at greater risk of injury or death. A firearm gives me greater potential for being successful. Notice that i used the word potential. It's not a guarantee you will be successful. It's still better than hoping you will live long enough to give a description or watch someone being killed and wishing you could stop it.

Do you know what an analogy is? That was an analogy.

A bad one.

 

[BretJ]

I implied nothing of the sort.

then I will freely admit I have misread you. You are saying that there are times where having a firearm is prudent? No,I am not trying to hook you. I would like to understand under what circumstances you feel people have the right to be armed.

 

[BretJ]

Do you know what an analogy is? That was an analogy.

A bad one.

Seeing as how I must be illiterate.....can you tell me why my examples of preferring to have the proper tools to be prepared for unlikely events is a bad analogy?

 

[sangha]

then I will freely admit I have misread you. You are saying that there are times where having a firearm is prudent? No,I am not trying to hook you. I would like to understand under what circumstances you feel people have the right to be armed.

Yes, there are definitely times when having a weapon is prudent. However, I do not think it is as often as many say it is.

For example, it is prudent to have a weapon in the home, provided it is securely stored. Hopefully, the house itself is secured too

Having family in the restaurant business, a cash business, I know that many small business owners make cash deposits to the bank on a nightly basis. It is prudent for them to carry while transporting the cash. Some businesses (liquor stores, groceries, etc) are known to attract armed robbers. It's is prident for them to have a weapon on the premises.

 

[Harshaw]

1) That is not a response to the insident;
2) better mental health treatment? So now the "cut government spending!" folks WANT government spending?

And while pretending to ignore me (sort of; you haven't quite made up your mind about that) for supposedly twisting your words and misconstruing you (though you refuse to explain your words) . . .

You've been twisting other people's words all the way through this thread.

 

[Danbury]

Seeing as how I must be illiterate.....can you tell me why my examples of preferring to have the proper tools to be prepared for unlikely events is a bad analogy?

Analogizing guns to fire extinguishers is fallacious. However when fire extinguishers start becoming a problem in terms of being weapons of mass murders, I'll come to believe something will need to be done concerning the ease of access to fire extinguishers.

 

[Jerry]

Analogizing guns to fire extinguishers is fallacious. However when fire extinguishers start becoming a problem in terms of being weapons of mass murders, I'll come to believe something will need to be done concerning the ease of access to fire extinguishers.

How about cars? Just as guns are not designed for mass-murder, neither are cars, yet cars kill more people every year than guns.

Let's treat guns like we treat cars:

• No background checks to buy, sell, own or posses any firearm.
  
  
• No license needed to buy, own or possess any kind of firearm; only to operate that firearm on public property, just like a car.
  
  
• No license needed to own, possess or operate any kind of firearm on personal property.
  
  
• License is "shall Issue", does not require a background check, but does require 16hr class, knowledge and practical handling/qualification, and has passport quality photo, bio-metric data, description of holder and address.
  
  
• Just as there are difference classes of drivers license there could be different gun licenses as well. A Class-1 allows you to operate all Class-1 weapons, which according to the ATF is most pistols and rifles. A Class-2 allows you to operate as a pawn broker. A Class-3 allows you to operate assault rifles and machine guns. And so forth. All of these classes are to be available to anyone with the time and money to get them without ever having to present a 'need'.
  
  
• License is good in all 50 states; no state my refuse to honor a lawfully acquired license or otherwise restrict the operation of a lawfully possessed firearm. If someone in farm country wants to bring his legally owned machine gun to downtown Chicago, this has to be allowed.
  
  
• All firearms are titled and registered with the local Clerk of Courts.
  
  
• A firearm must have at least basic liability insurance in order to be operated on public property, but no insurance if only operated on private property. Different classes of firearm may require different levels of insurance. A gun license for artillery will also require an annual physical, which is the equivalent of a DoT Medical Card for a Class-A CDL.
  
  
• Criminal conviction, even murder, does not stop you from continuing to buy, own or possess any firearm; you are only barred from operating a firearm in public.

All of the above is true for drivers licenses today, even-though far more people are killed by vehicles than guns.

Is this the plan the Obama administration is pushing?

 

[Henrin]

Oh, I'll last just fine. I think it's kind of pathetic that you go after some silly semantic argument. let me see: you said, and I quote: 'I never said anything of the sort". Sayin a certain gun is the gun you feel most comfortable with to defend your family and property is absolutely something of the sort of saying one needs a certain gun to defend his family.

Now, the issue really is not whether the word is need or want. The issue is actually, and I'll do this according to your ridiculous semantic argument, if you DON'T NEED an assault weapon to defend your family, then why have one? If you merely WANT one, but do not NEED one, then that implies that the need is not there, ergo, the WANT is a result of your imagination, and in fact you do NOT live in a crime riddled area, therefore you don't have a NEED for such a gun. Merely WANTING one is actually worse than actually NEEDING it, esp. if you're willing to put up with Newtown type incidents because you have some need to feel like you WOULD defend your family even though there is no NEED to do so....

Get it?

No, huh?

So, you do NOT live in a crime riddled area...so why the massive gun to protect your family? If you DO live in such an area, then you either WOULD need it, OR you'd be wise to move to a safer area.

See?

I love how some people attach need to things like rights and even what you can buy in the market. I don't need to have something in order to be able to buy it and just because I don't need something doesn't warrant people trying to take away my ability to buy it legally. Do you see how that works?

 

[Harshaw]

Analogizing guns to fire extinguishers is fallacious.

Not in and of itself, it isn't. You can properly analogize just about anything to anything else in the proper context. And considering that you do love to go on about the proper context, he explained his, so you'll have to do better if you want to show it's wrong.

 

[Danbury]

Another bad analogy.

1) Cars have an altogether alternative purpose, a purpose deemed so vital to life that the inherent dangers do not outweigh the benefit of having cars;
2) Cars cannot be used in Mass murders; guns certainly can. Not sure why you say they're not;
3) The sole purpose of a gun is to kill something.

 

[BretJ]

Yes, there are definitely times when having a weapon is prudent. However, I do not think it is as often as many say it is.

For example, it is prudent to have a weapon in the home, provided it is securely stored. Hopefully, the house itself is secured too

Having family in the restaurant business, a cash business, I know that many small business owners make cash deposits to the bank on a nightly basis. It is prudent for them to carry while transporting the cash. Some businesses (liquor stores, groceries, etc) are known to attract armed robbers. It's is prident for them to have a weapon on the premises.

With then exception of your first point, you and I are in full agreement.

As for the first point, I personally think it is pretty much impossible to prove it one way or the other. I think it does happen with regularity. I have personal experience that it does happen. Enough, experience to say I would not want to deprive a responsible person the right to do the same. It sounds like our main difference is in what tools and under what circumstances. Accurate?

 

[Danbury]

I love how some people attach need to things like rights and even what you can buy in the market. I don't need to have something in order to be able to buy it and just because I don't need something doesn't warrant people trying to take away my ability to buy it legally. Do you see how that works?

Bad argument. Among other reasons, no one is arguing that "because you don't need a gun, they should be made illegal."

 

[Jerry]

I have several fire extinguishers and a trauma kit in my car. So far so good. Have never had to use them but I feel better having them.

Same here.

I lock my front door, too.

 

[sangha]

How about cars? Just as guns are not designed for mass-murder, neither are cars, yet cars kill more people every year than guns.

Let's treat guns like we treat cars:

• No background checks to buy, sell, own or posses any firearm.
  
  
• No license needed to buy, own or possess any kind of firearm; only to operate that firearm on public property, just like a car.
  
  
• No license needed to own, possess or operate any kind of firearm on personal property.
  
  
• License is "shall Issue", does not require a background check, but does require 16hr class, knowledge and practical handling/qualification, and has passport quality photo, bio-metric data, description of holder and address.
  
  
• Just as there are difference classes of drivers license there could be different gun licenses as well. A Class-1 allows you to operate all Class-1 weapons, which according to the ATF is most pistols and rifles. A Class-2 allows you to operate as a pawn broker. A Class-3 allows you to operate assault rifles and machine guns. And so forth. All of these classes are to be available to anyone with the time and money to get them without ever having to present a 'need'.
  
  
• License is good in all 50 states; no state my refuse to honor a lawfully acquired license or otherwise restrict the operation of a lawfully possessed firearm. If someone in farm country wants to bring his legally owned machine gun to downtown Chicago, this has to be allowed.
  
  
• All firearms are titled and registered with the local Clerk of Courts.
  
  
• A firearm must have at least basic liability insurance in order to be operated on public property, but no insurance if only operated on private property. Different classes of firearm may require different levels of insurance. A gun license for artillery will also require an annual physical, which is the equivalent of a DoT Medical Card for a Class-A CDL.
  
  
• Criminal conviction, even murder, does not stop you from continuing to buy, own or possess any firearm; you are only barred from operating a firearm in public.

All of the above is true for drivers licenses today, even-though far more people are killed by vehicles than guns.

Is this the plan the Obama administration is pushing?

You left many things out

Cars must be inspected on a regular basis
You can't bring your car wherever you want to bring it
Cars require insurance on public property
You have to be over a certain age in order to drive a car
Cars can be confiscated by the govt
Drivers can have a background check run on them for a multitude of reasons (some of which don't require any level of suspicion)
Criminal conviction can stop someone from owning a weapon

 

[sangha]

With then exception of your first point, you and I are in full agreement.

As for the first point, I personally think it is pretty much impossible to prove it one way or the other. I think it does happen with regularity. I have personal experience that it does happen. Enough, experience to say I would not want to deprive a responsible person the right to do the same. It sounds like our main difference is in what tools and under what circumstances. Accurate?

That sounds about right, with the exception of the "impossible to prove". If we're talking about "prudent", the stats show that the likelihood of being seriously victimized by a violent crime is so low that, combined with the risks associating with carrying, concealed carry on a regular basis is not the panacea that some portray it as.

 

[BretJ]

Another bad analogy.

1) Cars have an altogether alternative purpose, a purpose deemed so vital to life that the inherent dangers do not outweigh the benefit of having cars;
2) Cars cannot be used in Mass murders; guns certainly can. Not sure why you say they're not;
3) The sole purpose of a gun is to kill something.

Dang, all my guns are faulty....
You are right..kind if. Guns have the potential to kill...they also have the potential to murder....they also have the potential to protect....they can also intimidate. Actually,
A better comparison would be alcohol. Alcohol offers no real tangible benefit to society yet is responsible for more deaths, rapes, murders, accidental killings than guns. Restrict and track the amount purchased. Background check to determine if someone has been convicted of drunk driving. Of course you would never allow a bill like this to pass because you are a responsible drinker and the government should only be concentrating on the irresponsible drinkers.

 

[Jerry]

Another bad analogy.
1) Cars have an altogether alternative purpose, a purpose deemed so vital to life that the inherent dangers do not outweigh the benefit of having cars;

The purpose of the firearm is lawful self-defence. Murder is an abuse of the item, not the item's purpose.

2) Cars cannot be used in Mass murders; guns certainly can. Not sure why you say they're not;

Have you never heard of a car bomb?

Those aside, here's a recent story on 14 killed in one incident: Texas Highway Accident Kills 14

3) The sole purpose of a gun is to kill something.

Kill, not murder, that's correct. Lawful self-defense, not school shootings. Hunting in season, with a bag-tag, not poaching.

 

[Henrin]

Bad argument. Among other reasons, no one is arguing that "because you don't need a gun, they should be made illegal."

Then what are you doing with your stupid "you don't need an assault weapon to defend your family argument"? Of course I don't need an assault weapon to defend my family, but if I have one it can handle the job a damn sight better than a pistol no matter if its a crime ridden area or not.

 

[sangha]

Dang, all my guns are faulty....
You are right..kind if. Guns have the potential to kill...they also have the potential to murder....they also have the potential to protect....they can also intimidate. Actually,
A better comparison would be alcohol. Alcohol offers no real tangible benefit to society yet is responsible for more deaths, rapes, murders, accidental killings than guns. Restrict and track the amount purchased. Background check to determine if someone has been convicted of drunk driving. Of course you would never allow a bill like this to pass because you are a responsible drinker and the government should only be concentrating on the irresponsible drinkers.

You'd be surprised. I support stronger regulation of alcohol.

Tobacco too

 

[GottaGo]

You left many things out

Cars must be inspected on a regular basis

not necessarily, it varies by state. TN does not require any inspection.

You can't bring your car wherever you want to bring it

Other than areas that are pedestrian only, where can you not bring a car?

Cars require insurance on public property

minimum liability only.

You have to be over a certain age in order to drive a car

And no additional capability testing after you get your license. You could be the worst driver in the world, and only if you injure someone or are involved in an accident, would you lose your license.

Cars can be confiscated by the govt

Not without due process.

Drivers can have a background check run on them for a multitude of reasons (some of which don't require any level of suspicion)

Not because they have a drivers license. The license is used as a source of information only, it is not the reason a background check is run.

Criminal conviction can stop someone from owning a weapon

Criminal conviction cannot stop you from owning a vehicle.

 

[Harshaw]

Then what are you doing with your stupid "you don't need an assault weapon to defend your family argument"?

Heh. Good luck trying to get her to answer that.

 

[sangha]

not necessarily, it varies by state. TN does not require any inspection.

But TN could, if it chose to, require inspections, so according to the analogy, the govt could require regular inspections of guns, at the owners expense

Other than areas that are pedestrian only, where can you not bring a car?

Yes, besides the areas where cars are not allowed, car are allowed.

minimum liability only.

And the govt regulates (ie decides) what the minimum is

And no additional capability testing after you get your license. You could be the worst driver in the world, and only if you injure someone or are involved in an accident, would you lose your license.
Not without due process.

Many states have provisions for the re-testing of drivers

Not because they have a drivers license. The license is used as a source of information only, it is not the reason a background check is run.

If you get stopped at a routine traffic stop, the police can run a background check on your DL, and to see if there are any open warrants, etc.

Criminal conviction cannot stop you from owning a vehicle.

Conviction for DUI can result in you being prohibited from owning a car

 

[Danbury]

Dang, all my guns are faulty....
You are right..kind if. Guns have the potential to kill...they also have the potential to murder....they also have the potential to protect....they can also intimidate. Actually,
A better comparison would be alcohol. Alcohol offers no real tangible benefit to society yet is responsible for more deaths, rapes, murders, accidental killings than guns. Restrict and track the amount purchased. Background check to determine if someone has been convicted of drunk driving. Of course you would never allow a bill like this to pass because you are a responsible drinker and the government should only be concentrating on the irresponsible drinkers.

Another bad analogy. The SOLE PURPOSE of a gun is to kill something. They were not invented to, say, help with gardening and another use was discovered, or abused. the sole reason for guns is to kill something. When you use it to intimidate, it's because of its purpose of KILLING that makes it intimidating.

So, a lot of people have concluded that the level of gun violence at this point in American culture no longer warrants the free-for-all gun nature we've got, and that something needs to be done.