Gun Control Roll Call

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

[MaC]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

Why should you be able to buy your murder weapons when I can't legally purchase a harmless BJ?

A delicious red herring fallacy

[John Dibble]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

And quite frankly, I don't see how shooting someone who intends to rape you should be a felony or a crime of ANY sort - that's like saying you'd rather have a woman be raped than to have a rapist shot dead.

Under your definitions of what constitute a civilized society, I would want no part of one - I'll take a society founded on sound reason and logic instead.

[minionofmidas]

New Deadly Force Law Takes Effect In Florida Oct. 1

A new anti-crime law that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee will take effect in Florida on Oct. 1.

The law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in April, reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force. In signing the bill, Bush said it "defies common sense" to force people to retreat when they're in a life-threatening situation.

The new law expands the long-existing "castle doctrine", a common law principle that allows homeowners who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their homes. A person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony".

While the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are in favor of the new measure called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, not everyone supports it. While critics don't oppose allowing people to protect themselves in their homes, they say that some residents may shoot first and ask questions later, creating a "Wild West" atmosphere.

The Florida courts have held that homeowners have the right to defend themselves in their homes as in many states and Florida jurists have held that employees can defend themselves in their workplace as can drivers who are attacked in their vehicles but that outside those places, potential victims had to first attempt to escape before using deadly force. That provision has now been removed under the new law if the person has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Gun control advocates are planning a campaign to tell travelers to Florida about the new law. The Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out fliers at the Miami International Airport and will use newspaper ads, billboards and the Internet to advise travelers to Florida to "not argue unnecessarily with local people". As of Wednesday, when the phrase "Florida Vacation" is typed into some search engines, a link to www.shootfirstlaw.org appears.

The bill had been unanimously passed by the Florida Senate 39-0 and by a vote of 94-20 by the House. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html 9-28-05
 
© 2005 North Country Gazette

Just the second one then.
Yeah, the main problem with these sort of laws is indeed the sort of abuses they may invite, like that South African security guard who sadistically shot dozens of innocent Black guys in the back (at night, on the job) in the 80s and early 90s (I forgot the name; a dutch name though) and under South Africa's then self defense laws never was investigated.
As long as every case still gets investigated I can *live* with this sort of legislation, though it's not what I'd  prefer.

[minionofmidas]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

[??????????]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

[minionofmidas]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

[Bono]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

[minionofmidas]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

Some of them.

[Bono]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

Some of them.

meh.
I'd start with that horrible piece, the Firearm Owners "Protection" Act of 1986.

[??????????]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

Actually, no. Thats why police are told to shoot a violent suspect dead instead of wounding him.

[minionofmidas]

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we go looking for new ones.  I wouldn't consider myself either a radical gun rights advocate, and certainly not an advocate of gun control per se.  That being said, I do believe that the government has a responsibility to place some reasonable limits on gun use and posession.  We have to strike the necessary balance of ensuring that law-abiding citizens can excersize their responsibility to protect themselves, while keeping some level of control over the distribution of firearms to gang, drug, and other criminal activities.

no, we need to repeal the existing ones.

Some of them.

meh.
I'd start with that horrible piece, the Firearm Owners "Protection" Act of 1986.

I forget what it's called, but I'd start with the one that makes it a federal crime to carry a weapon while committing another crime. That is so stupid.

[minionofmidas]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

Actually, no. Thats why police are told to shoot a violent suspect dead instead of wounding him.

They aren't in civilized countries. (A violent suspect with a cocked gun in hand is a different matter again.)

[nclib]

I generally support stricter gun control.

[John Dibble]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

1. I used plenty of logic and reason, you just happen to dislike it - in a situation where there is an intruder in your house, you must react quickly, and you do not necessarily have time to analyze everything. You might see a burglar, knowing that he seems to want your possessions, but you do not know whether or not he will become violent now that he's been found out - it's better to be safe than sorry, and assume that he might get violent.

2. While you are threatening to shoot him in the leg, he shoots you in the head. Congratulations, you are now dead. In a life or death situation like this, you would be very likely to die.

3. I find it absolutely disgusting that you would rather that an innocent woman be raped than a criminal be killed before he manages to commit such a heinous act. Why do you value the life of someone lower than pond scum over the well-being of an innocent?

[minionofmidas]

The problem is, you cannot always read their intentions. As soon as you see the intruder, all you know is they are somewhere they are not legally allowed to be. So, the only reasonable assumption is that since this person intends some sort of harm upon you, and thusly self-defense by means of a gun is warranted. You don't know whether they intend to steal from you, rape your wife, kill you or another family member, ect. - the only safe thing to do is assume the worst, that they intend lethal harm to you and others and they must be stopped by any means necessary.

Boy, if there's one thing you really need to learn it's that it's seldom sensible - in deed, seldom safe - to assume the worst. Keep it in mind as a possibility, yes, but that's something entirely different. Anyways, as soon as you see the intruder, you usually have quite a good chance to grasp the situation too so this is a big strawman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, but you didn't use any.

1. I used plenty of logic and reason

No, you used lots of logical fallacies and not much else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not necessarily. You will have to arrive at a judgement from what you see, and if you really make an honest mistake you'd likely be found not guilty. However, if you jump to the conclusion that here's an opportunity to make your bones, you are of course a murderer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interestingly, when you commit a crime, I attack you to prevent that crime, and you kill me in self-defense, you're considered a murderer under both US and German laws even if you didn't bring the lethal weapon with you but used something you found at the scene of the crime - a provision I thoroughly disagree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A second gun has mysteriously appeared out of thin air?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, because I do value life - and that means every life - and you apparently don't. And don't go on dissing pond scum.

[John Dibble]

2. While you are threatening to shoot him in the leg, he shoots you in the head.

A second gun has mysteriously appeared out of thin air?

Didn't you know - criminals can carry guns too. Duh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously, because I do value life - and that means every life - and you apparently don't. And don't go on dissing pond scum.
[/quote]

You value life over people's right to live their lives without such atrocities being commited against them. I value life as well, but when someone tries to violate someone's rights in such a gross manner their life becomes expendible in the defense of those rights.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them.

In other words, you'd like it if only criminals would have these kinds of guns, because that's exactly what will happen.

Well, police would have guns.  And criminals would only have access to guns for a limited time; eventually, all the guns would be lost or broken or confiscated and no new ones would be manufactured.

When Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, he argued against gun control by saying it would take fifty years to be effective.  Of course, if we instituted gun control in 1964, we'd now be more than 80% of the way there even if he was right.

Nick,

A few years ago a student made a slap shot shotgun in less than an hour in shop class at his high school from commonly available materials.

In Pakistan, gunsmiths make replicas of AK-47s (and other modern firearms) in small shops devoid of modern machinery.

Get real!

And just who is going to take those guns away from their owners?

While their are a small number of facists on police forces, they are a minority, and most cops will NOT follow any orders to seize privately owned firearms.

Obviously no law is going to be perfectly enforceable.  But I would much rather have a few illegal guns on the street than millions of legal ones.   We will never be perfectly safe, but we will still be much safer, and I think that would be huge progress.  And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

[Jake]

Leaving guns in the hands of criminals and police will leave everyone else SOL in the biggest way possible. I sincerely hope you don't count on police being everywhere all the time to protect everyone.

[John Dibble]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

[??????????]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

Accidental deaths as a result of doctor negligance in hospitals is much more costly to human lives then gun accidents.

[Jake]

Lets ban doctors then. Only reasonable step to take.

[AkSaber]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

Accidental deaths as a result of doctor negligance in hospitals is much more costly to human lives then gun accidents.

Yeah I read that too. I wonder how many people die every year cause of doctor negligance.

[KillerPollo]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

Accidental deaths as a result of doctor negligance in hospitals is much more costly to human lives then gun accidents.

Learn to spell

Interesting. I agree, because negligance can sometimes be on purpose. No such thing as a deliberate accident. otherwise it wouldn't be an accident.

[Ebowed]

Cars cause deaths too