Another CO shooting.

Raees wrote:

If you want gun violence there is a one step process to dramatically increase the amount of gun violence, try and take the guns away. It will backfire like whores, drugs and all the other stuff that people want and other people don't want them to have, the amount of use will increase and the amount of control will go down - why on earth would any thinking person assuming anything else. Does anyone have an example of restricted rights of ownership that has produced positive results. The negatives are all over, I would love to hear about a time when a govt said you cannot own something and it played out well.

But at least you can say you did something sensible. That must be worth a lot.

Gun control is more than a phrase, you don't win simply because you have done it, you only win if it results in more control of the guns. Again did the drug war increase or decrease the control of the drug trade by society? The answer is that govt drug control just about ruined the public's respect for police and has resulted in a society that feels fine with 1/20 people in their 20's being locked in a box. Political phrases are often off by 180 degrees.

If the NRA ran the tobacco industry their solution to lung cancer would be more cigarettes!

How do criminals get guns in the first place? They steal them from law-abiding gun owners.

I too thought of the war on tobacco....more regulation, higher cost, and education certainly did have an effect.

Raees wrote: If the NRA ran the tobacco industry their solution to lung cancer would be more cigarettes!

How do criminals get guns in the first place? They steal them from law-abiding gun owners.

That is what they do now for the most part. If they create laws restricting guns too much, people will literally start to manufacture these in the black market in stead of just trading free market goods on the black market.

Do you have any idea how many machinists, mechanics and woodworkers there are out there that have the skill to sit down and make any weapon they want.

If there is demand, it will be met, it always has been, it is the way society works.

The tobacco industry, like all industries, including the ones all of you are in want people to be able to freely choose to buy their product and they want to be able to try and convince people to come to their doors to buy it. Why do we pretend that everything we want to control is unique.

If there is a demand for any type of gun anywhere it the world it will be met most of the time. The law is not a varable in whether or not this is true, it is only a variable for how it will be true. In the end if you get gun control, you will have the same amount of guns or more and less control of them.

But again, you can say you were sensible, because you cannot say you are being practical. In order for society to work and be sustainable, citizens need to have the same arms that the govt uses to control them, otherwise there is not way to control the govt. Voting will go away without equal arms in the long run. Then all you have to hope for is that your dictator will be benevolent, and that is not likely or sustainable even if it did happen.

Your point about needing equal arms would make sense if it weren't for Canada, Australia, the UK and France. Their citizens aren't armed and I don't see the government doing anything nefarious.

IF you want equal arms with the government then everyone needs a tank, an F-15 and a nuclear weapon.

ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING STOPPED.........

https://www.facebook.com/notifications#!/photo.php?fbid=321362391302960&set=a.292355070870359.57430.292327470873119&type=1&theater

navycpo7 wrote:

Raees wrote: I don't really believe that that individuals always have an inherent right to own firearms in all cases. It is certainly true for for people who live in sparsely populated areas where they have no neighbors and never interact with anyone else, but as soon as they live in a "society", then a lot of rights that we hold dear "come" from the consent of their community - they're just conventions that are chosen to so that everybody can get along productively. It'd be nice to have complete freedom to do whatever you want, but that's just incompatible with living in a community where your actions impact the lives of those around you. Unfortunately, people can't pick where they're born (and it is unnecessarily complicated to move to other countries), so those rules are imposed on us in a unilateral manner, without our consent, and with the threat of force, but that's pretty much life - most of the earth is occupied and there's not much room for anyone to have their own sovereign nation anymore. I'm all for humans having the right to be left alone as much as possible, but that's difficult in densely populated areas, because interactions are inevitable and your neighbor's freedom necessarily has to stop where your freedom begins.

Pretty much nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence is absolute. We deny prisoners the right to free speech and association. We deny felons the right to own firearms. We execute criminals (weren't they entitled to "life"?). I guess we do have liberty, since that is by definition a limited freedom where you're not impacting the freedom of others, but that's about it.

As for when the use of force is moral, my general philosophy on this (and I make no claims at being good at philosophy) is that it is immoral to unnecessarily hurt others. I'm fine with using force to defend one's life and the life of their loved ones. I'm less fine with the use of force to defend property - part of living in a civil society is giving up the "Wild West" "every man for himself" freedom for a system of laws and police protection (which, when it works well, is a huge improvement, because it frees you up to do productive things instead of spending all your time defending your property). Having a social safety net helps too, because then fewer people are stealing to support their family (is it immoral to steal to save your child's life?)

I wouldn't say that rights don't exist without government, but the rights you'd get in the ideal "state of nature" aren't necessarily the same as the rights you get in a civil society. It's just inevitable that you'll have to give up some personal freedom to avoid being negatively affected by the exercise of that same freedom by your neighbors. Each society needs to agree on where they want to put that balance - it's a messy process and, as nice as it'd be if everyone had a say, a lot of it is determined by historical reasons (one of the reasons I like that Jefferson quote about Constitutions expiring every generation).

So yes, I don't deny that gun restrictions render individuals less able to defend themselves. That's unfortunate (and part of why I'd somewhat prefer that private gun ownership continue, though I do want to see it restricted more than it is now), but it's a decision that's coming from the consent of the governed, because part of living in a community is giving up some freedoms for the common good. The whole "America: Love it or Leave It" thing is obnoxious, but it's hard to be "free" when you've got 300M neighbors, and the line between "majority rules" and "these rights are too important give up under any circumstances" is really hard to draw sometimes.

Sorry I disagree with this, I do not live my life to make a community happy with me. I live my life for me and those I care about. Not for the neighbor or anyone else. I do not worry about what people think of me, as they really do not know me, I know where I have been, what I have done. I need to be happy with myself not worry about others. the so called community does not and will not dictate or consent what I can or cannot do.

I would add that as long as my activities do not infringe on other's rights. For example I wouldn't put a big spotlight on my house shinning at my neighbors house.

archer wrote: I too thought of the war on tobacco....more regulation, higher cost, and education certainly did have an effect.

Guns seems to work differently, the more they threaten to add "Reponsible Gun Laws", the more assault weapons and high cap magazines are sold.

Back in the 1980's, assault rifles were a very small part of gun sales and most people only bought a couple magazines for the few they did buy.

But after Bush I made an import ban, and Clinton passed a AWB, and now Obama has been sabre rattling about sending Joe Biden to fix things, there has been a huge run on guns.
Some companies had warehouses full of magazines and rifles they couldn't sell, over six months ago, I was seeing many companies close out lines at a discount, but no more. Now one company, Bushmaster actually has a two year long waiting list for new rifles.

Maybe the anti-gun politicians should have just kept their mouth shut?