Yet another reason to ban guns...

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Babar

Actually Tex, Reflex is right--you cannot prove a negative. You must disprove a positive statement.

I understand but I do not believe that arguement works for him 100% of the time.

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: Reflex

As you pointed out in another thread, Tex, you don't have to be 50 to use Google.  I'm at work, I don't have time to perform your research for you.  You'll note that on weekends I tend to post more links, but then thats because I am at home at the time and have the freedom to do so.

I haven't seen a single example of that in any arguement I've had with you.   You are extremely consistant on posting no links to back yourself up.  Every now and then on an easy point you will dig something up after pages of pounding but it is extremely rare.

If its really that big a deal to you, you can do your own searches.  If it is not, then just argue the points raised rather than criticize the way I have available to raise them.

When it gets into a debate Reflex the people that take it seriously back up their arguements with links of their own.   It takes under 5 minutes to post an article defending yourself  so don't give me that crap about being at work.  It doesn't fly.  If you have enough time to post an average of 3 a day, you can take 5 mintues to back yourself up with something other than the mirror.   That is if your point can be backed up.

[Reflex]

Tex - I am permitted 60 minutes of web time during a business day at work.  That includes any work related web time.  5 minutes per post would chew up my web time in no time.  

The problem here is that you fundamentally believe debate is different than I do.  To me, posting links is irrelevent except as a way to specifically cite individual facts.  I do not believe in using questionable data such as opinion polls which are shaped more by the way the poll is worded than by the topic it is attempting to address.  I believe that posting a ton of links to research that anyone else can do should they wish to pursue the discussion further in their own time is more or less allowing others to make the argument for them as they are not knowledgable enough to make it for themself.  The only times I ever call for someone to cite thier exact data is when they make a truly extraordinary claim(Raiden was quite adept at this).

Furthermore, much of what I post about I read about in dead tree form.  Either newspapers, subscription magazines, or books.  During my middle and high school years I read at minimum 500 pages per day on everything from biographices of Hitler to fantasy novels.  While this does not mean I am any more correct than anyone else, it does make it basically impossible to point to online citations for everything I have read about, most of it isn't in an online form.  I do not feel I should be penalized in discussions simply because you can't hyperlink to a book.  Heck, even if you could, how am I supposed to remember what books gave me what information?

This is fundamentally a different way to approach discussions and debates.  You can keep calling for links all you want, however I will only post them when I have the time to or when the situation specifically calls for it(remember the tax thread last year?  Plenty of links in that one.).  If an issue truly concerns you you are welcome to look it up if you wish, and oftentimes if you wish to know where I formed my opinion I'd be willing to tell you what books I read that lead to the conclusions I make.  I've pushed a few books here repeatedly that were major influences on my thinking on certain topics, its not my fault some members aren't willing to hit up a used book store and pick them up for a buck.

So, take it as you will.  I'm not changing my approach.  I do not feel it is a faulty approach to take, were these debates conducted in real life you wouldn't have the luxury of internet links.

[Cash]

Originally posted by: Reflex

You cannot 'prove' a negative.  He is trying to state that its a right, I am stating that it is not.

Actually Tex, Reflex is right--you cannot prove a negative. You must disprove a positive statement.

There are most definitely tons of negatives that can be proven, especially in mathematics.  I think the idea that we're referring to is "falsifiability."

Falsifiability
You Can't Prove a Negative

This generally doesn't apply to things that are finite.  For example, proving no MLB team has a female player on their roster.

What citation are you looking for? If driving was a right, then you could do so as soon as you were old enough to reach the pedals, and the government could not take away your license(nor would it have the authority to require you to have one).

Children are allowed to own guns in this nation, and in fact many do(especially in rural areas). Children are not allowed to operate vehicles. The only way to lose your right to a gun is to commit a felony, you can lose your license to drive simply for committing minor infractions too frequently or not paying for insurance.

My opinion on this is that driving is not a constitutional right.  My argument is that it doesn't show up in the constitution, so states are free to make laws that impact people's right to drive.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again this does not prevent states from making laws that impact people's right to drive.  I was curious though.  Babar, were each of the cases that you cited from state courts?

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: GTX

1) Do all states require a licence to own a gun? Only some? None?

StateGunLaws.org may be of help.



One thing that's severely lacking is the lack of firearms training needed to purchase a weapon.

You also didn't mention the Brady Bill which guarantees a seven day waiting period for a backround check on gun purchases...and has done nothing to lower gun deaths.

The problem is stupidity.  The NRA sponsors a gun lock program through local police departments where ANYONE can go and get a gun lock for free and keep their child from shooting them in the kneecap.  Put a FREE gunlock on that handgun, instead of hiding it under the couch, and this incident doesn't happen.

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: Babar

Some more cites of my own:



Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience."

This is the only one which says anything directly important to the question of driving rights and it says the legislature can't deny a citizen the right to travel up roads, but it can be regulated by the legislature and court systems, which it is.  In other words, if you screw up, they can take away that "right" with a simple court proceeding.  More over, because they confer the ability to regulate onto the legislature and courts with that decision, they can impose restrictions on driving priviledges which can deny able bodied men and women the priviledge of driving if those restrictions aren't met or are violated, ie. drivers license.

[ScutMonkey]

Originally posted by: LINCARD1000

I'd like to ask a couple of questions, if I may...?



1) Do all states require a licence to own a gun?  Only some?  None?

2) If a licence is required, what are the penalties for being in possession of a gun without a licence?


LINC

There are both state AND federal laws on gun ownership and while we supposedly have a "right to bear arms" the truth is, there are many restrictions on gun ownership and obligations for gun purchases, not the least of which are the aforementioned Brady Bill and typically age restrictions.

As an example, the guns used in the Columbine tragedy were all illegally purchased from a black market dealer.  Those kids were not allowed to legally purchase firearms in this country.  It didn't stop the tragedy from happening and further gun laws won't either.  The problem in the United States is a desire to do harm, not a problem of gun ownership.  

And the automobile analogy is apt.  Far and away the MOST dangerous thing you will do everyday of your life in the US is not own a gun.  It is getting in your car to drive where 41,700 Americans died in 1999:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

While at the same time, 15,500 people died from Gun Homicides:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

What's important to note is there are roughly the same number of cars and guns in circulation.  There are 230 million cars and 220 million guns, but the gap is more than 2.6 to 1 in deaths.

So where is the outcry for banning cars?  By the numbers, they're obviously more dangerous and by a wide margin.

[Babar]

Again this does not prevent states from making laws that impact people's right to drive. I was curious though. Babar, were each of the cases that you cited from state courts?

Hahahahaha. Why yes, they were, Cash! You hit onto something the others didn't... the existence of Amendment X. It is regulated by the States, not the federal government.

[Cash]

And the automobile analogy is apt. Far and away the MOST dangerous thing you will do everyday of your life in the US is not own a gun. It is getting in your car to drive where 41,700 Americans died in 1999:

">http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/


While at the same time, 15,500 people died from Gun Homicides:

">http://www.guncite.com...contr...gvinco.html


What's important to note is there are roughly the same number of cars and guns in circulation. There are 230 million cars and 220 million guns, but the gap is more than 2.6 to 1 in deaths.

So where is the outcry for banning cars? By the numbers, they're obviously more dangerous and by a wide margin.

There are less than 5960* nuclear weapons and no deaths.  So, by the numbers both cars and guns are "more deadly" than nukes.

(* - START criteria for 2003.)

I can't disagree that cars are "more deadly" on a per car basis.  I would say on a per use (or length of time in use) basis though that handguns (less so for rifles or shotguns) are probably far more deadly.  The majority of the 230 million cars are used frequently where the majority of the 220 million guns are not.  The positive value of both should also be considered versus the number of deaths.

[Reflex]

A gun being present in a home for the purpose of display or defense is technically 'in use'.  You don't have to be brandishing it for it to be useful.

[Cash]

Originally posted by: Reflex

A gun being present in a home for the purpose of display or defense is technically 'in use'.  You don't have to be brandishing it for it to be useful.

I suppose nukes are the same way.  Uh, so are guns more deadly than nukes?

[Reflex]

Actually yes.  Consider the safeguards preventing a nuke in this country from actually being deployed.  The chance of a nuke accidentially killing people is far less than the chance of a car or gun doing the same.

[Cash]

Actually yes. Consider the safeguards preventing a nuke in this country from actually being deployed. The chance of a nuke accidentially killing people is far less than the chance of a car or gun doing the same.

I think in order I'd prefer:

#1. being shot
#2. being hit by a car
#3. being hit by a nuke

A gun being present in a home for the purpose of display or defense is technically 'in use'. You don't have to be brandishing it for it to be useful.

By this line of thinking a gun in the house is like a security system.  The utility is in being available should a attack/break-in occur.  The car on the other hand is used in an entirely different way.  This is apples and oranges in my opinion.

[Reflex]

I won't disagree that its apples and oranges.  However really any comparison is apples and oranges between tools with different uses.  So we do as best we can.

Guns are not major causes of death in this country.  Banning them is like worrying about the mosquito in your room with a grizzly bear tearing you up.

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Timster
We do have to prove our innocence.  In the US, when a firearm is purchased, the dealer runs your name through the NICS (National Instant Criminal background check system) after you completed filling out the BATF 4473 form mentioned earlier in the post.  If your name comes up for any of these listed reasons, your purchase is denied (from the above NICS link)

. An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year, or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year, or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.

Does that 'controlled substance' include alcohol and tobacco? Prohibiting anyone addicted to smoking or convicted for excessive drinking from owning a firearm?

[Nighteye]

Originally posted by: Reflex
Guns are not major causes of death in this country.  Banning them is like worrying about the mosquito in your room with a grizzly bear tearing you up.

They are if you compare it to gun-related death counts in other countries.

[VorLonUK]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Actually yes.  Consider the safeguards preventing a nuke in this country from actually being deployed.  The chance of a nuke accidentially killing people is far less than the chance of a car or gun doing the same.

Guns are not major causes of death in this country. Banning them is like worrying about the mosquito in your room with a grizzly bear tearing you up.

I'm sort of lost on your second statement Reflex, when compared to your first.

The first statement is about control of a catastrophic weapon, by hopefully a team/group of trained/qualified personel, that you indeed acknowledge by citing the safeguards.

The second statement is far more blase even when taking into account the differences in destruction.
It has been said on these forums before that it is more of a cultural thing, ie a love affair with the gun.
It's only that America has drawn a line in what is allowed as a legally owned Firearm and where that line is (in generalised power and lethality).
In the UK for instance as we all know that line is drawn much further down the scale of between no firearms to fully automated weapons.

The fact is America does have a love affair with the gun, it's in your Genes (or the NRA's). It's like giving up smoking, it's hard to do, plus the tabacco companies still want to sell whats potentially dangerous and yet still gives many users pleasure.
Equally when the Joneses have guns, you can hardly go without. It's the old when in Rome.
Comparing America to Europe on the Gun front just doesn't work, on this score our mentalities are just totally different.

[Mefistofeles]

It has been said on these forums before that it is more of a cultural thing, ie a love affair with the gun.

The second statement is far more blase even when taking into account the differences in destruction.

Guns are cool!

[Reflex]

Nighteye - And many nations allow things that we do not that could lead to death as well.  Once again, apples to oranges.

VorLonUK - No, we are not the only ones.  As Fall-Apart likes to point out, Canada has a higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet far less problems.  You can't blame the tool for the actions of individuals.

[VorLonUK]

Originally posted by: Reflex

Nighteye - And many nations allow things that we do not that could lead to death as well.  Once again, apples to oranges.



VorLonUK - No, we are not the only ones.  As Fall-Apart likes to point out, Canada has a higher gun ownership rate than the US, yet far less problems.  You can't blame the tool for the actions of individuals.

Don't believe I did "blame the tool" Reflex and Canadians are obviously more well restrained and dont have quite the same mentality.
It's the American Mentality when it comes to guns, the way you perceive them, the culture, it's integrated into your society. America loves guns, period!

Oh and Mist, the best blace for those would be a blast furnace!  Surely you could think of something practical and worthwhile that could me made out of the resultant materials? And don't say " a bigger gun"!

[nemoComputing]

Vorlon, I think that the word fetish best describes what you are trying to get at.  While we commonly equate fetishes with things like high heels or boots, I believe that ther is a fetishistic undercurrent to my culture's relationship with guns.  I believe that it is a sexual perversion related to feelings of inadequacy or insecurity that seem to be quite common in our culture.  There is a reason why some people keep a gun near their bed that goes beyond quick access for defense.

There is a subset of gun lovers who believes that even requiring that guns be registered is an unacceptable imposition on their constitutional rights.  I believe the concern is that if there is a list of gun owners, then either alien invaders or their own governments (fed, state, local) may come and take them away.  Sometimes, it seems to me, these sort of folk are in charge at the NRA.

The culture has somehow made sure that a large number of guns are out there, both legally owned and not.  By arming the criminals, the culture puts everyone else in fear, which causes them to buy guns.  Given what appears to be something of a violent streak (and violence can also be very sexual) in our culture, this is a murderous situation.  Maybe one of these days we will also pay attention to the issue of where all this violence comes from.

My understanding is that those who get shot by guns are most often friends or relatives of the gun's owner.  While many of my neighbors have guns (close in rural outside of Portland, OR), I do not and neither do any of my friends or relatives.  So, I don't pay too much attention to the issue.  

I do wish that my last tenants didn't leave bullets lying around and I don't like cleaning up the shotgun casings.  It would also have been nice if one of my neighbors didn't have to come over and have a talk with my tenant after the tenent starting blasting at his trees for target practice.

At the end of the day, I think that the our gun fetish can be attibuted to mostly male feelings of sexual inadequacy in a country more-or-less founded by prudes (persecuted prudes, but prudes nonetheless).  One would have thought that waves of immigration would have diluted the gene pool to the point where it would not be an issue, I guess they were dominant.  Abortion never, abstinance not birth control sex education and guns for everone - makes sense to me.  Heck if I was raised to not have sex until I was married, I would probably own a gun too.  Have a nice day.

[bluebomberx]

Originally posted by: nemoComputing
There is a subset of gun lovers who believes that even requiring that guns be registered is an unacceptable imposition on their constitutional rights.  I believe the concern is that if there is a list of gun owners, then either alien invaders or their own governments (fed, state, local) may come and take them away.  Sometimes, it seems to me, these sort of folk are in charge at the NRA.

Haven't you seen the documentary "Red Dawn"?! lol

[Mefistofeles]

If you subscribe to the psychoanalysis school regarding men and the fascination with guns you may want to actually use one Freud's quotes Nemo:

Sigmund Freud:

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

Oh and Mist, the best blace for those would be a blast furnace! Surely you could think of something practical and worthwhile that could me made out of the resultant materials? And don't say " a bigger gun"!

Most people who own guns don't hold them in high regard per see actually and simply treat them as another possesion.    If you talk to people who actually own these things they actually feel far less awe and fear than people who don't have them.  

From a psychologial perspective I've noticed that non gunowners are far more impressed and taken with guns than people who actually own them.  Especially men who have a more limited background in firearms.  Go figure.  
To me a dual core dual core dual Opteron computer system is probably far more impressive and exotic than a new rifle.  

Many gun owners are against gun control for the simple fact that it infringes on the right to use property (the gun) that they already own.   Its more of a use/compliance issue with people who actually own weapons.

However from what I've observed most people against weapons ownership feel that the gun is some powerful and mysterious taboo object.

From a Joesph Campbell perspective I would argue that in some societies (such as the United Kingdom) and subections of society guns are viewed the same way that a powerful totem or artifact would be viewed in a traditional society.   The totem is invested with great power from a divine source and has the power to destroy or kill but the most important thing is not what the totem does per se its the perception of power that it conveys.

I'm sure a modern dealer of illicit substances in the United Kingdom could probably use a machete or ax for protection or intimidation but it would not generate the same perception of power that a gun would have.   This perception of power is far more important than the actual effectiveness of the weapon itself.  Think of the molotov cocktail, a very effective and cheap weapon that can be used to disable armored vehicles.   Yet the molotov cocktail fails to convey that same sense of power as a gun.

That's why the gun is desirable to those who operate in industries extra legal industries, it conveys a sense of power and therefore a limited sense of legitamacy far beyond its physical effects.  This sense of legitmacy is essential to areas where people cannot go to the courts or community leaders for arbitration to settle disputes.

[ric]

Originally posted by: VorLonUK

And don't say " a bigger gun"!

I'll make a wish for you and hope it will come true...

[Texmaster]

Originally posted by: ric

Originally posted by: VorLonUK



And don't say " a bigger gun"!

I'll make a wish for you and hope it will come true...

LOL!!!!