Guns, for em or against em?

It also doesn't greet you when you come home, or keep you fit by going for walkies every day. Plus it can blow your daughter's head off.

Nope, it sure can't. Its an inanimate object and as such incapable of performing any action on its own.

Of course a crazed or sick dog *can* and indeed often *does* maul a child all by itself.

-AP

Just as well that my dog will be raised as a puppy with her and love her just as much as the rest of us then. Crazy dogs don't make good pets.

I'm not quite sure how you can love an inanimate object so much.

I never said I did. I like animals, I just dont like them crapping on the floor. So I dont keep any. Dont put words in my mouth ... it makes you look silly. Seriously.

Also, dogs can and do get sick and become violent. It isn't common, of course ... but it would be interesting to compare the actual numbers of dog attacks to firearm accidents in the US. I might even look that up. Maybe.

HOWEVER I am in no way saying that guns make good pets LOL!!!!!

I simply maintain that firearms are not the big boogyman under the bed that some wannabe nannys think they are.

It's definitely much much better to have a gun and never need it than it is to need a gun and not have it.

-AP

Just lucky that i'll never need a gun then. I have a baseball bat that can beat a burglar's head in quite easily. Of course there have never been any burglaries in my neighborhood, and the police here actually do their jobs, unlike the police that were mentioned earlier in this thread. The station is three blocks away, and one of them lives four houses down.

I certainally hope that is the case for all of us. Call me a cynic, but life has a way of being very unpredictable. I am of the opinion that it is unwise to say "never". But thats just me.

-AP

I meant that I won't need a gun since I have other alternatives that are just as effective, and don't have the added danger of misuse.

Misuse happens due to poor training. Also, I am not sure a baseball bat is as strong a deterrant I'll suspend my disbelief and go along with that too though

That said, I completely respect your decision so long as you respect my decision - and RIGHT - to be armed.

-AP

I'd like to see these statistics because I believe that statement to be patently false.

"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. A of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 199. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families."

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

Firearms discharge, W32-W34 802 355,479 4,605

Legal intervention involving firearm discharge, Y35.0 323 882,643 11,433

Actually Chip is correct in this as theNSC numbers show (the first number is the actual number of deaths nationwide in 2001, the second is the 1 year odds of death and the third is the lifetime odds of death over 72 years.) But if you take the time to look at the charts your odds of drowning in natural water is far higher than your odds of being shot by a weapon you own or for that matter anyone elses. As Antagonist stated before, this is an issue of education and responsible ownership. Removing guns from legal owners is not the solution.

Well, curiosity got the better of me so I looked it up lol. Not surprisingly, the number of deaths due to domestic dog attacks is far lower than the number of deaths due to firearms accidents:

The number is about 17 per year out of 61.6 million dog owners, as opposed to 875 out of 192 million firearms owners (about 0.4 per 100,000). As far as non-fatal injuries go, it seems that dogs have the title with appox 358,245 incidents (129 per 100,000) where firearms had about 16,827 (about 6 per 100,000). So while the chances of dying by vicious dog is definitely lower, the overall chance of injury is far, far greater.

I got that information from the American Association of Insurance Services website, speicifcally:
http://www.aaisonline.com/Viewpoint/03fall1.html

One thing that I did find interesting is that apparantly dog ownership can negatively affect insurance rates while firearm ownership does not. Go figure.

-AP

I wanted to come back to this days ago but I've been profoundly busy this week.

Rickard wrote this in reply to a post I made which defended the right to state a viewpoints (First Amendment) while simultaneously denying someone the right to personally attack me.
I love this post because it is a First-Amendment argument that is exactly analogous to the problem I have with stereotypical arguments of gun owners concerning the Second Amendment. That is, people interpret the amendments not from the position of social responsibility (a duty) but from the position of personal benefit (a right).

Was the First Amendment created so that one could say anything they want, including insults, calls to violence, and damaging lies or was the First Amendment created to prevent the State from outlawing religious and political speech by individuals and the press, while simultaneously guaranteeing the right to protest? Read it for yourself:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's quite clear that the First Amendment was created to protect groups from State-sponsored censorship. Contrast this with the individual libertarian viewpoint that anyone should be allowed to say anything they want (including insults). The First Amendment does not directly protect that as is evidenced by laws against libel, slander, and clear and present danger (speech which can cause harm such as inciting a riot or screaming "fire" in a crowded theater).

From a philosophical standpoint one could go beyond what the Constitution provides and define free speech from an individuals' standpoint that allows anything which does not harm or limit the freedom of other individuals. Thus, if a person wanted to speak their mind they should be allowed, yet a personal attack should not be. I guess that's a different subject though.


Now let's apply this to the Second Amendment. It states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I stated before there are two opposing theories. An ''individual rights'' argument where individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation and a ''states' rights'' argument where it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. This is the contrast between the individual libertarians who enjoy their guns as toys, hunting tools, and weapons (NRA members) and the socially responsible who see them as tools to protect the state (leftists).

But that's not all! Regardless of what the Amendment may truly represent, it is a bar only to federal action, it does not extending to state or private restraints. Which means your gun can and will be pried from your hand (either warm-alive or cold-dead) if the state (local laws) or private (individual's land) requirements call for it. Evidence of this is in city gun-ownership laws and bans on guns on most private properties.

Thus the call to restore the Second Amendment is moot.

~Ulrika~

The state is ultimately the collection of the people. The people should be protected from both external enemies as well as a tyranical government. The only way for that to happen is to permit them to be armed. That is the spirit of the 2nd ammendment, regardless of how it has been perverted throughout the years.

Also what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do you have a difficult time understanding?

-AP

I assure you I understand it better than most. Let's do it again with feeling.

The second Amendment states in its entirety (not just the catchy last half):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I stated before there are two opposing theories -- theories which are actively discussed by the Courts themselves. An ''individual rights'' argument where individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation (typical popular NRA argument) and a ''states' rights'' argument where it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the states in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units (typical leftist argument). This is the contrast between the individual libertarians who enjoy their guns as toys, hunting tools, and weapons (NRA members) and the socially responsible who see them as tools to protect the state (leftists).

Finally, because of the way independent states are joined into the republic, the Amendment is a bar only to federal action, it does not provide state or private restraints. Which means your gun can and will be pried from your hand (either warm-alive or cold-dead) if the state (local laws) or private (individual's land) requirements call for it. Evidence of this is in city gun-ownership laws and bans on guns on most private properties. No attempt to enforce the Second Amendment (the individual libertarian version of it) at state or private levels has succeeded.

Personally, I believe that the intent was not the one purported by the NRA, individual libertarians doing as they wish with guns, rather its intent was one of service to the country, leftists defending their ideals against internal and external threats.

~Ulrika~

I am avidly against gun ownership. I am not very vocal about it. It's a personal decision of mine. Quite honestly, I think I would rather be shot and killed then have to shoot someone, even in defense... I don't think I would want to live the rest of my life knowing I had killed another person.