Face the Truth About Guns (Revised): I Hate Computers

No.....
It ends when it unjustifiably harms you or places you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
How does my ownership and simple possession of a firearm do that?

 

Unless you're a felon or mentally unstable, how is it preventing you from owning a firearm?

 

You did not answer my question.
How does my ownership and simple possession of a firearm unjustifiably harm you or place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

I did answer. If you're not a felon or mentally unstable, then your ownership of a firearm does nothing to me. But since past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, if you are a felon or mentally unstable there is a good chance that you would use that firearm to place me or someone else in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.

 

No. You didn't,. You asked a question and completely avoided giving an answer.

As my my ownership and simple possession of a firearm neither unjustifiably harms you nor placees you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, and my right, say you, can only be limited when it does, under what argument - admittedly, by you, absent those conditions - can my right be limited?

 

Your question incorrectly assumed that I was preventing you from owning a firearm. I wanted to know why you made that assumption.

Assuming that you are not a felon or mentally unstable, the inconvenience of having to get a background check is a reasonable accommodation to prevent felons and the mentally unstable from purchasing firearms.

 

I'm pretty sure more people are killed and injured by automobiles each day than by firearms...yet we don't hear anyone talking about banning automobiles, requiring background checks for automobile purchases, limits on the amount of gas a car can hold or the speed they can go, or a limit on how many automobiles you can buy in a day/month/year. Obviously licensing of drivers hasn't prevented the carnage either.

 

On the contrary -- I took your statement at face value, that you made a declaration of when my right to own a gun ends.
I corrected your statement s it was close, but not quite, and then asked you a question.

My rights end when I harm you and/or places you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger; in such an instance, my right can be limited by law and not run afoul of the various protections laid our in the constitution

How does that translate into an argument that, absent the above, my right can be my right to arms can be limited by law and not run afoul of the 2nd?

Rather than a restriction on the exercise of my right because it harms someone, you seek a prior restrain against the exercise of said right; except in exceptionally limited circumstances dealing directly with national defense, prior restrain violates the constitution, under every level of scrutiny.

You spoke earlier about how there are limits on free speech so there can be limits on guns -- this is the conversation about that parallel.

 

Ever heard of a mass shooting in the USA where any of the victims or anyone else there other than the shooter(s)? NO.

Every heard of someone with a gun stopping a mass shooter? YES

Every heard of a woman stopping a rapist with a gun? YES.

Have the greatest mass killings in the USA been done with guns? NO.

Firearms stop over 1,000,000 felonies, over 500,000 home invasions and over 200,000 rapes per year.

So... how many MORE people do you want killed and raped for your hatred of self defense and commitment to never defending anyone else either? 100,000 more per year? 500,000 more per year? A million more per year?

 

Do I really need to point out that when an automobile is used as intended, it does not injure or kill people. Yet we still have laws that require automobiles have working brakes, seat belts, bumpers, turn signals, horns, and other assorted safety features.

 

I'm not suggesting that we keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I'm suggesting reasonable accommodations to prevent them from falling into the hands of people who shouldn't a have them.

 

such as?

Convicted felons have already been stripped of their right to own a gun, so what else do you want?

 

To enforce that restriction. Any suggestions?

 

Send them back to prison if they are caught. I'm unaware of any convicted felons being caught in ownership of a gun that haven't been shipped right back to prison, so maybe this is a non-issue.

 

We have national back ground checks already. Have had since the sixties. The NRA has been pushing a law for years that would automatically add five years to your prison sentence if you used a gun in the commission. Frankly straw buyers ought to be tried as accessories before the fact for buying weapons for a felon for any weapons committed with that fire arm by that felon. Please note the so called gun show loophole doesn't really exist since almost all sales at gun shows are done with a licensed dealer as one member of the transaction.

Note also that there is little evidence to suggest that background checks have any relationship whatever to crime prevention.

 

Strategic level weaponry vs small arms. Yeah there's your problem, you lack a dictionary.

 

"By that definition I could own a nuclear weapon"

"Guns fit in here very well"

Ownage of the day. False equivalency at its finest.

 

Wrong. Background checks don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. See that gun violence rating you graboids constantly harp about. Full confiscation doesn't do the trick either. See that even places like the UK still have gun violence. Again I can literally make you a firearm in 15 minutes walking through home Depot. You can't put genie back in the bottle. Let it go.

Also you don't have a right to be "secure". Life liberty pursuit of happiness. I don't see secure in there.
By your logic my possession of a tongue threatens your right to not be slandered so I shouldn't have one of those or any right to speak unless you sign off first. Doesn't work that way sparky.

As to felons: that's unconstitutional by the plain language. Amend it if you don't like it.

You know if you'd just submit to government monitoring of all electronic traffic pedophiles wouldn't be able to pass around their filth in a black market that exploits children worldwide. All you've gotta do is let the government monitor you. That's it. What're you worried about?

 

Old age is 100% fatal too

Does that mean we should stop injury prevention measures I mean let us repeal road laws, food preparation laws environmental protection laws etc etc

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but the UK's rate of gun violence is a fraction of the rate of America's

 

A good place to start would be with the most fatal items first. Using drugs is 3.5 times more deadly than having someone kill somebody with a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

 

Ye Gods! the "Daily Fail" from 6 years ago!!!

And AGAIN I will explain how it is useless to compare crime statistics between countries

Different laws
Different judicial systems
Different levels of enforcement
Different data collection
etc etc etc

Murder rates are the only things that can easily be compared because dead bodies are dead bodies

 

And a violent crime is a violent crime....someone get physically injured.

 

I disagree with your idea that it is useless to compare crime statistics between countries, but forget it. You acknowledged the homicide rate, which I addressed in the other thread. I even went out of my way to address the math, yet again. I provided all of my sources. Go argue with me there. You're probably just another Australian (what the hell is up with you people?) who gets a kick out of pissing off conservatives.

 

For every gun used to commit a murder in the US yesterday, 16 million were not.
Reasoned, honest people: The "prevention" measure in the US work.
You? Not so much.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless YOU happen to compare the US and Oz - eh?

 

The Daily Mail graphic you posted doesn't follow that logic. Less than half of the violent crimes counted by the UK involve any actual injury.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/