How would we benefit from stricter gun laws?

Let me get one thing clear. I own a gun. I do not own it as a dangerous weapon, I use for recreation, and as an option for self defence. I like the fact we are able to own guns if we want them. But with all that has been happening recently, especially the incident with the 9 year old girl killing her instructor, I am starting to wonder if my position is sound. I am supporting the possession of a dangerous weapon by the general public. So, I am now asking myself if the US would really benefit from stricter gun laws?...

Artemis

 

The reason guns should be legal and unhindered by government is not that they do society any good - but that the state should have to show wrongdoing or malicious intent prior to taking away your ability to own and use a weapon. The burden should be on them, not us.

I'd gladly accept your 10,000 deaths per year for a little gun liberty. I'm being smothered, treated like a child - it's horrible. Don't go down the same path.

 

How can you show malicious intent, unless you wait until someone goes crazy and starts shooting people. And how come we don't have a system that can safeguard against a 9 year old girl being given a Uzi, and killing someone with it?

Artemis

 

In my opinion the BoR's and liberties that came with were demands from the people in order to ratified the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Accidents happen.....embrace it.

Do you want to live in a free society or one controlled by puppet masters?

 

It cannot. Neither can the current system of (mostly) legal treehouse construction prevent the many injuries and deaths that result. It's not supposed to. I could advocate taking people's weapons off them to save lives - but I want to live in a society that's not completely sterile, so I instead propose: leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Until the point where force has been initiated or you've indicated such force is imminent - do what you like.

 

Absolutely man, Madison promised a Bill of Rights would come later so their plan of ignoring the constitution's 13/13 ratification requirement and starting again could succeed without obstacle.

 

Artemis- You sound like an intelligent human being. By the same logic you mention, Why can we, as a civilized nation, not have systems in place that can safeguard the lives of thousands of innocent children that die each year from the hands of drunken drivers? Or predators? Or from homeowners who have pools whereas over 100,000 children ages 9 to 17 drown?

If one child drowns, should pools be banned? How about 50? It seems that any number of deaths will not create legislation that will outlaw pools . . . or guns . . . or drunks.

 

I'm not suggesting that we take people's guns of them to save lives, but in the case of the Uzi incident, could we not perhaps introduce regulations for such places like, "Children under the age of 16 should not be allowed to handle sub machine guns on their own"

 

You mean like how we have to have a driver's license, court mandated AA meetings, very tough drunking and driving laws, etc?

So instead they reform pools to limit the number of deaths. Instead of having a child drowning and no one knowing CPR, they can mandate that their are lifeguards there and only certain hours when you're allowed to swim.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it can be done, the question is though what are the best types of regulation possible.

 

Exactly. Don't ban things, just do what you can to make them safer

 

The problem there though is that by making things "safer", it's also reducing the amount of freedom an individual has.

 

Please understand every law that regulates human behavior is another brick in the wall......hmm. I sound like Pink Floyd.

You need to be extremely careful what you're advocating.

 

So our liberties are now negotiable?

 

They always have been, they always will be.

 

Of course they can mandate tougher laws drinking age limits etc. but does it STOP drunk driving? Same with pools. There are about a half a million pools (private) in Florida. There are no lifeguards or CPR restrictions that stop drownings, only idiotic parents or guardians that fail to supervise.

Or idiot parents who seem to think that an uzi in the hands of a 9 yr old is "recreation".

 

That's scary...where do YOU draw that line.

Should they regulate when you can prevent cops from searching your home without a warrant?

Should they regulate what you can say in public?

Because that's what you're advocating. You either believe in liberties or you don't. You can't have it both ways.....there is no shade of gray area.

 

Yes it does.
"Due to increased public awareness, prevention, enforcement and treatment/recovery, alcohol-impaired driving deaths have decreased 48.5% from 1982 (26,172) to 2006 (13,470)."
https://ncadd.org/learn-about-alcohol/drinking-and-driving

"Thanks to law enforcement around driving under the influence, since 1980 the fatality rate of drunk driving has been cut by 50%."
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-driving-under-influence

"How can deaths and injuries from impaired driving be prevented?
Effective measures include:

Actively enforcing existing 0.08% BAC laws, minimum legal drinking age laws, and zero tolerance laws for drivers younger than 21 years old in all states.3,8,9"
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

If we're going with the regulations do work logic, then simply making sure that parents are doing their job would work.

Well yeah there's an extreme.

 

You're talking to a guy who's part anarchist. Keep that in mind.

Yes.

Yes. Let's be honest with ourselves, no one wants to hear heavy metal music in the middle of the night. It's a public nusiance.

Do you know what an extreme is? And yes there are gray areas when it comes to liberties. For example, what good are you liberties when you can't use them?

 

So you agree that their are some circumstances that you can't deny cops from entering your home without a search warrant.

Stop negotiating my right away.

 

Do you know what regulating means?

 

Do you know what civil liberties means.....let alone understand the BoR's?

 

Yes, I've debated it many times over the last couple of years. Regulate simply means to allow or disallow something. So if the government wanted to regulate when a police officer could go into someone's house without a warrent, to let's say never, it's still regulating.

 

I'm talking about government regulate YOU.....not the police when they search your house.

As for color highlighted part......what absurd comment IMO.

 

We have a system. It's called Darwinism. A free men we have a responsibility to exercise judgment and be responsible for the outcome of our behavior. Actions have consequences. This fellow up in AZ should have known better than to put such a weapon in the hands of a child. He paid the ultimate price for his stupidity. His genes are now removed from the gene pool. Darwin FTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Or we can agree that as free men, we and we alone are responsible for the outcome of our behavior.

 

Ah, misread. My apologizes. That being said, doesn't change my answer.

I'll bite why?