For or against?

Why would the school make rules after that one incident?

Just because one person is irresponsible with their headbutting, it ruins it for *everybody* else who would use their heads only to butt appropriately and safely.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

Go back to my earlier post and read-up on my proposal for manditory firearm safety education prior to purchasing any firearm.

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

Quote:

You know, it's rather like sex ed: One side believes teaching children about sex, thereby informing them of both the dangers and the protections, will reduce teenage pregnancy...while another side believes teaching children to just say no to sex completely will stop teenage pregnancy.

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

That's not a conclusion. That's a new theory, with no evidence of its own to back it up. Denial is not a river. :P

Like environmental and sociological factors have nothing to do with crime rates. What I'm saying is that there isn't enough data being provided to come to a logical conclusion. Assuming that things like income and basic standards of living have remained the same, or even lowered, you have a much better case for the buy-back program. However, the following lends itself better to the buy-back program than either of the above:

Quote:

No to the first question

And here we have the key. If all firearms are bought back with no questions asked, then you're looking at a situation where the state is openly purchasing illegally possessed firearms. The end result, then, is that there are less guns being possessed by the people that intend to use them.

While this definitely reduces gun-related crime, as your source is oft to point out, how has it affected Australia's overall crime rate? Are Australians honestly any safer thanks to the buy back? How many Australians still have legally possessed firearms after compared to before?

All of these are factors, as people who trade in illegal weapons to the government are probably those looking to make some quick cash in the first place. While they no longer have a gun, that still hasn't eliminated their perceived need to commit crimes.

All situations are created from more than a single cause. Looking at all contributing factors is the only way to effectively make an objective conclusion. For instance, the article that Gumby linked to could be used to support the idea that an increase in gun ownership reduces the crime rate. However, that's highly unlikely, and there's no real logical reason to come to that conclusion.

Quote:

I'd rather have the infinitessimal drop in guaranteedness of my freedoms than the burden of responsibility of owning a firearm, thanks.

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

It's ironic that a driving motive for both sides of the camp can stem from an overblown need for safety.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ironic as it is, that safety from both sides comes from completely different motives, freedom over another social dependence on the government for protection.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Oh, Gumby. Poor, retarded Gumby. Tell us, Gumby: what is the function of the military?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The function of a military is to secure the national interests of a country.

FELIPE NO

And the military is funded by...

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Taxpayers

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You completely missed the point, Manis Tricuspis. I am well aware of the fuction of the military as I am a part of it. Also I was speaking more of police than the military.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Ok, so what's in the interest of a country? I think the first interest of a country is continuing to exist, am I right?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

You completely missed the point, Manis Tricuspis. I am well aware of the fuction of the military as I am a part of it. Also I was speaking more of police than the military.

It's still highly irrelevant, as we rely on socially funded methods of security. Unless you're somehow implying that crime does not impact National Security.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Precisely. You're still paying for your safety. Now, if anyone WANTS to remove themselves from the social safety net, I support their right to do that. No police protection, no fire protection, no social security, no driver's license, no postal service... I can go on and on like this. Hey, fine by me. And in return, no taxes! All you have to do is renounce your citizenship. You can keep LIVING here, but we'll pretend you don't exist! I think that sounds like a fair compromise.


Gumby: As a part of the military, who employs you? Think on this one as long as it takes.

I was speaking idiomatically.

lol you guys are funny.

No I was refering to the fact that people who are pro-gun want the ability to defend themselves rather, than like the anti-gun people, being very dependant on the cops to defend themselves...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

In a larger and greater sense, it's the American people that employs you. They give you their trust and they hand down to you the responsibility of defending the nation, its people, and its interests. However, of course, most people will answer that it is the military that employs you.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

Yes, and then you introduce the inevitable problems of any government-run program: apathy, ineffectuality, double standards and bribery. You'd see the same thing that goes on with the DMV; lots of rich folks and pretty girls getting the nod regardless of their competence. Besides, if you make the safety classes mandatory, then gun ownership becomes a privilege rather than a right and that won't satisfy anyone. Furthermore, it limits firearm ownership to whoever can pay for the classes. They'd have to charge a "nominal fee", after all, and charging a nominal fee so that people can make use of their basic constitutional rights is apparently completely acceptable.

And Gun ownership isn't restricted to whose who can afford the gun, ammunition, and maintenance? And wouldn't SOME system of pre-education be better than no education at all? Unless, of course, you also have a proposal to fix the DMV, as you exampled. And as far as denying rights, this does no such thing. You can get a gun anytime you want, you just have to prove you know how to handle it. Just like a car, really. Though there is no direct right regarding automobiles (for obvious reasons: These rights were drafted in the 18th century), you still have to have a license in order to drive it.

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

See, this always cracks me up, because unlike the gun debate this one is demonstrably one-sided. You can look at any given town or state's teen pregnancy rates before and after the Paranoid Parent Collective freaks out and cancels the sex-ed classes, and the result is always the same. This is all off-topic, of course, but it just shows how useless statistical data is when people just WANT to believe otherwise anyway.

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

While the poll is closed, I'll put my vote here. I'm definitely for firearms, and am livid about a lot of the senseless gun control legislation. All that and I'm on the left. Well, I may be left, but I also work in law enforcement and see first-hand plenty. Gun control laws do only hinder and hurt honest citizens. The scum I've dealt with have no problem getting whatever guns they want.

Now I heard somewhere, can't remember where, that's there's legislation on the table to make a law that can punish gun owners if their gun is stolen and subsequently used in a crime, with the owner being considered equally guilty. This is just plain ridiculous. Think about it. You're on vacation, your gun locked up nice and tight where your kids can't get to it but it's also useless to you if someone breaks into the house. Well, someone breaks in while you're not there, breaks into your case, steals the gun, then goes and kills people. Now you come back and you find yourself charged with all the murders. Can you say "retarded"?

How ya doing, buddy?

Yes, the military employs soldiers. The military is in turn commissioned by the government, which is composed of (mostly) elected officials who are selected by— YES! The citizenry! The same citizenry that the military, in securing the interests of the nation, is protecting! It's all so beautiful!

See, to me, the phrase "anti-gun" is misleading. I'm not "anti-gun". When someone's "anti-abortion" that usually means they think abortions are wrong and should never be allowed. But I don't feel that way about guns! I can think of a lot of good reasons a person should have a gun. They could be a soldier, a policeman, a secret agent... or maybe they're just a rustic, living off the land. That's not a problem! What I (and probably most "anti-gun" people) object to is the notion that every single citizen of the nation has a "right" to handheld cannons just because.

I don't depend on the police for my safety, either. I live in a rural area; the police would be highly unlikely to arrive in time to save anybody. But no one has ever broken into my house (with or without a gun of their own), nor do I have any reason to fear that anyone would want to. No, the most significant danger I have from criminals is the fear that one of the yahoo hunters tramping around the woods near my home will reflexively shoot me or my family or one of my pets. And indeed, this happens to someone in the general neighborhood every year or two, some asshole in the hospital and some other asshole in the pokey because of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to shoot at the deer (and miss).

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

It's one sided to you, because that is the side you choose. However, there ARE two sides to that argument, and the other side has their own data to back up their claims.

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That rule should be used in a case-by-case basis. You can't condemn all gun-owners who have had their guns stolen and used in the commission of a crime to be responsible ALL THE TIME. However, sometimes, people should be penalized for leaving a gun in insecure places where it is likely to be stolen.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

The Flat Earth Society is also operating under the delusion that all debates are two-sided. Good for them! The world needs more idealists.

And yet the Abstience policy is still mandatory in how many Federally Funded schools again?

It doesn't mean that side is completely right, and it doesn't mean that side is completely wrong. After all, the Abstinence Only group holds their belief strongly in religion, and religious freedom of definately something you wouldn't want to step on in America. For you to disregard their stance is akin to my disregarding yours simply on the basis that I don't view "Right to Bear Arms" the same as you do.

See how the "I am right because I just am!" idea falls flat on its face? Debate becomes nothing more than a shouting match.

So, really, you've argued the implemntation of gun education...but not the idea(l). Which is exactly the opposite of how you feel about sex ed, apparently, though you would meet severe opposition on your views based on others views and religious beliefs were you try to impliment your apparent beliefs onto others.

You see how the similarity works now?

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Manis Tricuspis

To me, it just seems obvious.

"Well, the gun used in the killing belongs to Joe Smith."

"We should arrest Joe Smith, in that case!"

"WTF NO THAT'S PERSECUTION OF GUN OWNERS"

I mean, hello? I'm not a POLICE COP but it seems like determining the origins of the weapons used in a crime is a PRETTY CRUCIAL STEP!

Only if the owner knowingly allowed his weapon to be used in a crime.

Now then, if it had been stolen from the owner, then the owner is clearly not liable. You WOULD make arguements about how the gun was stored, etc., in regards to such a theft, and some states do have such laws. But if the owner had taken reasonable steps to secure their weapon, yet the weapon is stolen (or taken in other, extenuating circumstances) and used in a crime anyways, then how is the Owner at fault?

"Hey, someone stole my baseball bat from the locker room and used it to beat Billy to death...why are you taking me to jail instead of/with the guy that stole and used it criminally?"

I was speaking idiomatically.

Right, exactly, my gun was "stolen" from my "locked gun case" which "only I had the key to" and then it was used to "rob and kill and old lady" "completely without my knowledge".

Honestly!

How ya doing, buddy?

The important part of the bill is whether or not exceptions are made for those whose guns have been reported stolen.

The idea of the bill is to crack down on gun show salesmen who sell off their merchandise without going through the proper channels. If the firearm gets tied back to Mountain Joe at the Farris County Gun Show, he should be held accountable for any crimes commited with said weapon.

FELIPE NO

Which all ties into my earlier point about illegal guns having come from at least somewhat legitimate sources. The criminals aren't making their own weapons, and they don't come out of thin air. They are stolen from, or sold by, the 'good' citizens. Edit, and good companies etc.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I think it's ironic that the argument that anti-gun control people are using is that they need their guns for protection when the lack of gun control is what is causing the need for protection in the first place.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

Exactly...

But then again, the same could be said of the pro-gun side... just replace the word "neighbor" with "goverment"...

Quote:

The idea of the bill is to crack down on gun show salesmen who sell off their merchandise without going through the proper channels. If the firearm gets tied back to Mountain Joe at the Farris County Gun Show, he should be held accountable for any crimes commited with said weapon.

This is why I am very much in favor of laws that will help keep guns out of the hands of the "bad guys". I'm just opposed to laws that would also keep them out of the hands of upstanding citizens...

Quote:

I think it's ironic that the argument that anti-gun control people are using is that they need their guns for protection when the lack of gun control is what is causing the need for protection in the first place.

It's not just about protecting yourself from gun-toting crooks. I'd still use a gun if someone came at with with a knife or bat. And don't forget the big, bad goverment...

Also, it's about fun. I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and see no reason why I shouldn't be able to continue to do so...

How ya doing, buddy?