High court affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by Bungleau I agree with Cerek. Rule #1 for all firearms: it's loaded. Unless you've just unloaded it, it's loaded. And even then, it's loaded. You *never* point it at someone unless you intend to use it. Father and son need to go back to basic firearms training. And that's from someone who doesn't have firearms at home... just has very basic training and understanding.

AGREED!

The .357 *IS* loaded, and everybody in the house knows it. If it's not inside my waist band, it is in the safe. Everybody knows how to 'unload' it.

All of the other guns *ARE* unloaded, and everybody knows it. They are left alone, and in the safe as well. Guns are not to be openly cuddled, they should be in a holster, or a safe, or display if it warrants such degree of gratitude. Which is where the Winchester 1873 is, the only one not in the safe, it is on display right next to the "Star" of Texas and above the fireplace. It's not a replica, or a reproduction, it's a genuine model 1873 caliber .44-40, with a serial number under XXX50. It saw action with Sherman in the Red River campaign from my father's bloodline in Texas. Probably the closet thing I will ever have of value, and not just sentimental value.


Welcome back Cerek!

[Chewbacca]

How do we reconcile the number of accidents, crimes of passion, and suicides with the notion that basic gun safety education is pretty simple and freely available.

The fact is how ever much we love our freedom to have guns, humans are clearly not responsible enough on the whole to have them if gun safety *is* quite basic and simple. Else accidents and other misuse would be much much further and far between.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca How do we reconcile the number of accidents, crimes of passion, and suicides with the notion that basic gun safety education is pretty simple and freely available.

Just because it is simply and free doesn't mean people take advantage of it. Unfortunately, you can't force people to exercise good judgement and common sense.

As for the others.....
Crimes of passion? Would still happen.
Suicides? Would still happen.
Accidents? Would not happen with guns, of course. Then again, all it takes is very BASIC safety measures to prevent them.

Originally Posted by Chewbacca The fact is how ever much we love our freedom to have guns, humans are clearly not responsible enough on the whole to have them if gun safety *is* quite basic and simple. Else accidents and other misuse would be much much further and far between.

Should I lose my right to drink beer because some people choose to drive drunk? No. Each person has to accept responsibility for their own actions. I shouldn't lose my rights because someone else is irresponsible with theirs.

[Chewbacca]

Hey Cerek,

Like I have clearly stated, i won't take way any freedom. Is individual responsibility limited to individual actions, or do we have individual responsibility to our community as well?

I see the harm which easily available, easy to use handguns does cause my society. It is clear, apparent, and factual. It's clearly irresponsible to allow such harm to continue. Take deaths from accidents involving minors for example. Simply put, ONE dead child from handgun misuse is too many. No compromise! One is too much.

So I won't take freedom away, but I will pray for the day we wise up and I will speak up.
Take Care,
Chewy

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Take deaths from accidents involving minors for example. Simply put, ONE dead child from handgun misuse is too many. No compromise! One is too much.

Accidents? Accidents have always taken place are still taking place and always will.

If we follow your line of thinking we could extend it to any object: One dead child from car accident is too many. No compromise. One dead child from kitchen accident is too many. No compromise.

The number of fatalities from gun accidents are negligible compared to number of fatalities from all accidents. If you truly want to stop all deaths from accidents, no compromise, you should ban nearly everything and lock up everyone in padded cells.

Any action carries the risk of accidet. I'd rather have my child die doing something than live not daring to touch anything because it might kill him, and hey, no compromise, one is too many.

And personally, for me one child who was murdered because he couldn't defend himself with a gun is too many. no compromise.

[Chewbacca]

Nice cherry picking. Simply do not extend my line of thinking beyond it's scope. A handgun is a unique item with a purpose it does well. One small movement of a finger results in ending human life. Small easy action with large irrevocable consequence.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Nice cherry picking. Simply do not extend my line of thinking beyond it's scope. A handgun is a unique item with a purpose it does well. One small movement of a finger results in ending human life. Small easy action with large irrevocable consequence.

QFT. The damage that can be done with one person and a gun is nuts.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Hey Cerek, Like I have clearly stated, i won't take way any freedom. Is individual responsibility limited to individual actions, or do we have individual responsibility to our community as well? I see the harm which easily available, easy to use handguns does cause my society. It is clear, apparent, and factual. It's clearly irresponsible to allow such harm to continue. Take deaths from accidents involving minors for example. Simply put, ONE dead child from handgun misuse is too many. No compromise! One is too much. So I won't take freedom away, but I will pray for the day we wise up and I will speak up. Take Care, Chewy

You start out saying you won't take away any freedoms, then suggest we should do just that for the "greater good" (which is the same reason Bush decided it was OK to start issuing warrantless wiretaps, because it served the greater good).

Individuals do have a responsibility to their community, but that responsibility only extends so far. Providing simple and free gun safety is one step. Implementing restrictions and waiting periods for owning a gun is another. But that's about as far as it goes. As I said before, I cannot be responsible for careless actions another person chooses to take. And I should not lose one of my rights (or freedoms) just because somebody else acts irresponsibly.

Yes, it only takes one small movement to pull a trigger, but gun shot wounds are not always fatal or debilitating. Many people survive gun shots and continue on with their life without any permanent harm.

However, it is not "cherry picking" to extend your example of one accident per child being too much. If one accident per child is too much, no compromise - then ZFR's fall in that same category, except he missed a few.

One child gets injured or killed falling down a well, that is too much.
One child is injured by fireworks, that is too much.
One child is injured by a BB gun, that is too much.
One child is injured by a family pet, that is too much.

While I understand what your saying, you have to anticipate the Law of Unintended Consequences any such rationalization can produce.

Accidental injuries and deaths to children are tragic, indeed. But eliminating guns will NOT eliminate their occurrance. It will simply increase the percentage of injuries and deaths occurring from other means. And once guns are eliminated (theoretically), it is only logical to focus on the new "leading cause" for accidental injuries and deaths, and then the cycle begins all over again.

[Chewbacca]

I still don't suggest gun prohibition, whatever implication you read into my words, I simply DO NOT advocate banning guns. Other solutions to the problem exist.

And it is cherry picking. My example was cherry picked, taken out of context, and dramatically broadened to prove what amounts to a non-point.

Take care!

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca Hey Cerek, Like I have clearly stated, i won't take way any freedom. Is individual responsibility limited to individual actions, or do we have individual responsibility to our community as well? I see the harm which easily available, easy to use handguns does cause my society. It is clear, apparent, and factual. It's clearly irresponsible to allow such harm to continue. Take deaths from accidents involving minors for example. Simply put, ONE dead child from handgun misuse is too many. No compromise! One is too much. So I won't take freedom away, but I will pray for the day we wise up and I will speak up. Take Care, Chewy

How many of those handguns do you presume to be registered? Because if we want to say "Simply put, ONE dead child from handgun misuse is too many. No compromise! One is too much." and said accident occurs with an illegally possessed firearm, a situation, btw, which is all too common, are responsible gun owners at fault? From this line of reasoning, it's not cherry picking to extrapolate that to any other circumstance that can, and has, caused the accidental death of a child. Afterall, this position is stated as an absolute, and absolutes have no limits. Why wouldn't it apply to drunk driving as well?

Unlike driving, however, gun ownership is a right, guarenteed by the Constitution. There are conditions set out, such as felony convictions disqualifying you from ownership, for example. Personally, I think there are enough rules in place concerning gun ownership. The Constitution doesn't say you can't own a gun if you have children. However, people with children should be responsible with their weapons, and if they aren't, then sanctions need to be levied, against them. I wouldn't want to lose my rights because somebody in Seattle can't handle the responsibility of owning a gun. (Just a random town off the top of my head, that happens to be 1/2 the country away from me.)

This is what the ruling in DC is all about, protecting an indiviual's right to keep and bear arms. If an individual can't handle it, by all means go after that individual, not everyboby else. Interesting side note for those that may have forgotten, I'm not allowed to own a firearm, and I don't particularly want to. I do, however, believe that those that are legally able to do so shouldn't be held responsible for something that has happened, might happen, etc.

Punish the offender. If my child were to get ahold of a gun and kill somebody, herself, etc, then by all means, take my gun. Chances are, nobody would have to, as I'd surrender it. Charge me with allowing it to fall into her hands, but don't punish everyone else. Of course, my daughter is 26, and not likely to shoot anyone, but you get my point.

One is too many, but one child's death is too many whether it's an accidental shooting, a drunk driver, or leukemia. There's no need to kneejerk decide that nobody should own firearms because of that.