The right to own firearms in light of the Virgina Tech tragedy

[Brassmask]

To be honest, I find it shameful that the gun control and NRA lobbies are making this into a political issue. Thirty-three human beings are dead and twenty-nine injured, most young and one their way to learning more about an academic field and life in general. Yet, we have to hear the same old tired arguments that are typically taken to the extreme by both sides over some bullshit.

Go ahead and call me self-righteous and whatever other terms you find necessary to criticize this messenger, but there is much more profound in Blacksburg (a campus I've actually been to) than stupid squabbles over petty partisan politics.

I'll be saying prayers for the deceased and those that survived.

That is precisely my point as well.  People are dead because of guns and an unhinged person.

[Amianthus]

Yeah, by killing attackers who are more than likely carrying a gun during the attack.  A gun's purpose is to kill a living thing.  Self-defense and attack are simply context for the ending of a living thing.

As I pointed out previously, my handguns must all be defective, then. I've used them lots, including two uses for self-defense, and none of my handguns have killed anything.

Self-defense does not always include killing something.

[_JS]

Guess it would be better if the pro-choice crowd just shut up when the pro-life crowd started pushing anti-abortion laws, huh? Hold the higher moral ground and all?

Think that would work?

That would be nice

In that case though, neither side waits for a mass murder (and for now I won't use abortion in those terms) to swoop in like vultures. And note that I mean both sides.

[Brassmask]

To be honest, I find it shameful that the gun control and NRA lobbies are making this into a political issue.

Js, with all due respect, the "NRA lobbies" are simply responding to the typical gun control lobby's attemt to take this tragedy and use it to fuel their agenda.  In no way have they been an instigator in this.  Or perhaps you can show us some headline that demonstrates such.

Um, I disagree.  Everything I have seen has been from morons saying, "Here we go with everyone wanting to ban guns again.  Just watch for it."  IN fact, UP's post was about NOT wanting to ban guns.  I think domer asked if anyone wanted to talk gun rights but he didn't call for a ban immediately.

[Brassmask]

Yeah, by killing attackers who are more than likely carrying a gun during the attack.  A gun's purpose is to kill a living thing.  Self-defense and attack are simply context for the ending of a living thing.

As I pointed out previously, my handguns must all be defective, then. I've used them lots, including two uses for self-defense, and none of my handguns have killed anything.

Self-defense does not always include killing something.

The fact that the self-defense didn't result in death is happenstance.  Did you shoot to wound?  Or would you have killed the person if you could guide the bullet mentally?

[sirs]

Js, with all due respect, the "NRA lobbies" are simply responding to the typical gun control lobby's attemt to take this tragedy and use it to fuel their agenda.  In no way have they been an instigator in this.  Or perhaps you can show us some headline that demonstrates such.

They perpetuate it and live for this kind of moment as much as the gun control lobbies. Saying "they started it" is rather juvenile. One side claims that the ease of purchasing a handgun is to blame and the other claims that an armed student body would have prevented it. I honestly don't think it matters who instigated anything. They both feed off of tragedy and that is disconcerting.

I see, so when 1 side starts to take a tragedy, and all the emotion bent up around it, to push a political agenda.....oh let's say the crackpot bombing of a Planned Parenthood center, the other side just needs to shut up, or else they're "perpetuating" the incident & acting juvenille.  I'll have to remember that one

[Amianthus]

The fact that the self-defense didn't result in death is happenstance.  Did you shoot to wound?  Or would you have killed the person if you could guide the bullet mentally?

Never pulled the trigger. Didn't wound, didn't kill, didn't miss. When the guy saw I was armed and willing to shoot him, he backed off.

However, had I shot, it would have been a "center-mass" shot. Which would have been, most likely, a wound that would incapacitate. Unless I hit a vital organ.

[Universe Prince]

A hammer is a tool that is designed to make nails go into wood.  Yes, hammers can be used to bash in peoples' heads but that is not their intended use. 

Guns are specifically made for killing people or animals.  Yes, they are used to shoot targets but that is just playing at killing people or animals in the same way that javelin throwing is a sport and the real used for a javelin is to kill animals or people.

The intended use for a javelin or a firearm or a hammer rests with the person who has the intent and is using the tool.

The leap from banning guns to banning anything that might be used to kill someone is common among people who think that there is nothing that anyone shouldn't be able to own.  The common reversal for that argument is that we ban people from owning atom bombs.  Sure, an atom bomb can kill millions but two guns just killed 33 people.  It's a matter of degrees.  Is it ok to have guns in homes to kill people who might attack or invade but then draw the line at who may have an atom bomb?  Not if you're an objectivist/libertarian type.

Objectivists might hold that view. But Objectivists are not necessarily libertarians. You say we ban people from owning atomic bombs and then say libertarians hold a double standard for supporting that but opposing gun bans. I am wondering how you arrived at this condemnation. Was there a symposium on the libertarian views regarding individuals owning atomic bombs, and I missed it? Did you perform a survey of libertarians regarding their views on individuals owning atomic bombs? Or are you just making assumptions?

See you're holding to a dogma of property rights but your common sense kicks in when people want to have atom bombs.  Suppose Bill Gates and George Soros and Rupert Murdoch all decided that they had to have protection from whole nations (let's just say Iran, for kicks) and they wanted to go pick up a couple of A-bombs just in case those wacky Iranians go all jihady, wouldn't that be their god-given right?

It might be. You appear to be assuming this is solely about property rights and that there some sort of libertarian double standard at play concerning people owning atomic bombs. I don't recall the subject of individuals owning atomic bombs being a common topic in libertarian circles. But I am fairly certain that the concept of self-defense would weigh heavily in that discussion if it occurred.

The real problem with guns is that they are small, concealable, and too convenient for immediate use.

And that is a problem because...?

The real problem with guns is that they are small, concealable, and too convenient for immediate use.  The way to resolve this issue is to mitigate these attributes.  Every gun should be sold in a locked case that is not easy to open or has some kind of time delayed lock.  That way when a person is angry or drunk and thinks that killing Bubba is a good idea right now, they might have to think about it for a minute.  It would also hinder children from getting hold of a gun.

That would also eliminate their usefulness in self-defense. But then, that appears to ultimately be the goal. I'm not entirely sure why, though I have my guesses.

Guns should be registered to owners at sale.  Cars are registered.  Everyone knows who owns what house.  Drugs must be prescribed and records kept of that.  Guns should be no different.  A person who owns a gun should have to produce proper identification and the serial number of their gun when buying ammunition.  That serial number must be verified in a national database before the sale can be completed.

You're assuming all those restrictions and requirements are good things.

All gun buyers should have to produce a gun owners license before purchasing a gun.  That license should only be awarded to those who have completed an in-depth gun ownership class that includes direction on proper storage and risk.

I'm not sure what the point of that would be. After you've locked up all the guns and made next to useless in any situation with artificial bullet pricing and weight requirements, no one is going to be able to be trained in gun ownership.

The self-defense argument FOR guns is sort of ridiculous.  This is anecdotal and not evidence but let me tell you about a couple of things.  My grandparents' bought a house in a neighborhood in the '50's here in Memphis.  That neighborhood went way down over the years and before she had to move into a home, my grandmother was there by herself one night and she was broken in on.  The man who broke in had a gun and my grandmother was about to open the draw where she had my grandfather's pistol.

The man matter-of-factly told her that he wasn't there to hurt nobody and as long as she didn't pull no guns or nothin', he'd just leave with the tv.  She didn't.  He did as he said he would and nobody got shot.

Now, in no way am I saying that anyone who breaks into a house is going to be as polite as this guy was.  That is one of the few things that I have ever even attached the ridiculous word 'miracle' to and it is not the norm, of course.  The reason I mention it is because suppose my grandmother HAD gotten to the drawer before he saw her and had gotten to pistol.  I suspect due to her frailty, she wouldn't have been that good a shot.  In fact, I would guess that she hadn't even shot a gun in 50 to 60 years.  If she had missed and not killed him, he would have definitely killed her.

That does absolutely nothing to counter the argument of firearms as a means of self-defense.

Property is not worth dying for or killing for.

That is your opinion. Others might disagree.

Ironically, to protect my family is also the reason I DON'T want a gun in the house.  I went into the kitchen one day to see what my kid was doing when he was being too quiet and he had a stool by the counter and was stretching and straining to get to the knife holder.  That was when he had just turned two.  Imagine him as 12 and curious about the box on the top shelf of my closet.  No sir, not me.

You should, if you owned a gun, have at least begun to teach your son about firearms, how to use them and to respect them as weapons by the time he reached age 12. Then he wouldn't be curious about the box on the top shelf of your closet. Unless that is where you keep the porno.

[domer]

The elusive Second Amendment is interpreted along the lines I have suggested, and now is the time to discuss it, like the structural integrity of a buiilding after 9-11-01. (JS's protestations are at once vacant and typically holier-than-thou.) A rational standard applies for gun ownership in most locales, under regimes that have weathered or have have been ignored by Second Amendment challenges. And another thing: the Founders were not frivolous people. They didn't emblazon someone's hobby into the constitution. Aside from concerns about mustering a militia, a now-defunct factor, self defense (and hunting) are the two rationales justifying the Second Amendment, and activities incidental to preparing one for either use. To that end, there are permit and identification requirements, "rational" legal excrescents strictly at odds with "shall not be infringed" language that Prince touts, and disabilities from ownership (notably the mentally ill and criminals), which also go beyond the NRA-literal interpretation of the Second Amendment. So too, contrary to NRA literalness and reflecting a "rule of reason," there are valid restrictions on the type of firearms that may be owned. Thus, it is within this arena of rationality that the instant discussion should proceed, or not at all.

[The_Professor]

They perpetuate it and live for this kind of moment as much as the gun control lobbies. Saying "they started it" is rather juvenile. One side claims that the ease of purchasing a handgun is to blame and the other claims that an armed student body would have prevented it. I honestly don't think it matters who instigated anything. They both feed off of tragedy and that is disconcerting.

Guess it would be better if the pro-choice crowd just shut up when the pro-life crowd started pushing anti-abortion laws, huh? Hold the higher moral ground and all?

Think that would work?

Well, at least WE won a victory today:

The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.  For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on partial-birth abortion.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

Kennedy's opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, was a long-awaited resounding win that abortion opponents expected from the more conservative bench.

The administration defended the law as drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide.

More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling. The Guttmacher Institute says 2,200 dilation and extraction procedures—the medical term most often used by doctors—were performed in 2000, the latest figures available.

The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.

The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

[larry]

The second amendment debate is framed to ignore some other constitutional facts. It is the right of the people to defend themselves against all enemy foreign and domestic. It is better to do the with firearms than it is by throwing rocks. Another aspect is that if now law is written to restrict something, the right remain with the people. The right of the people to own guns can be defended under a number of constitutional aspects of law, which include and support the second amendment.

[Plane]

Js, with all due respect, the "NRA lobbies" are simply responding to the typical gun control lobby's attemt to take this tragedy and use it to fuel their agenda.  In no way have they been an instigator in this.  Or perhaps you can show us some headline that demonstrates such.

They perpetuate it and live for this kind of moment as much as the gun control lobbies. Saying "they started it" is rather juvenile. One side claims that the ease of purchasing a handgun is to blame and the other claims that an armed student body would have prevented it. I honestly don't think it matters who instigated anything. They both feed off of tragedy and that is disconcerting.

It is what is necessacery .

In Austrailia there was a strong pro gun lobby but soon after an incident like this one at Port Arther the anti gun zelots sprang into action faster than the pro gun zelots, result , thousands of confiscated guns destroyed , nary a single one from a criminal.

[Universe Prince]

The elusive Second Amendment

Oh come on. It doesn't use esoteric or confusing language. It is plainly stated and straightforward. There is nothing elusive about it. We're talking about the Second Amendment, not the 2006 tax code.

(JS's protestations are at once vacant and typically holier-than-thou.)

I think that is not so. JS's comments don't remind of your post at all.

Thus, it is within this arena of rationality that the instant discussion should proceed, or not at all.

So says the great and mighty Domer. (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

[domer]

Yes, Prince, I'll play Daddy in this playlet. First, the Second Amendment is elusive because throughout it 225+ year history, the matter whether it is a "militia right" or a "personal right," seemingly fundamental concerns, has not been authoritatively determined. And then, as they say, let the party begin. Secondly, Second Amendment litigation has been, shall we say, restrained, leaving intact various state and federal regimes of control openly at odds with the literalist orientation you favor. Indeed, it is so elusive that it has yet to be determined whether the states are even covered by the provision, or just the federal government. As for JS, he and I have established a pattern of fending for ourselves in our sharp and lively exchanges. Your overture in that regard is piling on, and unwelcome.

[Plane]

"...the Founders were not frivolous people. They didn't emblazon someone's hobby into the constitution...."

I agree , so what is the purpose of enshrineing such a right in the top ten?