Subject:
|
Re: 40 Reasons to support Gun Control.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:37:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
591 times
|
| |
|
|
"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message
news:I2An93.779@lugnet.com...
>
> I am becoming increasingly swayed to 'the dark side'. Let me clear this • up--I
> will never personally own a gun. I don't like 'em, and I fundamentally • believe
> that they are a statement of 'giving up' on any other action or recourse.
Which side is "the dark side" in your estimation?
I don't see gun ownership "giving up". I see it as a realistic approach to
self preservation.
In my city, the police tell you up front, "we'll try to be there within 30
minutes" (that's what I was told when I reported domestic violence in
progress across the street). 30 minutes is a LONG time for someone to take
a beating before the police get there. I see guns as a practical means for
the weak, the disabled, or the people like myself who simply don't feel
obligated to endure violent attack while waiting for the police.
Is ownership of a fire extinguisher "giving up" on the fire department? Of
course not.
And owning a first aid kit is not "giving up" on the emergency squad or the
hospital.
Owning a firearm (and maintaining proficiency - which is more important than
ownership IMHO) simply provides options. And everywhere I carry a gun, I
also carry a cell phone and pepper spray so that lethal force is not my only
option.
> That said, I also believe that people have the inherent right to freely • choose
> waht they want to do with their lives, as long as those choices don't • impact on
> my life. So go ahead, own your gun. The second that gun ends up taking • away
> the freedom(s) of other law abidig citizens, however, you have lost your • 'right'
> to own a gun.
I think I understand what you're getting at. I don't think gun owners
should be allowed to shoot you or your family members (unless they are
trying to kill or maim said gun owner). I feel that a fear of guns has led
to disproportionate punishments for small infractions. For example, in the
state of Ohio if a driver who is legally carrying a firearm accidentally
touches the firearm during a traffic stop, they can be charged with a felony
and lose their right to vote and own firearms - regardless of intent.
A man was recently arrested at a courthouse after he asked the guards if
storage lockers were available for his firearm. He had seen the "No Guns"
sign and was not bent on murder or destruction - he was asking the guards a
question in an attempt to comply with the law and he was arrested. Zero
tolerance.
Would you strip someone's right to vote over something so trivial and
harmless?
> I think this idea should apply to not just guns but cars, etc. If a • person gets
> caught whilst DUI--zero tolerance--immediate license seizure. A 'one • strike
> and you're out' idea, for you have shown you can't be trusted to use a car • in a
> proper manner.
Personally, I don't think people who are prohibited by law from
owning/posessing guns should be allowed to own/drive cars either.
> Likewise, if you own a gun and it ends up, unauthorized, in a
> childs posession, or is used in an unlawful manner, then you have • forfeited your
> rights to own a gun for you have clearly shown you are not responsible • enough to
> own one.
Children are already prohibited by law from unsupervised posession of
firearms.
I know that a child is not going to obtain my firearm if I am wearing it on
my person. It is far more likely to be stolen if it is locked in a case in
an unattended house or vehicle.
> Dogs, lawnmowers, whatever--you must be responsible for the 'lawful
> use' of items in your posession.
We're already responsible for the lawful use of items in our posession. If
I smack someone in the head with a giant Lego sword I can be charged with
assault even though Lego is not in itself illegal. Criminal law should
regulate behavior - not objects. Especially objects like firearms that are
so useful in protecting innocent lives (this is why police have them after
all).
> I will exclude thievery---if someone steals your gun, just like if someone • stole
> your car, and used it in a crime, you have no juristiction over said • object and,
> as such, should suffer no legal ramificaitons.
That's nice of you. What if your child steals it?
> You abuse the right, you should have the right taken away from you, no • matter
> what 'it' is. I don't believe that people in jail should have the right • to vote
> for, by the fact that they're incarcerated, means that they have shunned • society
> law and convention, so why should they 'reap the rewards' of said society? • No
> vote for you! Come back when you're out of the joint!
So if you abuse the right of free speech then it should be taken away?
When it comes to rights, I believe in the "debt to society" concept. A
judge is responsible for determining how much jail time is required to
"repay the debt to society". But once it is repaid, it is repaid and the
criminal should be allowed to vote and speak freely.
If we strip criminals of all rights forever, they have no incentive to
improve their behavior.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 40 Reasons to support Gun Control.
|
| (...) Well, here's the thing-- I am becoming increasingly swayed to 'the dark side'. Let me clear this up--I will never personally own a gun. I don't like 'em, and I fundamentally believe that they are a statement of 'giving up' on any other action (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
