This discussion remains interesting and I see I continue to fall in between camps thinking we should be allowed guns but they should be heavily regulated.
I believe guns should be regulated just like cars. There are certain cars that are not "street rated"... meaning they are too powerful and unsafe to be driven on an ordinary street by the average driver. Cars are registered with the State.. It is possible to find out WHO ones WHAT car and how MANY cars. Cars are insured for liablility. IF you injure or kill someone with your car.. you pay.. or your insurance pays. If a car is faulty or malfunctions... even the car manufacturer is culpable in a court of law. You need a license to drive a car and have to PROVE to the State that you are able to drive..
As you say.. no one blinks an eye at the regulation of cars... ALL of these can and SHOULD be applied to guns.
Agreed with this. They should be heavily regulated.
As I see it, we can come up with all kinds of "what if" stories. We have expressed our feelings on this issue and debated it back and forth, but most of us feel the way we do because our heart, or emotions guide us. Some folks are just more sympathetic towards these type of issues and look at it at as being just that; a very sad situation for all involved. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong and it doesn't make any of us less sympathetic. You can still be sympathetic, but blame the person carrying the gun and even think that person to be a fool.
Very well written comment and you just cut right to the heart of the matter. This is, indeed, one of those push button issues most of us react to emotionally and decide with our hearts and not our heads. We need to use our heads. Also, yes, the gun, unless it has a manufacturing defect as is sometimes but rarely the case, does not kill people, people kill people.
[FONT=Roboto !important]Please eliminate the idea of "most of us" from your vocabulary. Concern yourself with what is specifically good for you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]The nanny state is perpetuated by the idea of whats good for "most of us". Our country is founded on the idea of the individual and personal responsibility.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]Generalizations like "most of us" are used when the facts are not there to back up the argument. Apparently on this site "most of us" does not apply. Where "most of us" does apply those of a like mind should do what is good for them individually. I do not live in a herd.
this was told to me by a game warden the other day (dept of natural resources)[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]I got a call from a lady the other day wanting to harass a hunter in a legal area to hunt because his car was parked near houses and he "might" be hunting near the houses. Her concern was based on her disgust with hunting because of her negative comment regards hunting season in general. I was refusing to go out and bother the hunter because he was in an area that is known to be frequented by hunters and it is a lawful hunting season. Her comment was "but he might shoot near the houses". I informed her the cars on the road "might" speed should I pull everyone over now. She came back with "but this involves a gun" and she was none to happy to hear me explain that the Second Amendment allows for people to have guns for lawful purposes and hunting is a lawful activity. The hunter also has a Fourth Amendment and Im not going out to violate his rights to satisfy her concerns about "might".[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]I imagine she operates under the idea of "most of us" which really just boils down to "I believe". She is not really concerned with "most of us" but like every other busy body she just wants the world to operate to her standards.[/FONT]
I can't help but agree with the assessment of the phrase "most of us". Also, we are not a pure Democracy. As we are a Democratic Republic rather than a pure Democracy, it doesn't even matter if it is most of us. The majority cannot vote away our rights.
Figures released today show that the NSW road toll is now back to where it was in 1923 in absolute terms when there were many fewer cars on the road and a much smaller population.
The road toll was/is a matter of concern because of the trauma that people experience. There is also the trauma of the seriously injured who carry the results for the rest of their lives.
Experts told us what needed to be done and naturally enough there was public resistance to impositions such as compulsory seat belts, child restraints, motor cycle helmets, random breath tests, speed cameras etc but every year now more people get to live.
Why not apply the same thinking to the problem of unnecessary firearms deaths, starting with the deaths of children, and try to save lives?
To do this it will be necessary to get past the knee jerk reactions and start listening to experts.
There's that reason for the decrease and also that cars themselves are safer and safer and working on eliminating human error all the time. We have cars that park themselves; cars that stop if something's (like a toddler) is behind them. Kitt is coming and the sooner the better quite frankly. Human error costs life. Of course, no matter how great the technology, in the end, humans are behind it.
Why not?
Actually these problems continue to be worked on -
-compulsory pool safety fencing.
-mandating that curtain cords don't dangle and the curtain material is treated with fire retardant,
-alcohol licencing rules including banning of shots after certain times and lockouts a couple of hours before closing from city late night bars and hotels, identity checks for minors,
-banning of cigarette advertising and introduction of plain packaging
Home and workplace safety issues are continually being addressed and products and practices are constantly being reviewed and modified.
At least they are over here. How is it over there?
Do you have safety councils to address particular problems?
We do. When I started work, coworkers would have their cigarettes in ashtrays on desks all around me. Now they have to go outside. I didn't really care until I was pregnant and sat behind two heavy smokers and the heating/air conditioning system was set up in such away that it blew their smoke back to me. One of which would have a cow if I had a candy bar because sugar was so bad for my baby but didn't at all mind blowing her cigarette smoke back to my unborn. We certainly do need to get away from the emotional knee-jerk reactions to guns on both sides and start making rational regulations about them. We're so not there yet. One side wants them totally banned and one side wants anything goes. We need a sane middle road.
