Woman shot by two year old.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Da Boss**

The right to life is hardly inalienable anyhow. What a ridiculous point to raise in a thread about the right to guns, which are tools primarily designed to end lives.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Hordini wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Albatross wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.

I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?

If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.

So it's not inalienable then?

By that logic, if society did something horrible enough, could the right of the people to bear arms then be infringed?

If a change was made to the Second Amendment in a matter consistent with the process for changing the constitution, the "inherent" right to bear arms would no longer exist, because the only reason it exists in the first place is because it's been decided it does.

No, that's incorrect, because the Constitution and more specifically the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it protects them.

I have a question though: Why do you hate freedom so much?

Because blind belief without reasoning behind is the biggest threat to humanity that has ever existed. And because I delight in crushing others under my evil boots while I twirl my mustache.

**Smacks**

Albatross wrote:
And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.

That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.

I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?

If you do something horrible enough, you lose the right to life.

What is "horrible enough" to justify removing the right to life from someone? Bear in mind that such a decision should never be based on emotion but concrete facts.

So is one death enough? Is that killing premeditated? What if someone kills 30 people but are mentally ill and believed they were killing demons in a game of Doom? Should they be executed, considering they were not physically capable of the thought process required to know that what they were doing was wrong at the time?

**Da Boss**

"Why do you hate freedom so much?"

Bwahahahahaaha, man. I hope that was a troll question!

Awesome stuff.

Edit: A Town Called Malus: If there was an inalienable right to life, nobody would ever go to war with lethal weapons. The whole thing would be like an episode of Gladiators, complete with padded whomping sticks.

This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!

**Hordini**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Because blind belief without reasoning behind is the biggest threat to humanity that has ever existed. And because I delight in crushing others under my evil boots while I twirl my mustache.

I figured it was something like that.

Da Boss wrote:
"Why do you hate freedom so much?"

Bwahahahahaaha, man. I hope that was a troll question!

Awesome stuff.

I'm glad someone appreciated it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:
This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!

Well, I think they have something to do with a debate, because they often spur it on. I think his point was more that we need to look at them closely and consider how rare they actually are if we're going to seriously consider using them as a reason to infringe upon the rights of millions of people.

**Albatross**

Smacks wrote:
Albatross wrote:
And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.

Is that right? That's quite an interesting point too! Really makes you wonder what this debate is really about...

**Da Boss**

Hordini:

See, that's a much more reasoned way to put it. I should stop nitpicking and poking Grey Templar with my pedantry stick. I'm only procrastinating on marking more damn biology tests.

**Hordini**

Albatross wrote:
Smacks wrote:
Albatross wrote:
And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.

Is that right? That's quite an interesting point too! Really makes you wonder what this debate is really about...

It probably has something to do with media scare tactics and convincing women that they are victims and that fighting back will only make things worse, combined with men being traditionally seen as responsible for protection in a relationship or family.

But anyway, there are still women who chose to keep and carry firearms, and I don't see women being less likely to own a carry a gun to be a reason to deny all of them that right.

**cincydooley**

Smacks wrote:
Albatross wrote:
And why does rape crop up in these discussions so often? There's definitely some sort of machismo subtext here, without question. Like it's less manly to oppose gun ownership because you'd be allowing 'your women' to be raped or something. Such thinking is juvenile nonsense, mostly because last time I checked, the US had higher rape stats than many western democracies with tighter gun control that I could name.
That's quite an interesting point. Another thing that you might find interesting is that women tend to favour stronger gun laws, and are far less likely to carry or own a gun. Women being empowered against criminals sounds good in the argument, but the reality is that the vast majority of gun owners are men.

A pretty simple google search would have yielded this information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:

This conversation is rapidly trending into the ridiculous. Especially with Grey Templar's insistence that school shootings have "nothing" to do with any debate around gun laws. Come on dude. That's sheer hyperbole!

It really isn't. Their frequency and death toll is inconsequential when looking at the larger picture. They're a wonderful tool for emotional appeals, however.

**Smacks**

cincydooley wrote:
A pretty simple google search would have yielded this information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Growing number" and "rising" are fairly meaningless. How about actual polls: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308245/US-gun-laws-Gender-divide-thirds-women-want-tougher-laws-compared-half-men.html

On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...

Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.

**Kilkrazy**

I think women should be allowed to carry bigger, more powerful guns with more ammunition, to compensate for their smaller, weaker bodies.

**Smacks**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I think women should be allowed to carry bigger, more powerful guns with more ammunition, to compensate for their smaller, weaker bodies.

It should just be based on penis size, then everyone would be happy. Black men wouldn't be allowed guns at all, unless they admit to having a small penis. Women should have huge guns to make up for them having no penis at all, and always getting themselves raped. And white guys should be allowed something just big enough so they don't have to feel intimidated by black men in the showers.

**Hordini**

Smacks wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
A pretty simple google search would have yielded this information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Growing number" and "rising" are fairly meaningless. How about actual polls: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308245/US-gun-laws-Gender-divide-thirds-women-want-tougher-laws-compared-half-men.html

On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...

Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.

So wait, I'm confused a bit. Are you saying that women should have to have guns because they make you feel safer, or that they shouldn't be allowed to because some of them don't want to? I mean obviously you should be the one to make the decision for them, I think you've made that clear. I'm just not sure anymore which decision you're pushing for.

**cincydooley**

Smacks wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
A pretty simple google search would have yielded this information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/us/rising-voice-of-gun-ownership-is-female.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

"Growing number" and "rising" are fairly meaningless. How about actual polls: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308245/US-gun-laws-Gender-divide-thirds-women-want-tougher-laws-compared-half-men.html

You mean like the Gallup poll linked in the article that shows that female ownership is up 10% in the US? Like that?

I couldn't care less " who wants tougher laws" because that doesn't quantifiably mean anything. A sizable increase in gun ownership for females does.

On the subject I also came across this article, which I found amusing. In it the guy suggests that women and only women should be allowed to carry guns. While I suspect it is just humour, it's funny because it's true...

Men would still be forbidden to walk the streets armed, in accordance with current laws, but women would be required to carry pistols in plain sight whenever they are out and about.

Were I to board the subway late at night, around Lincoln Center perhaps, and find it filled with women openly carrying Metropolitan Opera programs and Glock automatics, I’d feel snug and secure. A train packed with armed men would not produce the same comforting sensation. Maybe that’s because men have a disconcerting tendency to shoot people, while women display admirable restraint. Department of Justice figures show that between 1976 and 2005, 91.3 percent of gun homicides were committed by men, 8.7 percent by women.

Well it's comforting to know that criminals would obey that law more than they do our present gun ownership and "don't kill people" laws.

**Matthew**

Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.

**cincydooley**

Matthew wrote:
Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.

We really are unconcerned with your opinion because it's been coming from a place of complete ignorance. We've tried to educate you, and we've encouraged you to do some reading on your own. You seem to have not read any of the information posted in this thread, or done any research on your own, so it might be in your best interest to just leave this thread alone until you can participate in it like an informed poster.

**Hordini**

Matthew wrote:
Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.

Did you read the multiple posts earlier in this thread where we responded to your question about gun laws? My reply and several of the others are on page 13 of this thread.

Also, unless it's a bus or train full of police officers, there's probably no where in the US where everyone on the bus or train would be carrying. Depending on the number of people on the bus, it's probably less than 5%. On a lot of buses and trains the number is going to be zero.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
Matthew wrote:
Alright, I'll give this thread a go. My opinion is that I wouldn't feel safe on a train or on a bus if I knew that everyone had a gun in their purse. I don't understand the gun laws in the US, so if anyone could explain them, or atleast the laws in a state, that would be awesome.

We really are unconcerned with your opinion because it's been coming from a place of complete ignorance. We've tried to educate you, and we've encouraged you to do some reading on your own. You seem to have not read any of the information posted in this thread, or done any research on your own, so it might be in your best interest to just leave this thread alone until you can participate in it like an informed poster.

Well, he might just not have read the replies yet. This thread has been moving pretty fast.

Matthew, go to page 13 of this thread. A lot of your questions have been answered there.

**Grey Templar**

Redcruisair wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
We are talking in the context of the gun debate.

Thus school shootings are irrelevant and not worth discussing, except to counter them inevitably being used as an emotional appeal, exactly because very few deaths are caused by school shootings. And numbers are what is important in this sort of debate.

We are not saying school shootings are not tragic events, we are not dismissing them as being important. They're just not important in this discussion, in the same way that the latest Football match isn't important in this discussion.

You didn't read anything I just wrote, did you?

I would say the same to you.

You're claiming I'm being callous and saying school shootings are not horrible events just because I said they are irrelevant to a discussion on guns. That is a serious jump in logic.

Just because a gun was used in the commission of an extremely rare, albeit horrible, event doesn't mean that event has any bearing on the overall gun debate.

**Smacks**

Hordini wrote:
So wait, I'm confused a bit. Are you saying that women should have to have guns because they make you feel safer, or that they shouldn't be allowed to because some of them don't want to? I mean obviously you should be the one to make the decision for them, I think you've made that clear. I'm just not sure anymore which decision you're pushing for.

As I said, the article was humour (I didn't write the article, it is not my article). And the NBC/wall street journal poll, showed that women were majority in favour of stronger gun control, and far less likely to carry a gun (again this is not my poll). So while women and the rape of women is often pushed forward by pro-gun people, it seems that women themselves are less concerned about this than men, which I thought pertained to albatross' "macho" discussion.

However, this was the discussion I was really pushing for:

Smacks wrote:
CptJake wrote:
A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes... The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist. The gun makes it so the 70 year old man can protect his property and life when the knife armed meth head breaks in.

But it works both ways. I feel I'd have a chance of fighting off an assailant with a bat or a roll of pennies, and, more importantly, I could run away. There is nothing you can do against an assailant with a gun, you can't even flee. It made me so angry reading about the two British tourists that were murdered in America a while ago. What were they supposed to do? Rent a gun, or an armed chaperone for their holiday? What does the the 70 year old man who can't move/draw quickly because of arthritis do? What does a blind woman do? Or someone with Parkinson that can't point a gun? There will always be vulnerable people who must depend on the government to protect them. The proliferation of deadly weapons just makes that job harder.

But no one responded.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

So in your world you have no right to life? Interesting.

I do, but only because we as a society has agreed that such is the case. If everyone has an inalienable right to life, how is the death penalty still a thing?

Well, in the US there is not an inalienable right to life. Death Penalty, Abortion, etc...

There is, however, an inalienable right to boogie.

**Alpharius**

I'm surprised this thread lasted as long as it did.