Thread: The numbers don't lie.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The same arguments apply to so many other topics though. Why should the government be able to tell me it is wrong for me to smoke dope in my own living room? If your opinion is that they shouldn't then why should they tell me I can't smoke crack in my own living room as well? If you are truly saying MJ should be legal because as Americans we have rights, then you should also say crack should be legal because we have those same rights. As for guns the same rules apply. If the second amendment truly stands for having rights then it should protect my right to shine up my rocket launcher in my living room along with my 1847 Colt single action revolver, right?

As for your example of some mental patient you know that is already on the application, right? So technically, if I am under the treatment of a psychologist, and/or on medication for psychological problems, and I do go to Wal-Mart to buy a gun then I am already breaking the law, but I am sure you already knew that.

You believe all mentally unstable people are diagnosed?

Constitutional freedoms aren't always that clear. Sometimes supporting the freedoms of an individual threatens the protection and well-being of others.

For instance I believe that possession and consumption of drugs (any) shouldn't be illegal. No one should be put in jail for consuming a drug under their own free will. Yet providing or selling drugs to minors should be illegal. I think weed should be sold legally and taxed the same as alcohol due to it being responsibly safe to consume for recreational use. Where meth, coke and heroin are not safe to consume for recreation use. You shouldn't be put in prison for using them though, as long as they were obtained legally and consumed without harming others (eg. driving).

Extremely harmful drugs are better to attach at the creation and distribution, never at the user level. All that does is create criminals out of drug users who otherwise would only be harming themselves.

This is where I am talking about a medium. Drugs should be legal.. as long as the use of them does not harm other people and especially children.

Originally Posted by CleverGeek

Firearms are better to attach at the creation and distribution, never at the user level. All that does is create criminals out of firearms users who otherwise would only be harming nobody.

This is where I am talking about a medium. Firearms should be legal.. as long as the use of them does not harm other people and especially children.

The argument makes sense even when you replace the object of choice, so why do so many people say it is different for one over the other?

As for your question about all mentally unstable people being diagnosed I do not think they are, but I also do not want to limit anyone else's freedom to possess a firearm because of the small minority of mentally unstable people that are not diagnosed.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The argument makes sense even when you replace the object of choice, so why do so many people say it is different for one over the other?

As for your question about all mentally unstable people being diagnosed I do not think they are, but I also do not want to limit anyone else's freedom to possess a firearm because of the small minority of mentally unstable people that are not diagnosed.

If you read my previous points you will see I am not opposed to firearms. Yet zero regulation is a concern. There are regulations on cars, cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs. That is because they are potentially dangerous. I am not saying that any of them should be restricted or illegal just that there does have to be some regulation around them to make them safe for everyone.

Do you feel that minors should be allowed to drive without a drivers licence? Yet it is their constitutional right to own and drive cars, correct? Should they be able to get their driving licences before proving they can drive? That they know how to properly operate a vehicle?

Health class teaches safe sex and the potential dangers of drug use. Driver's ed teaches how to safely operate a vehicle and license prove and maintain a track record of ones safety and responsibility. Why would guns not require some sort of similar training or license?

Again, I am not opposed to gun possession in the least but some sort of regulation for anything that is potentially dangerous should be required.

And for the record I am not saying people are not entitled to have opinions about these topics. I do however find humor in the guy that says, "drugs are bad, mkay" while sipping his scotch and taking a puff on his hand rolled cigar. I also find the humor in the person that says we need to protect women's rights by keeping abortion legal, and homosexuals' rights by legalizing gay marriage, now give me your guns...

Originally Posted by CivilWars

And for the record I am not saying people are not entitled to have opinions about these topics. I do however find humor in the guy that says, "drugs are bad, mkay" while sipping his scotch and taking a puff on his hand rolled cigar. I also find the humor in the person that says we need to protect women's rights by keeping abortion legal, and homosexuals' rights by legalizing gay marriage, now give me your guns...

It's only taken into context like that because you are one of those affected. No one is taking your guns and the liberal agenda to remove rifles will not succeed just as the conservative agenda to prohibit gay marriage and abortions will not succeed.

The difference with the liberals and conservatives in topics like this is a generational/cultural bias. Those raised in farming states and other similar styles will lean towards gun freedoms just as those raised in large population will believe in gay marriage and abortion.

It's not so much the "I'm right you're wrong" it's a fair balance between selfishness and good of the country. If a woman were to get an abortion at your local planned parenthood it's going to affect only her and her family while possibly taking a dollar out of your tax pot. While the event may be tragic for those involved it does not reach your television during prime time.

Events like Sandy Hook hit everyone. Tragic events like this lead to people pushing the blame button and sometimes they stray from the reality of the situation. It's easy to understand that guns are dangerous ( Yes they are dangerous.... You take safety courses.... You don't take safety courses for safe stuff ), it just becomes hard to understand why there is such a lack of controls applied to the purchase of these items.

Originally Posted by CleverGeek

I completely agree that individuals should be able to possess weapons to be able to protect and defend themselves. Yet I also believe that there needs to be some kind of oversight. The thought of a mentally unstable personal being able to walk into any Walmart at any time and buying an automatic weapon and a few thousands rounds, scares the crap out of me. Also, does this right include high-explosives? Certain chemicals?

A mentally unstable person could stab you in the neck as you are standing, waiting for a bus on the street, or as we've seen recently, push you in front of an oncoming train. Do you worry about that? Because the odds of you being killed by a mass murderer with an assault rifle are similar. In fact you have a greater chance of being killed in a fall in your home.

I think the problem is one of deciding realistically what we need to worry about. Crazy people killing mass numbers of people with an assault rifle is really not one of those things. For example, people being killed by drunk drivers is a much, much larger problem than mass murders using guns. Should we ban alcohol or automobiles? I doubt anyone could get behind that either.

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

A mentally unstable person could stab you in the neck as you are standing, waiting for a bus on the street, or as we've seen recently, push you in front of an oncoming train. Do you worry about that? Because the odds of you being killed by a mass murderer with an assault rifle are similar. In fact you have a greater chance of being killed in a fall in your home.

I think the problem is one of deciding realistically what we need to worry about. Crazy people killing mass numbers of people with an assault rifle is really not one of those things. For example, people being killed by drunk drivers is a much, much larger problem than mass murders using guns. Should we ban alcohol or automobiles? I doubt anyone could get behind that either.

I guess home ownership is more dangerous then guns.. We should ban home-ownership.

Please read before commenting.. I am not saying to ban guns. Alcohol cars and crazy people all have laws and regulations surrounding them. Yet guns should be the exception?

Let me rephrase. I think the number/percentage of people that are mentally unstable enough to go out and shoot up the joint, and also have the mental stability and means to purchase the firearms to do so is a small minority. Why do I say this? Because these things happen relatively infrequently when compared to the total number of people in the US. Yes, one time is too many, but in comparison it is not that rampant.