Guns

[FirstAscent]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose.
The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things.
The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime.

You're working backwards from a conclusion.

You're kind of strange, precisely because of your fervent desire to incessantly argue against obvious things by using obscure logic and wordplay.

What part of the following do you not understand? If an object has great utility to everyday living vs. the chance of it being dangerous, then there should naturally be less restriction on its use precisely because of that.

EDIT: you may find some valid arguments to validate your case out there, but attempting to refute in particular what I've said here only makes you look like a desperate fool. Find another avenue and gain some respect.

[myrkul]

2) Cars are licensed, since you can hurt someone else with it. Guns are the same, you can hurt someone else accidentally. With chainsaw not so much. Vampire is right as usually.

Any more arguments out of you?

It should be noted that I'm also against government licensing of automobiles. And what do you mean you can't accidentally hurt someone with a chainsaw? http://bit.ly/NWAfds

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose.
The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things.
The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime.

You're working backwards from a conclusion.

You're kind of strange, precisely because of your fervent desire to incessantly argue against obvious things by using obscure logic and wordplay.

What part of the following do you not understand? If an object has great utility to everyday living vs. the chance of it being dangerous, then there should naturally be less restriction on its use precisely because of that.

EDIT: you may find some valid arguments to validate your case out there, but attempting to refute in particular what I've said here only makes you look like a desperate fool. Find another avenue and gain some respect.

First Accent, please reas your own writings, and tell me how this same complaint doesn't apply as well to yourself.

[Explodicle]

Popping back in for a second.

Vampire -

You keep posting anecdotal evidence.

FirstAscent -

Accidents ≠ crime.

Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough.

Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy.

Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage.

Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose.
The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things.
The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime.

You're working backwards from a conclusion.

You're kind of strange, precisely because of your fervent desire to incessantly argue against obvious things by using obscure logic and wordplay.

Calling my logic "obscure" is a great way to weasel out of saying "valid" or "invalid, because X". I love being accused of both illiteracy and wordplay on the same page!

What part of the following do you not understand? If an object has great utility to everyday living vs. the chance of it being dangerous, then there should naturally be less restriction on its use precisely because of that.

Before, it was "a gun is the tool to kill". Now it's apparently daily utility versus chance of danger without any mention of intent, so please excuse my confusion in the face of flip-flopping.

You clearly have some mechanism in mind for balancing these two values fairly, so really I ought to finish the reading you assigned to me that solves the regulatory capture problem. That being said, you and I might not gain much utility from guns, but I'm loathe to impose my values on others without strong statistical evidence of its necessity.

EDIT: you may find some valid arguments to validate your case out there, but attempting to refute in particular what I've said here only makes you look like a desperate fool. Find another avenue and gain some respect.

I'll leave it to the reader to judge to which one of us that applies.

[Explodicle]

1) Alcohol is controlled in many ways. The last law was passed by Reagan. Vampire is right as usually.
2) Cars are licensed, since you can hurt someone else with it. Guns are the same, you can hurt someone else accidentally. With chainsaw not so much. Vampire is right as usually.

Any more arguments out of you?

Nope, seems like we agree. If you think guns should be as legal to buy as alcohol, then that seems reasonable. Vampire IS right as usual!

[vampire]

Nope, seems like we agree. If you think guns should be as legal to buy as alcohol, then that seems reasonable. Vampire IS right as usual!

My new signature. Guns (specifically CCW) should be as legal as driving that includes DUI laws.

[Explodicle]

Nope, seems like we agree. If you think guns should be as legal to buy as alcohol, then that seems reasonable. Vampire IS right as usual!

My new signature. Guns (specifically CCW) should be as legal as driving that includes DUI laws.

Cop: "I see you're near a shooting range during the day. Do you have any guns?"
Me: "I refuse to answer per my 5th amendment right."
Cop: "He admits guilt! Book him!"
Me: "Ummm... can I have a trial by jury?"
Cop: "lolololol"

[nimda]

Why mandatory certification? Are gun accidents special, or should we have mandatory certification for all dangerous tools?

Gun accidents are special, because they happen frequently and do a lot of damage. All tools which cause  a significant number of fatalities/injuries each year should require mandatory, free certification. Including cars and guns. Do you want someone who has never driven before driving unsupervised on the highway? I certainly don't. There are enough drunk drivers (about 1 in 10, but after midnight it's about 1 in 3) ready to kill me already. I also don't want someone fiddling with their new gun on Main Street, nor do I want them leaving it cocked on the table for their kids to find.

[myrkul]

Why mandatory certification? Are gun accidents special, or should we have mandatory certification for all dangerous tools?

Gun accidents are special, because they happen frequently and do a lot of damage.

[citation needed]

Car accidents can kill dozens, if not hundreds of people at a time. When have you ever heard of a gun accident killing more than one person?

There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005, and 42,636 people killed. ^[1]

In 2005, 75 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries; more than half of those children were between the ages of 10 and 14. ^[2]

Some statistics from the National Safety Council^[3]: The average Americans chances of dying
In any accident   1 in 23
By a vehicle while walking   1 in 612
Fall from bed, chair, furntiture   1 in 4745
Firearm accident   1 in 4888

Admittedly, these statistics are not conclusive. But they do suffice to debunk your "happen frequently and cause much damage" claim.

I'm not against safety training. I'm not against certification. What I am against is the irrational fear that people seem to have for firearms.

[nimda]

Nobody can fall from a bed and hurt me (well I don't use "bunk" beds). They can certainly hurt me with a gun though.

This was posted early on in the thread:


Don't smoke near me
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed

And that pretty much covers it. The rest is choices (I won't have a 12th beer, thanks) or force (drink the goddamn beer before I rape you and force-feed you tobacco)

[AndrewBUD]

someone can hurt you with a pillow case full of popcans, should they be illegal....?

[nimda]

someone can hurt you with a pillow case full of popcans, should they be illegal....?

How many people are killed every year by popcorn pillows? If it is a significant number relative to population, then there should be mandatory certification for the legal operation of a popcorn pillowcase.

Just like cars.

[AndrewBUD]

I am just messing with you.. I feel with a lot of things people should be free to decide to do whatever they want to their own body. When it comes to harming another I have a much different opinion.

[dree12]

Nobody can fall from a bed and hurt me (well I don't use "bunk" beds). They can certainly hurt me with a gun though.

This was posted early on in the thread:


Don't smoke near me
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed

And that pretty much covers it. The rest is choices (I won't have a 12th beer, thanks) or force (drink the goddamn beer before I rape you and force-feed you tobacco)

I agree with temporary quarantine for people rude enough to do the following in the presence of others:

• Contamination of public space. Includes:
  • Littering
  • Smoking & other drugs
  • Public defecation, urination, or preventable vomiting
  • Intentional pollution
  • Excessive transmission of infectious diseases
• Irresponsible handling of equipment (e.g., untrained, while drunk, etc.). Includes:
  • Vehicles
  • Tools
  • Firearms

Unless one of these rules has been violated, I do not agree with restrictions on bearing arms.

[myrkul]

Don't smoke near me
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed

And that pretty much covers it. The rest is choices (I won't have a 12th beer, thanks) or force (drink the goddamn beer before I rape you and force-feed you tobacco)

Let's rephrase those in a libertarian manner:
Don't smoke near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed
Don't force me to share your drugs (tobacco smoke, etc)
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't hit me with your car
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't shoot me

See how simple that is? If it doesn't impact you, it doesn't matter if they're doing it.

[Explodicle]

I guess my main issue with certification is really when it's a single potentially-incompetent certifying entity. If you only needed liability insurance to drive, it would still keep untrained drivers off the road without the headache that is the DMV.

So I think I'd be OK with mandatory liability insurance for guns too. That way we wouldn't have to worry about states effectively outlawing guns with insane requirements, or letting every idiot buy a rocket launcher.

[myrkul]

I guess my main issue with certification is really when it's a single potentially-incompetent certifying entity.

This. So, so this.

Remember that the AnCap model is essentially that, requiring only insurance to drive, or own a gun, or whatever. Actually, the insurance isn't absolutely necessary, but since you're going to have a significant debt to someone should something happen and you not have insurance, well, it's a good idea. Plus, the more reputable dealers might not sell to someone with no insurance.

(and yes, the premiums on a rocket launcher would probably be such that private individuals would not own them)

[nimda]

Don't smoke near me
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed

And that pretty much covers it. The rest is choices (I won't have a 12th beer, thanks) or force (drink the goddamn beer before I rape you and force-feed you tobacco)

Let's rephrase those in a libertarian manner:
Don't smoke near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed
Don't force me to share your drugs (tobacco smoke, etc)
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't hit me with your car
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't shoot me

See how simple that is? If it doesn't impact you, it doesn't matter if they're doing it.

That simply doesn't work for cars. A new, unsupervised driver is just as dangerous as a drunk one. I would much rather have drunk driving be illegal than simply suing after the driver has killed a family. Likewise, I would prefer a person who is 12 and has never driven before not drive on the highway. "Don't hit me" doesn't quite cut it, because when they do hit me, I could be dead.

I really did mean "don't drive while intoxicated near me."

Unnecessarily risky behaviors (risky towards others) should be outlawed, so that we can practice prevention.


Translate that to guns (please stop reading here and answer the above first if you disagree with the above) and we get "don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me." Because when you do so, you risk killing me. I don't want people killing me, AND I don't want people to risk killing me. If there is a better way than certification, please speak up and I will wholeheartedly endorse it.

[myrkul]

Don't smoke near me
Don't drive while intoxicated near me
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't drive without a license near me
Don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me
Don't do drugs near me either, unless there's no chance of my inhaling it or otherwise being exposed

And that pretty much covers it. The rest is choices (I won't have a 12th beer, thanks) or force (drink the goddamn beer before I rape you and force-feed you tobacco)

Let's rephrase those in a libertarian manner:
Don't force me to share your drugs (tobacco smoke, etc)
Don't hit me with your car
Don't give me an infectious disease
Don't shoot me

See how simple that is? If it doesn't impact you, it doesn't matter if they're doing it.

That simply doesn't work for cars. A new, unsupervised driver is just as dangerous as a drunk one. I would much rather have drunk driving be illegal than simply suing after the driver has killed a family. Likewise, I would prefer a person who is 12 and has never driven before not drive on the highway. "Don't hit me" doesn't quite cut it, because when they do hit me, I could be dead.

I really did mean "don't drive while intoxicated near me."

Unnecessarily risky behaviors (risky towards others) should be outlawed, so that we can practice prevention.

As requested, I'm responding here first. First, let me state that risk is not certainty. Yes, waving a gun around, or driving drunk does increase the risk that someone (yourself included, but you're not doing this to protect the idiot, it's the innocents around him you're interested in) will get hurt, but it doesn't mean that someone definitely will get hurt. In an AnCap society, this translates to higher insurance rates for people doing risky behaviors habitually, either directly through something like the Progressive "Snapshot" device, or indirectly through safe driver discounts (or maybe just lucky driver discounts) - go so long without accidents, premiums go down.

Prevention doesn't need to be coercive, is what I'm saying here, it can be persuasive, instead.

Translate that to guns (please stop reading here and answer the above first if you disagree with the above) and we get "don't use a firearm irresponsibly near me." Because when you do so, you risk killing me. I don't want people killing me, AND I don't want people to risk killing me. If there is a better way than certification, please speak up and I will wholeheartedly endorse it.

I'm not against certification. In fact, I'm all for certification. What I disagree with is forced certification by a monopoly body.

[nimda]

The thing is, that suing someone after I'm dead doesn't bring me back to life. Throwing knives at people might not kill them, but it's risky. Do you think throwing knives at people is legal? Drunk drivers kill thousands every year. Thus, drunk driving should be illegal. Prevention saves lives. Raising the insurance of the drunk driver will not bring me back to life.