= new reply since forum marked as read
that's your interpretation and it's a wrong one at that.
So, on that note, it's almost midnight and I'm tired so you have a good night. 
If that's what AZ wants to do, that's their business, however, I live in MO so 
does AZ law have to do with me?
Violent crime is descending, if not rapidly, then consistently. Whether or not gun control or CCW carriers are having an impact is not a measurable statistic, and it is my opinion that conclusions drawn in favor of either side based on the descending violent crime numbers given in either case is an error.
I believe that you are offering a false choice, however. Not every carrier, nor gun owner, owns a gun for protection. I gladly own my firearms for the appreciation of them in historical applications, as well as the enjoyment I get out of firing them for practice and fun. Call me simple, but I do love a good explosion and the smell of gunpowder. 
Historical appreciation or basic visceral thrill are both viable reasons for the purchase and safe enjoyment of a firearm.
Thanks
The pro-control side:
Elitists, social engineers with a god complex, fear mongers who had a close encounter of the firearm kind, general dupes, band wagon riders who are following a party or more general movement/org, politicians looking for media and/or have a close friend or family member who is one of the above.
If I wasn't in favor of the RKBA, I would still be anti-control just because liberty beats control with only very select exceptions.
AIDS is directly spread through a knowing contact. You don't just "Accidentally AIDS". You might not know you have it; in all other ways, it is directly comparable to an accidental gunshot. Likewise, cancer has a myriad of causes, most of which are completely unintentionally instigated by the sufferers. Similarly, no one hops into a car and says "I'm going to kill a whole bunch of people." Yet it happens.
The primary association between the aforementioned causes, and the comparison to gun violence, is simple. People die. Cars crush, AIDS decays, cancer devours, bullets make holes. To be blunt, death is a part of life. Why pick any one "cause" over any other? (And to answer your question, yes, you can legislate limits on diseases, but it infringes on morality and rights: AIDS victims -cannot by law- have sex, for example. Repeat for any STD.)
And don't worry about being skillful at writing, friend. I have a rather uncommon ability when it comes to writing, and I do not expect the same of anyone. You are perfectly understandable.
Last edited Sat Oct 20, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Firstly, let me thank you for your response, as it is exceptionally well thought and expressed.
Now, on to the body of your post. To a certain extent, I would like to agree with you, but I simply find that I cannot. Humanity, since its inception, has thrived on conflict; conflict (greed, jealousy, superiority) drives and evolves us. The greatest technological advancements of humanity are almost universally via necessity through warfare and open conflict, the need to create a better killing weapon, something that allows "us" to survive better than the other "us." Those who do not adapt and evolve their weaponry cease to be.
I believe your argument revolves around the crux of humanity as inherently good as opposed to inherently evil or inherently neutral. I will not stoop to argue such a belief, as although I believe differently, I respect your right to your own beliefs, and as with any belief, I have no proof to back it up.
Your assessment of "when guns are misused" is spot on, and I appreciate it for the complex nuances, the points often lost. It is no small thing to have a gun thrust in ones face, and you captured that element beautifully. As a purely hypothetical discussion, do you think that the same result would be achieved with a knife, or an axe, or any other killing tool had firearms not been invented? Take a look at Scotland, where you are... I believe five times more likely to be knifed to death than shot. The Homicide rate in Scotland is greater than America's by no small amount, yet despite rigid gun control laws, knives are an established weapon of both death and intimidation. Using Scotland as an example, do you believe that even if strict gun control laws are laid down, that another weapon will not rise up to take the place of firearms? (Remember, please, that knifings are more likely to be fatal than gunshot wounds. I can fetch statistics on demand, if anyone so desires. )
NOTE: My claim of Scotlands greater homicide rate is false, and what is sad is that I knew it was even when I posted this. I can only blame a head cold and a long work night. My apologies, folks. Please see Krispos' post down below to find actual statistics.
to have the back of those that support his goals
Obviously not, as I have no clue who "He" is, nor what "his" goals are.
We can eradicate some cancers
we can eradicate guns
you seem to have mixed up that both are good things to strive for
Not at all. I distinctly pointed out and in fact emphasized that it was fully possible to support multiple, or indeed all, worthwhile causes at the same time. I think you might have missed the two or three times I said otherwise.
you I think were citing "bad" people out there.
well, those people will always exist
Of course people like that will always exist. They always have and they always will. However, when examining crime and criminal activity, in addition to the method in which said crimes were executed, it is important to look directly at those "Bad" people and recognize them for what they are.
but saving 1 or 2 or 10 or a million lives from legal and illegal guns can happen without anyone getting another gun
Prove it.
I don't believe in the radical rightwing court that interpreted the 2nd the way they did
same sort of court gave us corporate parenthood
That is your right as a human being. No one said you had to agree with anyone.
wanting more guns to stop a gun is so wrong I can't count that high.
the old NRA talking points are old and stale.
The only ones who seem to routinely bring up "NRA talking points" are those arguing in favor of strict gun control measures. Arguing the case for owning a gun based on interpretations of the Bill of Rights is hardly parroting talking points.
This is 2012
We need to stop the killings by legal guns and then help those less fortunate to rise on the social ladder (the lower class is more important than the middle class which is more important than the upper class.
You know, I actually agree with you here, to an extent. Crime is largely based on the overall satisfaction of the classes involved, and a direct correlation between social status and criminal intent can be found. However, judging by what you have said further down in your post, you contradict yourself by stating that eliminating killings via legal guns will come from social establishment, not the other way around, which you have asserted here. Can you clarify for me, please?
give the lower class something other than crime, and they no longer need the gun.
But first you gotta stop the LEGAL guns to later put a dent in illegal
I disagree. Simply removing a stimulus from an environment is not enough to affect a long-term social migration away from criminal behavior. Remember that in some areas, the "poor" have as much established in their being poor as in criminal acts. In rural New York, the local lower class take great pride in being "Rednecks". This has little to do with crime as opposed to an appreciation for the "heritage" that they have, and that they have come from. Certain activities are as ingrained as some survival instincts, and the same holds true for crime. Simply removing one tool of the capability to commit violent crime cannot and will not cease to perpetuate a class-based function that has been essentially genetically transferred from parents to children time and time again. To put it simply, "You can take the boy out of the country but you can't take the country out of the boy", so to speak.
IF all you are worried about is crime- well, more security OUTSIDE the perimeter of a hotel, theatre, restaurant, movie house, baseball stadium means we could keep ALL guns out, provided that those with legal guns are also not allowed to enter.
I am not worried about crime at all, personally. Crime is dropping, and my chances of being murdered are about on par with being hit by an asteroid within my lifetime. Thrice. What I -am- worried about is the potential long-term control and regulated distribution of a consumer product arbitrarily enforced on faux-humanistic grounds; I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and likewise personal freedoms of consumption and distribution.
SEE the problem?
It's the LEGAL guns that stop getting rid of the illegal ones.
It is so clear.
but then "some see what they want to see and disregard the rest"
I don't see that problem at all. If people do not have access to firearms legally, then people will get said firearms illegally in one way, shape, or form. If said firearms cannot be procured through legal or illegal means, then alternate methods of attaining a firearm will be implemented; see garage-built zip-guns [link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm|. Said weapons are even -harder- to track than illegally owned guns, as they never saw a manufacturer.
But in just 2 posts I tore down every single NRA talking point
In one post, you praised a man who dubiously may or may not be the second coming of the Messiah, given your lack of content, and in this post, you've solved exactly no problems and only raised questions.
You can have your guns, inside your home (but make sure you alert anyone who may not want to enter your home that you have one.) I myself would not choose to enter a home where if we argue a political hot topic (like guns or abortions, someone in the fit of rage uses that gun against me, legal as it is.)(then says they were defending themselves.)
I think I'll just let this quote speak for itself. Nothing to do here.
You can collect guns, you can go to a shooting range.
But you don't need to have a gun on your possession in the restaurant I am eating at and then accidentally a child gets hurt, or something happens.
I don't want you thinking you will save my life.
(that is what GOOD police are for (not though bad cops).
I agree that no one -needs- to have a firearm on them. That does not disqualify anyone from exercising a desire. Your fear of a child being accidentally shot is just as viable as a CCW fearing a criminal altercation while they are at that same restaurant. Both points hold merit, but neither should take priority.
Long as you keep ALL (legal and illegal) guns out of a place, then no one gets shot.
In theory, that works. In practice, everywhere will have to have metal detectors; simply claiming "remove all guns" or "ban all guns in public spaces" does not mean that said action will result in a gun-free area. As mentioned before, zip guns are common and growing in popularity, thanks to the complexities of the internet.
How much simpler can it be?
Meek Mayor Mike is the NY Mayor who announced 3 days ago he is giving and starting a new pac and giving 8 figures (that means 10-99 MILLION dollars, which will compete against the NRA should he choose, and gun is something he is against.
(as he no longer is running for any office, he is immune to campaigning himself, but now other candidates will have someone protecting their back and not cowering in fear of the bully NRA
Bloomberg? He's a laughingstock. You know what happened in his Soda ban? Individuals bought two Small sodas and made a Large and sold them for a profit. Now imagine the same thing happening, but with unlicensed, unregistered, unnumbered and hypothetically untraceable firearms. THAT is the situation you want to perpetuate to promote social change? If anything, it sounds like a lead-up to an underground American firearm black market.
imho
again-simple as A B C. Get the legal guns out of the outsides, and bring them only inside your own home, and then we can get rid of illegal guns.
It is like cigarettes-there was NO need to get rid of cigarette companies. Just make people stop smoking outside, showing them cigs are so bad, and they also stop smoking inside.
Cig. companies still exist, but most people no longer smoke.
I will just categorically say, no, it's not that simple, unless you ignore vast swaths of precedent and focus only on idealistic and unachievable or downright unsafe goals. You want to talk about cigarettes? People don't care about -where- they can smoke, they care about the prices. When a pack of cigarettes approaches half a tank of gas in value, people are forced to choose: Cigarettes, or drive to work today. Is such a "sin-tax" inevitably successful? Of course it is. Is it -right-? No. I'll elaborate if I need to, but if you really don't get why the government micromanaging the lives of it's citizens through selective economic disassociation is wrong, you have bigger problems.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your reply to him, you pretty much tore down all of his talking points, good job and I agree with just about everything you said. 
