tkhayes

actually that happens everyday. product safety recalls, banning the use of various products, new regs, lawsuits over product liability - but not for guns - God forbid - they are our RIGHT! We banned lawn darts fer chrissake - they are toys. SO please do not assume that we do not do anythign about unneeded deaths. Airplanes crash - we build better airplanes. People tak eoverdoses, we build child-proof caps - skydivers go in and we invent better equipment. Happens all the time. Ask for some training on guns and making it mandatory, and suddently I am stepping on your rights and no one shall do that! If we ban lawn darts becasue a few kids got blinded and killed by them - is it unreasonable to ban guns which kills many people each year? If you need to defend yourself - how about arming everyone with tasers? Likely a less fatal result, certainly fewer surgeries and costs related to recovery (all costs eventually borne by society) Hmmm, I wonder if the NRA would support trading in all the guns for Tasers?

It has not been proven 'time and time again' to fail here in the USA, it has not even been tried. So I disagree with your stance that it has alreayd been proven not to work. You advocate a gun for the teacher, i advocate NO gun for the student in the first place. My position is preventative from the beginning, your position is after the fact - already too late. How often do we complain about tragedy and wish there was something we could have done to prevent it? tk

I could argue that gun manufacturing leads to confiscation. Afterall, the manufacturing came first right? Then the confiscation? Tying the registration with the confiscation it a stretch in the USA.

I do not know what they would do - what about these? Son Charged In Accidental Shooting Schmitt Demonstrates New Part For His Gun POSTED: 9:31 am PDT July 20, 2004 UPDATED: 10:00 am PDT July 20, 2004 SAN DIEGO -- A man who allegedly shot his mother while demonstrating a new laser light attachment on his gun pleaded not guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and possession of an unregistered assault weapon. MOM SHOT, KILLED Apparent Accidental Shooting Jonathan Schmitt, 24, faces up to three years in prison if convicted in his mother's April 25 death. He entered his plea Monday. San Diego police said Margaret Schmitt, 52, was shot once at her home about 4:50 p.m. in the 2100 block of Swan Street in Encanto. Family members and paramedics tried to save Margaret Schmitt, but she died at a hospital less than an hour later. Police said at the time that the shooting appeared to be accidental but that an investigation was under way. The defendant was interviewed at the scene but was not arrested. Deputy District William Gentry said Schmitt was notified of the charges by mail. Superior Court Judge David Szumowski allowed the defendant to remain free on his own recognizance pending an Aug. 27 readiness conference and Sept. 14 preliminary hearing. and: Boy killed in accidental shooting By Associated Press Jul 24, 2004, 20:35 Email this article Printer friendly page Authorities say an 11-year-old boy killed in an accidental shooting in Bridgeport may have been trying to unload a gun. Efrain Hernandez Ortiz died at Okanogan-Douglas District Hospital in Brewster on Wednesday after he was shot with a .357-caliber Magnum handgun. Robbin Wagg, Douglas County's chief criminal deputy, says both of the boy's parents were apparently working when the shooting happened. An autopsy is pending. and Teen charged in accidental shooting posted: 07-21-2004 Shreveport police have filed manslaughter charges against a teen-ager, charging him with killing a 15-year-old while playing with a gun. The shooting happened Wednesday afternoon in the 7200 block of Moselle Drive, near Jewella and 70th. Police said Michael Wilson and a 16-year-old were playing with a handgun when it went off, hitting Wilson in the chest. No adults were at home at the time of the shooting. Police did not release the name of the victim because he is a juvenile. Police Department spokesman Jim Taliaferro said detectives believe the shooting was not intentional but concluded the gun was handled with a willful disregard for safety. "I know that by handling a weapon in a certain way it has a potential for going off," Taliaferro said. "If (a person) disregards the safety issues of that weapon and it actually discharges, then you have a problem." Perhaps we could stop of that? Should I post some more? idealogoy comes from 'ideas' TK

Nice to know I have you thinking tho' TK

The 'law' allowed us to lynch niggers in the 20's - it is not always right. I never said any such things. I am all for freedoms - we could debate all day long about how the current government is taking away so many freedoms in the name of 'homeland security and preservation of so-called freedom' If that gun is sitting in that nightstand for 10 years, then y'know what? It is not needed. They have forgotten how to use it, they would probably not react properly because they were not trained, they might get their own ass shot off with it. Now if they did currency training and regularly used it, then I would have no problem, but in the above case, i consider that unused. Take it away form them - no. Give them something in exchange for it? - yes. Offer to train them OR take it away? Maybe. Then it is their choice to take the training or give it up. In the hands of the untrained housewife or joe-blow at the office - it is more a menace than a self-defense weapon. TK

No i do not, but i do believe that if it escalated into more than that - some people here stated that it would be Ok to kill. So much for believing that human life is worth saving.

your logic is as flawed as you accuse mine of being - you state what I said and then twist it into an assumpion that is incorrect. I said GUNS were designed to kill - which they were, I never at any time said that gun-owners are, or tend to be killers. I did say that "If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun" and you tell me that this is ludicrous and an idealogy that cannot be fulfilled. Then you ask that I surrender my guns as if that would accomplish my goals. Is that not an idelaogy on your part? I already know that this will not help the situation, as do you. BUT, the difference is, that if the governemnt tomorrow decided that we will ban all guns, in the interest of saving innocent lives from harm, we will stop the manufacture of all guns in hopes that in 20 years or so they are all out of society, then I would actually be willing to surrender my guns, as I would have no use for them anymore. Would you be willing to do that? My guns are no threat to anyone, nor is the gun in the hand of a well trained person (which I have already stated I am OK with) And i have not advocated diarming anyone - I did advocate more training and more restrictions in the hopes of reducing th enumber of guns out there, which i still and always have believed will reduce the number of unwanted gun accidents and murders. TK

I never said all gun owners were killers. But I have stated and will state agin: 1. too many people are dying needlessly from guns 2. simple assualt, or burglary does not justify me killing someone for fear of my life 3. It would be good for society to liminate 'unwanted guns' and 'unused guns' since they serve no purpose except to possibly be used in a tragic accident. 4. training, and licensing should be mandatory, which would go a long way to reduce the number of guns (unwanted and unused) since people who were 'sitting on the fence' probably would not bother, while well-trained Glock-totin' individuals like Ron would be fine to carry one. 5. Society as a whole has a gun problem, whether it be social or physical number of guns, but reducing the number of guns would probably help. We went after Saddam because he had weapons right? Disarm him right? did anyone stand up for his right to defend his country? I did not see any replubicans saying "It's just a society issue with Iraq - not a weapons problem" don't blame the WMD's, blame the guy who has them...... TK

I fail to see the difference - someone is dead. And in this case the perpetrator in both avenues. But yet you would defend that person's right to shoot you since he felt HIS life was in danger..... I do not see that as a Liberal problem - the Replublicans are not doing anything to make anyone any more responsible for their actions either. smartest thing you have said in the whole thread.... TK

I did not and I am not proposing no resistance to a mugger. I am stating that the mugger does not deserve to die for a simple assault. It is extreme. It validates execution for relatively simple crimes and puts us int he ranks of an uncivilized society, much like many of the third world countries - yet we position ourselves so far above them - how hypocritical! Simple assault should not be punishable by death. Fine take whatever you need to protect your life - but your life is not necessarily in danger if the mugger does not have a gun? You are in danger of bruises and scratches and maybe a broken bone. Why not carry a can of mace - it would have the same end result, stopping the mugger. But you are worried that the mugger MIGHT have a gun - my basic premise for the entire thread - everyone is so afraid that everyone else might have a gun, yet no one feels that there is a gun problem. TK

My reply was in a response to someone who thinks it is Ok to kill someone who mugs you (and by that i meant a relatively minor assault intending to steal your wallet)- so in that context, it is not ludicrous, simply asking how far are you willing to take it? And if carry permits are OK, then I am all for MANDATORY training for all gun owners, which I have already stated would be a good first step in the right direction. I do not advocate 'magically removing all the guns out of society' given that there are 10,000 more every day sold, but it is an idealogy and it is valid. We stopped completely allowing and manufacturing three-wheeled ATV's years ago because they were dangerous. Over time, the effect was seen and the world is a safer place because these ATV's are off the streets. Obviously, you cannot remove everyone's guns unless something happens at the manufacturing end to stop the flow of new guns into society. It has to be a complete package, but I also believe tht it has to start somewhere. closing your eyes and denying there is a problem is plain silly. I think the guns nuts and extreme no-gun leftists can meet somewhere in the middle and that the USA would be better off for it. TK

Try not to discredit the entire argument just because I mentioned suicides. It was/is only part of the 'gun problem' Pools have other uses in society, like cars. Guns only have the purpose of killing - what they were designed for. That is the difference and why pools should not be banned. But while on the topic, when pool tragedies happen, we have no trouble enacting new rules to make the pool safer. building fences, stationing lifeguards, insisting on minimum training and parental supervision while using the pool, requiring insurance to cover the cost of actions for the pool owners. And yes even closing the pool (equivalent of taking the pool away) No such things exist or are even pursued by the gun lobby. Did I say that? I thought the thread was about GUNS. If you want to talk about other forms of murder, then you can start another thread about that. Die even for minimum crimes? If you can justify killing someone for minor assault (a violent crime), then surely we can justify executing them for the same crime after the fact. Does the crime become less serious just because it was completed? Not my idea of a cool society. Have you ever been in a fight, any sort of physical confrontation in your life? Did you deserve to die for it? Would you, with a bullet in your belly - say "OK, I deserved that." Probably more a reflection of modern times. 30-40 years ago, I doubt that many burglars carried any weapons, they did not need to. Society now has more people and MANY more guns. Increasing the need for it. Violent movies in the 60's depicted street gang criminals with switch-blade knives. Now they are depicted with UZI's. Just a reflection of what society really is. More guns, more violence, more neat ways to die. I still say if the burglar had reasonable certainty that no one had a gun in the house, he would be less inclined to carry one. He is not there to kill, he is there to steal. Lots of bank robbers do not carry guns, they have no intention of killing anyone, the motive is robbery afterall. Makes my point very clearly - everyone screams about their rights. No one screams requesting that they be held responsible for their actions. It is a reflection of a greedy society, same in Canada. Everyone has rights, no one has responsibilities. The gun trhing was an amendment, an afterthought. At the time, it seemed liek a good idea. Today, it might be more prudent to 'amend' it again, adding something about your right to own a gun, and your responsibility to be trained, and realize that it is a deadly weapon, not to be taken lightly. Then perhaps we could put some tough laws on people who are not 'responsible' I agree, and a very rare one. Do I keep a defibrilation unit in the house in case I have a heart attack - most people cannot affford one. But it is a good idea, does not necessarily justify owning one. But I COULD have a heart attack at any time. Another solution might be to reduce the amount of gun shootings, partly by reducing the number of guns out there, use the money society saves in health care costs, lawsuits, crime prosecution, prisons, internment, parole boards and staffing police and such and funnel that money into the NG or whoever comes out to help you when your house blows down in a storm. But right now, we are pouring all of our money into punishing, we are still selling 9000-10,000 handguns a day in the country, and wondering why we have no social services to speak of. TK

Really? What about the guy you get into an arguement with at the shopping center line about cutting in line? He takes a shove at you.....is your life in danger? Do you shoot him? Do you realize that he has a family, wife, kids and life of his own? Or is it just OK to shoot anyone that threatenes you in any way? Is this REALLY the society that you want to live in? sounds pretty anti-social to me. TK

Yes, all my earlier quotes about stats, more than 10,000 people each year die from gunshot wounds. So that is 5000 in 6 months. Accidents are actually part opf my arguement, and for that matter suicides as well. Take the gun away, the accident probably will nto happen (all the crap I said about innocent people dying) i am not trying to solve the serial killer problem, it is relaitvely minor compared to the GUN problem. no I do not deserve to be mugged, but you did not answer my question - does someone deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue they mugged me? Sounds like Saudi Arabia where they cut your hands off for theft..... Yes but my question was why did he carry the gun for a burglary in the first place - we already know he is up to no good. Does the burglar deserve to DIE (or be shot, suffer massive injuries, long term repercussions and probably permanent health issues) just becasue he tried to steal my personal property? I do too, but I do not see America, manufacturers, or the NRA trying to put that sort of legislation on the table. Lots about defending your 'right' to own a gun, but not much about making the gun owners more responsible. If you have to take a driving test to drive a car, why not a shooting and handling test to carry a gun? Sounds fair to me? And again, I think that would help eliminate the 'unwanted guns'. people would have to be more serious about owning one, knowing that they have to train to use it. That would help reduce the accidental shootings that i have a problem with. And that was a valid argument 200 years ago, but does not apply today. I asked in an ealrier post: "If you ask the average gun owner why he owns a gun - will they answer 'because I am afraid that the government will commit genocide?' " (or in your case, own a gun becuase I might need a revolutiojn someday) Do you really believe that you will need to overthrow the government in your lifetime? Are you going to keep a loaded gun in youe glovebox or desk drawer for that? silly No, I would blame the fact that he had the gun, and unsafely stowed. i would support the legislation that says he cannot keep that gun laying aroudn the house for kids to pick up. It is probably already in place, but since he never had any real firearms training, and no one bothers to enforce the law, then it is useless. And if i regulated the guns a little more closer, made it a pain in the ass for him to own a gun, he might not have bothered to get it in the first place. You did not say 'drinking', you said 'drunk'. We were not, and i resent that fact that you might think i would be that careless with a firearm, given that you know virtually nothing about my firearms training, other than what i told you AFTER you posted that. I never specifically mentioned YOUR training. You are probably highly trained and I would have less of an issue with you carrying a handgun all day long if you want because of that. The major point of my debate is 'unnecessary guns', 'too many people dying from guns', 'too many idiots with guns', therefore making it a 'gun problem' which again I think America is in denial about. TK

I disagree. More people are killed by guns in 6 months in the USA than were killed in ALL the incidents that you describe. Yes, death and murder happen. But LESS of it would happen if the gun was NOT the tool. Violence will still happen but to a lesser degree if the gun was not there - and less of it. Most burglars do not enter a house to kill, they enter a house to steal. They carry a gun now because the owner might have one. And by eliminating the root cause, I did not mean the person - but the social aspect of a culture that seems to endorse and promote violence with violence. Putting people in prison already does not work. They get out, and they learn to be better criminals in prison. Are you going to put everyone away for life just because they committed a gun crime? Or do we try to stop the problem BEFORE it becomes a gun crime? Not much point in your argument if the gun crime has already been committed. THat was the point in my post. The guns cause more 'accidents' than society (a civilized society) should tolerate. Has anyone defined 'violent crime' in this discussion? Everyone likes to state that it is on the rise, but is someone pushing someone down on the sidewalk, kicking them and stealing their money considered a violent crime? Probably, but do I need a gun to defend myself from that? Does the mugger deserve to DIE because he took my wallet? Does he carry a gun and shoot my ass off first because he thinks I might have a gun? Then you use that as a reason why I should have had a gun in the first place to defend myself, because now your arguement was that he was planning to shoot me anyway. It is a spiralling cyclic arguement that has no end. I doubt most violent crime would still end in death if the gun was not involved in the picture. Should we be proud that American hopitals are the best in the world at handling gunshot wounds? Shoudl paramedics have to wear flack jackets in the field for fear of being shot? Paranoid and delusional. If there were NO handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun. That is a fact - as far at it may seem, it is still a fact. America lives in total denial that there is a problem and the fact that it is OK for so many innocent people to die by handguns each year is beyond my comprehension. If it was YOUR kid that got shot by his friend's gun, would you stand there and defend to the death his right to have that gun? Actually I was not drunk that night and we were shooting just fine with a well-prepared plan, direction of shotting, safeguards in place and several trained people there to help out. I have EXTENSIVE firearms training, have competed in handgun, rifle, trap and skeet competitions over the years, been shooting since I was 6 years old. My uncle had a collection of more than 300 pieces, and I learned a lot from him. I own 13 various guns right now (no handguns), but do not shoot much any more. My guns are locked in a safe 24/7 because I do not acutally believe that I will (or should) ever need a loaded gun at my disposal for fear of my house being broken into. I have 5 dogs - how about we trade the guns for dogs if burglary is what people worry about? So my background is one of experience. I believe that people should be forced to learn to use the tools that you so widely support. Then it might actually be safer. But some redneck with a 357 magnum in his glovebox is 'not' a needed weapon. And it is more likely to do some innocent person harm than ever defend him when needed. TK

Yes, but the automobile (and household poisons and knives and other ways of dying) actually have some OTHER useful purpose in life, whereas a handgun does not - it was designed solely for the purpose of killing. do you REALLY believe that if we polled Americans that own guns, their first reply would be "I own a gun because I m afraid that the government someday will try to commit genocide?" Most people either hunt or have it for self defense. (meaning they too are willing to kill someone) Which only reinforces my earlier points - let's put EVERYONE in jail who has commited a crime - which is pretty much all of us. We have all done something wrong in our lifetimes - legislation that you seem to support is typically hypocritical. How about eliminate the problem from the root? If the guy never had a gun in the first place, he would not have been able to commit a gun-related crime. DO they really support gun safety? Are they lobbying to have everyone go through safety programs? I do not see any such legislation on the table. It is a smoke screen to get you to believe that they really care, when they really just care about some 200 year old amendment that has little relevance today. I guess I was wrong all along - I guess it is OK for kids to pick up Dad's gun and shoot their brother and call it an 'accident'. I guess it is OK for me to shoot that guy who tried to mug me, when all he really wanted was the $20 in my pocket, but now he carries a gun because he thinks I might have one too. Do people really deserve to die for petty crimes? I guess it is OK when I get pulled over for speeding that 2 cops to approach my car, with holsters un-snapped, in case there is a shoot-out - since I might have a gun in my car. (And if I get shot because I flinched the wrong way, for that to be a 'tragic accident'). I guess it is OK for me to live in a country where I have to worry about getting in a fender-bender and having the other guy get into a fight with me and maybe shoot my ass just because he has a gun in his glove box. I love walking down the street wondering who might try to kill me - great peace of mind. It is the same kind of paranoid fear the government loves to keep you in so they can convince you of pretty much anything they want. I guess it is OK for all these people to be dead - nice to know that human life is worth so much...... TK

kind of hard to enforce training and protect anominity - how would you know who was trained and who was not? The NRA called me yesterday playing some tape about the gov't trying to take away my freedom of speech - I think the NRA is a paranoid organization funded by large businesses, like winchester and the chemical manufacturers that make bullets. It is big business. If they really cared, then why are they not pushing forward with proposals for said training and said 'anominity'? TK

OK, let's look at the percentages then (for murders) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap We are #24, but the difference is that England, Canada, Norway, Germany, most of Europe are much better than us. Most of the countries that are worse than us are 3rd world poverty countries - we keep some good company I see.... right up there with Venezuela, Costa Rica, Zimbabwe - woohoo! Now let's just look at gun related deaths: http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html We are at the top - again the nearest 1st world countries are Ireland and Finalnd, with less than half the deaths that we have. Both countries have 'slack gun laws', but most of the world countries we compare ourselves to have death rates that are a fraction of ours. and for more numbers: http://students.washington.edu/mitsuo/gunDeathStats.html So once again I state "We do have a gun problem" TK

Is that really the reason the Olympic team is training in anbother country? I doubt that there is a document somewhere that states that - so stop trying to twist things. read my post again "If there were NO hangunds, then no one could get killed by a handgun" Same as today - no one gets killed by a left-atomizing parallel deflector phaser - because they do not exist. Violent crime has many reasons for its existence. The USA is not necessarily any safer because there are so many guns. But the USA has thousands more unnecessary killings than other countries - probably directly related to the number of readily available firearms. I did not say to ban them, but making people learn how to use them would probably be all that is needed to get the unwanted guns off the streets. Of course, most Americans would say it is unrealistic. Too bad no one has 'ideals' except the anti-gun lobby. The pro-gun lobby appears to not have any particular ideals on solving violent crime, expect more prisons and more guns. That should solve it by God, soon we will all be in jail... TK

you limited the choices pretty much - How about adding: 1. The USA has a gun problem, even if no one else seems to want to admit it 2. If there were no handguns, then no one could be killed by a handgun 3. Cars are registered...why not guns? 4. I support some sort of gun control to help keep unnecessary guns off the streets. 5. I support gun ownership, but only if the owner is properly trained in its use, for both hunting and for self defense. etc etc etc TK

I do not have the arm strength anymore to do 6-8 tandems a day without being pooped out. I teach the students to flare, the stages and so on, then we practice it a couple times, then we do it - I have no problems with it whatsoever. TK

probably about the same time the US Armed forces makes it's C-130's open to skydivers.

culture wasn't the issue....

good point but I said it first - NYAHHHH! Actually OI agree with you and I should not be name calling - but REALLY! what an absolute TROLL the first post was/is. All it does is stir up shit. But when we say Americans are arrogant and then you threaten to not be our friends anymore - all you did/do was/is prove our point. Canada is a GREAT country, and so is the USA, but your foreign policy sucks. It always has (at least since WWII) and all you really see is yourselves., Hard to preach freedom and then tromp all over everyone else's gettin there. You look like knobs. I think that is the essence of why the world has an issue with the USA. A little compassion goes a long way. TK