Guns

[The new erato]

Two reasons: the rights enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments are seen as fundamental and inherent (or God-given) ones that are being formally and legally preserved from governmental subversion or abuse, not rights being granted by the government.

That is a particularly US view. You would do well to move into mothern times rather than to continue to live in the 18th century.

[Todd]

Private argument about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment will soon be rendered moot, however, since SCOTUS has granted cert in the Heller case in which they apparently intend to rule on the individual vs collective right issue.

Wait a minute, how do you know it will be rendered moot?  Do you already know the Court's decision?

[Scriptavolant]

Secondly, a gun handled safely and responsibly poses no threat to anyone. (Follow these rules at all times and no one will be hurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety)

But it is already evident that it does pose threats to a lot of people.
It's like the (hypothetic) right to drive tanks on the highway. The point is not to drive safely and responibly but to abrogate this right, since it would be completely useless.

[carlos]

It's no use to ban fire arms. Almost anything can be
lethal. You can kill with a pencil, or your lenses
(remember the end of "Godfather III"?). Men is a
biological predator and will kill another until human
beings disappear.

[Grazioso]

God-given, you say? Did Adam & Eve have the right to own guns, then?

You'd have to ask the Founding Fathers about that. But certainly in the Bible, just peoples were expected to fight oppression with both violence and God's sanction.

So if, say, a vast majority would claim for gun control, this would make it ok, right?

A majority opinion is not necessarily a correct or wise opinion.

That is a particularly US view. You would do well to move into mothern times rather than to continue to live in the 18th century.

Good values are timeless And you shouldn't be listening to classical music because it's old and irrelevant

But it is already evident that it does pose threats to a lot of people.

Please read what I said: if handled with proper care, guns pose no risk to anyone. They are inanimate objects that can only harm through human use or misuse. You should be concerned with the people who would misuse any weapon and the factors that lead them to do so.

It's like the (hypothetic) right to drive tanks on the highway. The point is not to drive safely and responibly but to abrogate this right, since it would be completely useless.

But owning a gun is not useless. Ask anyone who's defended themselves with one or put food on the table with one or fought tyranny with one.

[Florestan]

Guns are designed specifically for maiming or killing. Why would you want to own one?

[Todd]

Guns are designed specifically for maiming or killing. Why would you want to own one?

Not all guns are designed to maim and kill.  There are both pistols and rifles designed for competitive target shooting.  Beyond that, many people simply like to target shoot with standard firearms at designated ranges.  What's wrong with that?  Nothing, of course.

[Florestan]

Ok, let's put it another way: if I were a citizen of your states, Grazioso and Todd, what requirements should I meet in order to own a fully functional gun, whatever its purpose?

[Todd]

A buyer must be 18 or older and pass a background check, whether buying from a dealer or at a gun show.  Quite reasonable, actually.

[Florestan]

A buyer must be 18 or older and pass a background check, whether buying from a dealer or at a gun show.  Quite reasonable, actually.

"Background check" --- meaning what, exactly?

[Todd]

"Background check" --- meaning what, exactly?

I must assume you are not American since this issue has cropped up frequently over the past decade or two.  When a person buys a firearm, the seller - whether a dealer or gun show seller - is required to do a criminal background check using a statewide database.  If the buyer has been convicted of a felony, the firearm cannot be sold.  Gun show sellers are reputed to be less rigorous in applying this, but it varies.  Dealers are more fastidious, since the Police acquire copies of their records.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Secondly, a gun handled safely and responsibly poses no threat to anyone.

That may well be true, but human nature being what it is, accidents can happen, and some have proven fatal (as when we read periodically of a child getting hold of a gun and blowing a sibling's brains out). Similarly, an automobile handled safely and responsibly should pose no threat to anyone, but vehicular accidents occur continually, many as the result of driver error. Somehow I have managed to survive for nearly 60 years without feeling the slightest need for a gun. Maybe if I were the victim of an armed attack I would feel otherwise, but I have yet to be convinced that owning a personal weapon is a necessity under most normal circumstances.

[Florestan]

I must assume you are not American

Indeed.

If the buyer has been convicted of a felony, the firearm cannot be sold. 

Is that all? I might be insane. Or a serial killer. I might want to take revenge on someone. Or to shoot randomly in a mall, a university hall or a high-school classroom. Or, simply, I might have not the slightest idea how to properly handle and use a gun and instead of hitting the target I miss and hit somebody.

[Todd]

Is that all? I might be insane. Or a serial killer. I might want to take revenge on someone. Or to shoot randomly in a mall, a university hall or a high-school classroom. Or, simply, I might have not the slightest idea how to properly handle and use a gun and instead of hitting the target I miss and hit somebody.

A standard, tired diatribe.  I believe there are restrictions against certain forms of mental illness, provided they have been reported, but the other parts of your rhetorical question are hollow.  The events you mention are extremely rare anyway, and it is questionable whether any laws will prevent such actions from happening.  Perhaps you can offer some evidence that serial killers are deterred by strict gun laws, for instance.  (And are firearms their weapons of choice?)  The other, high-profile, and thus high emotional impact cases are always a favorite of anti-firearm crowds, though generally speaking those aren't crimes of passion - they are usually planned out in advance, and no background check can divine the intention of a buyer.  I'm also interested in knowing exactly how many crimes of passion there are each year, where someone rushes out to buy a gun with the immediate purpose of killing a specific person (or people).  I read about such things in arguments like this, yet I've not seen anything to indicate that it happens a lot.  Do you have any information on that?

As to the last point, about user carelessness or ineptness, that is a grossly overblown concern.  Aside from children inadvertently shooting people (which is a remediable situation), there really aren't that many accidental shootings.  I'm quite certain more people die or get injured every year as the result of careless driving.  Concerns about criminality are legitimate when it comes to gun control; accidents are largely irrelevant.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But owning a gun is not useless. Ask anyone who's defended themselves with one or put food on the table with one or fought tyranny with one.

But other than self-defense (which I concede is a valid claim), neither of your other points holds much weight in 21st-century America. I do not have to hunt venison to put meat on my table when I can head to the local supermarket, and other than dealing with my boss, I have no need to fight tyranny in my daily life.

On the other hand, if - and I don't think it's a possibility that can be ruled out given today's world - 20-30 years from now this country is overwhelmed with Muslim extremists threatening our freedom, I might well be standing on line to purchase a firearm to do my share to protect the nation.

[Florestan]

If my three-liner is a diatribe, then what is your inflamed response?  

[Todd]

If my three-liner is a diatribe, then what is your inflamed response?

I was unaware that it was "inflamed."  I must assume that you are not going to actually provide any data to back up or otherwise support your ideas and rhetorical questions.  You know, serial killers and rampant accidental fatalities and such.

[Florestan]

I was unaware that it was "inflamed."  I must assume that you are not going to actually provide any data to back up or otherwise support your ideas and rhetorical questions.  You know, serial killers and rampant accidental fatalities and such.

If I recall correctly, 4 shootings have taken place this year in various locations across US. Not that many, as you say (the victims and their families might strongly disagree, though) but what is the limit above which you would consider it a serious problem? Do you have a threshold that makes this type of crimes acceptable if their frequency and number of victims stay below it? Is this the famous "price people has to pay for liberty"?

[Todd]

If I recall correctly, 4 shootings have taken place this year in various locations across US. Not that many, as you say (the victims and their families might strongly disagree, though) but what is the limit above which you would consider it a serious problem?

I was commenting on accidental fatalities in my last reply; I believe the shootings you are referring to were intentional.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[Florestan]

I was commenting on accidental fatalities in my last reply

Let's say they were 4, and the crimes of passion were also 4 --- not that many, as you say, although the victims and their families might disagree. I reiterate my questions: what is the limit above which you would consider it a serious problem? Do you have a threshold that makes this type of crimes or fatalities acceptable if their frequency and number of victims stay below it?