Another reason to support the right to arms...?

"Police say a costumed 9-year-old girl was accidentally shot outside a home during a Halloween party by a relative who thought she was a skunk.

The girl was over a hillside and wearing a black costume and a black hat with a white tassel. Chief Ronald Leindecker of the New Sewickley Township police says a male relative mistook her for a skunk and fired a shotgun, hitting her in the shoulder Saturday night.

Leindecker said the girl was alert and talking when she was flown to a hospital in Pittsburgh, about 50 kilometres away. Her condition was unavailable.

Leindecker says the man hadn’t been drinking. He doesn’t know whether charges will be filed."

- thestar.com

Such reasoning as using this against the right to bare arms is comparable to saying "Since he had hands that could pull the trigger, or swing a sword, or stab with a knife we are seriously considering the implication of allowing The People to have hands. It would be fare more efficient to simply remove those hands at birth and prevent such tragedy in the future."

Hog wash I tell you, anyone who knows anything about killing will tell you that any improvised defenses is at least as dangerous and unpredictable as a firearm.

That said I'm shocked and appalled that the first response was to use this as a political ploy when my first response was "Oh MY GOD THAT POOR LITTLE GIRL!!!"

I weep for that girl, but I also weep for a system of thinking and reasoning that will turn her into a martyr to further repress a people who once were known as the most free in all the land.

I weep for the world we leave my nephews. I hope one day if the time comes they can pick up uncle Chuck's swords and know they have the right to protect themselves with those honored blades.

There is precisely no reason as to why the right to care fire arms is an essential part of freedom. The right to protect oneself sure must be there. Does that mean people should be able to arm themselves with lethal weaponry such as a shotgun?
And also, a skunk may be not the most welcome animal in a garden, but is not a danger in such a manner that to shoot it with a shotgun is the only way or in fact an appropriate way to deal with it. Fortunately though (sarcasm) this man had a shotgun and didn't have to look first or to think about dealing with the problem differently. I guess that this girl will never cross his garden again.

whether americans do or do not agree with your first statement is irrelevant at this point. you cannot shove all 300 million (known) firearms in the country back in pandoras's gun box. to even try is to invite insurrection, civil war.

the guns are here. now how do we deal with them in a rational manner?

Desolous wrote:
you cannot shove all 300 million (known) firearms in the country back in pandoras's gun box.

Actually, yes, you can. This is exactly what the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested all over his 'Leviathan'. And I think that if he was so wrong then he wouldn't be studied by the political rebuilders of Northern African and Middle East countries. Not to mention the fact that it did work in many European countries already, centuries ago. Now, that doesn't mean it will also work in the United States now; granted. But that's just because someone very clever said that US people have the right for self-armament some 200-300 years ago and just as soon as other clever politicians of today get people to challenge that delusion, a resolution of the problem will be apparent. And yes, I dare call it a problem for people in a country where everyone can be armed with lethal armory is and will remain a country in which people must fear each other.
That being said, I'm out of this topic for I know my opinion to be so wrong to most that I admit not to be able to withstand the counter-arguments that are yet to come. But at least I helped Jon settle a worthy discussion.
Have fun, fellow Jedi

do you know how many times i have heard or read the phrase 'they can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands'?


no, you cant. not in this country.

/said the phrase myself more than once.

Desolous wrote: whether americans do or do not agree with your first statement is irrelevant at this point. you cannot shove all 300 million (known) firearms in the country back in pandoras's gun box. to even try is to invite insurrection, civil war.

the guns are here. now how do we deal with them in a rational manner?

As most countries have already experienced concerning various issues, some people may feel so strongly about this that they may consider a civil war necessary if that is what it takes. The feelings of a mother who has lost her child as it could have turned out in this case should not be underestimated.

This is not the first time that I have seen this debate on these forums, nor, I'm sure, will it be the last.

It never resolves because on the whole (admittedly there are exceptions) Americans go "being able to kill people is a human right" and the rest of us go "if only you'd all open your eyes..."

UraharaKiskue wrote: I weep for that girl, but I also weep for a system of thinking and reasoning that will turn her into a martyr to further repress a people who once were known as the most free in all the land.

Not being allowed something that our world would be much better off without is not repression. I have genuinely had to fight the temptation to leave the Temple when this discussion has come up in the past, because I cannot but react with horror and disgust when large numbers of Jedi think that you should be allowed a gun if you want one. To me, a true Jedi could not hold that view.

And you all know me...I virtually never say anything that blunt. And if you actually don't know me...that last sentence wasn't sarcastic...

Gisteron wrote: There is precisely no reason as to why the right to care fire arms is an essential part of freedom. The right to protect oneself sure must be there. Does that mean people should be able to arm themselves with lethal weaponry such as a shotgun?

Exactly.


However, unfortunately I think Desolous is correct in his assertion that:

Desolous wrote: you cannot shove all 300 million (known) firearms in the country back in pandoras's gun box.

I'm sure I remember saying something similar in a thread about whether police in the UK should have guns - once they're out there, it's very hard to get rid of them. That said, you can't just say "they're out there already so therefore we can't consider making them illegal". That's like saying that having laws against criminality is pointless because you will never be able to prevent every single criminal act. It's about standing up for what is right rather than passively allowing things that are wrong.


Apologies if I've managed to offend anyone. I feel [strike]quite[/strike] very strongly on this topic. Can you tell? :laugh:

Most things for me are negotiable. This is one of my few absolutes.

Lol., I have lost count of the number of times we have discussed this. But is not each human life lost worth at least a question even if it is the same one? Or is human life really become a statistic which we refer to on occasions like this to assure ourselves? And even if this girl is not dead, her life will never be the same again. She has lost it as she knew it.

Well, when the constitution was written, the right to bear arms was essential to maintaining freedom. When The united states were first formed, we had no standing military. Anyone invading our country would have had to face off against a f-ton of pissed of gun owners though. I think it can still serve this purpose today, though the invading force, may infact be our own government. Second, home defense. i don't know how effective police forces are where you're from, but in Kansas try as hard as they might, everything is really spread out and response times are pretty high, especially in the more rural areas. If the homeowner's life is in danger, they have the right to defend themselves by the most effective means available. Third, I know this argument won't be popular, but making guns illegal won't stop gun crime. The whole point of being a criminal is that you don't obey the law. But aggressive gun control hasn’t prevented multiple-victim public shootings in Europe.

"In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade." (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-07-25/news/32853144_1_gun-control-jeanne-assam-gunman-intent).

Taking away our guns won't stop gun violence, or violence in general. That is not the route to take. Instead, try to make people better people.