A man who makes Al Gore seem somewhat normal

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 19 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]426199[/snapback]</div>

I was just reading the first couple of posts and boy is this thread off topic!

I agree, most liberals are not anti-gun or anti-2nd Amendment. I know plenty of people who are both a liberal and a gun owner. Being a Democrat does not mean you can't also be a member of the NRA. But even as a avid gun rights supporter, I'll be the first to say that better gun laws are needed. Not stricter or more restrictive, but better. There is a huge distinction. The problem arises though about states rights versus the federal government. Should there be federal gun laws? If you do, you step on the states toes and violate their rights to regulate their own citizens. But what if the states aren't up to par. As is now apparent to most people, gun laws vary wildly from state to state. Some states have stricter laws (of questionable effectiveness) and others have lax laws (of questionable effectiveness). Maybe setting certain federal minimum standards and letting the states flesh out the details is the answer. And if there is a conflict then the state law supersedes the federal law when dealing with guns in that state, so long as the state law does not lower those standards (i.e. making sure you get maximum protection/effectiveness). But as with all things, there is likely not any good compromise that both sides will be amicable to.

As far as that accidental shooting. What can you say to the mother. Nothing that I can think of will make any sort of difference. It was a tragic accident. If the laws there are like the laws here, then the grandfather is going to be held criminally liable for leaving a loaded firearm accessible to a child. Of course, what does that solve. Now the son is dead, and the grandfather is in prison. Great solution.

A better option is better firearm education. My wife does not allow any firearms in our house. She never said I can't own them, just can't keep them in the house. Fair compromise. Now as soon as my kids are old enough to hold a gun, I am going to take them to the shooting range and educate them thoroughly on proper gun use. you need to make sure they know.

Some people feel the best option is to keep their kids as far from guns as possible. Never expose them to the evil things and there won't ever be a problem. So what happens if they come across one at a friends house. Isn't is better that the child knows not to touch it. That they know how dangerous they are. That they know the proper way of handling one so no one gets hurt?

There are millions of households in this country that have children and guns. There are thankfully very few cases of accidental shootings though. I like to think that most people teach their kids properly, so they know not to touch them. Those few tragedies that do happen are, in my opinion, of a negligent parent/adult, who left a loaded firearm within reach of a child and who did not educate them properly.

I grew up in a rural farming community. Everyone had a gun (still do I imagine), but I can't recall a single incident of an accidental shooting. Kids grew up with guns and knew how to use them, and more importantly how NOT to use them.

I don't know if anyone can tell, but this is one subject I feel strongly about.

Now what does all this have to do with Edwards, Gore, Limbaugh and their huge homes? Nothing at all really, but I bet all of them have a firearm in there somewhere. Hell, even Nancy Pelosi has a concealed carry permit! Not sure what kind of heat she's packing though...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 19 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]426218[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the NRA opposes such measures, but many, many people are against any such database where the government could keep track of people. This type of registration would have to be national for it to be at all effective. Look at the opposition to the national ID card that was suggested after 9/11 as a way of keeping out terrorists. This idea was shot down by both the right and the left as a really bad idea.

Rep. Ron Paul - R, Texas "National ID cards are not proper in a free society,†Paul stated. “This is America, not Soviet Russia. The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.â€

Marvin J. Johnson, ACLU Legislative Counsel: "A national ID card would only serve to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy and do little to ensure our security. Our privacy must not be swept away by Congress, especially when there has been little discussion on the ramifications of such a move."



Likewise, any sort of national gun registration system is seen as a direct violation of a citizens privacy. It's not just the NRA that opposes this sort of registration system, but many groups that support privacy rights. The old "slippery slope" argument comes into play. First guns, but what is next. What will be the next thing deemed dangerous enough to require national registration.


Like I said before, this country has a problem (well several really). We need to look for a solution rather than placing blame. Just standing on opposite sides of the aisle and yelling at each other ad nauseum solves nothing. Find a solution, not a temporary patch, a stop-gap measure, a quick fix.

But also, and more importantly, think with your head, not your heart. Many of these issues are very much emotionally charged. As cold as it seems, you need to keep the emotion out if you want to find a real solution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 19 2007, 02:36 PM) [snapback]426218[/snapback]</div>

Good, I do too. It is a stupid idea.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DocVijay @ Apr 19 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]426232[/snapback]</div>

They already know where I live, what cars I drive, how much I make, etc. I'd be willing to disclose whether I own a gun or not if it will save 1 life.

 

In the history of the world:

A Gun NEVER Killed Anyone! Period!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Apr 19 2007, 04:25 PM) [snapback]426297[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. Guns don't kill people. People kill people...but the gun helps...

Also,

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But monkeys do too (if they've got a gun)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmtX6Tj74oU

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 19 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]426298[/snapback]</div>

Or a knife.. or scissors... or a pencil.. or a pen.. or a toothbrush.... OR gasoline.. fertilizer.. IEDs..

 

"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows? "

 

Meanwhile, Edwards has reimbursed his campaign for the $800. The bill was misdirected to the campaign and inadvertantly paid.

And John McCain makes a joke out of war with Iran by singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann. And they say Republicans don't have a sense of humor.

Speaking of Republicans...Pete McClosky isn't one anymore.

Here's what he said:

A pox on Republicans and their values.

"What finally turned me to despair, however, was listening to the reports, or watching on C-Span, a whole series of congressional oversight hearings on C-Span, held by old friends and colleagues like Pat Leahy, Henry Waxman, Norm Dicks, Nick Rahall, Danny Akaka and others, trying to learn the truth on the misdeeds and incompetence of the Bush Administration. Time after time I saw Republican Members of the House and Senate. speak out in scorn or derision about these exercises of Congress oversight responsibility being "witch-hunts" or partisan attempts to distort the actions of people like the head of the General Service Administration and the top political appointees in the Justice and Interior Departments. Disagreement turned into disgust.

I finally concluded that it was a fraud for me to remain a member of this modern Republican Party, that there were only a few like Chuck Hegel, Jack Warner, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins I could respect."

"....it seems that every Republican presidential candidate is now vying for the support of the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells rather than talking about a return to the values of the party I joined nearly 59 years ago. My favorite spokesmen have beome Senators Jim Webb and Barack Obama.

And so it was, that while at the Woodland courthouse the other day, passing by the registrar's office, I filled out the form to re-register as a Democrat."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 19 2007, 02:35 PM) [snapback]426303[/snapback]</div>

Knife attacks are far less likely to be lethal than gun attacks. Or to put it another way, when a looney comes after you with a knife, you've got a far better chance of survival than you do if he comes after you with a gun.

Charles Whitman would have killed far few people if he'd been throwing knives at them from that bell tower. :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 08:12 PM) [snapback]426468[/snapback]</div>

I know but the point is you can still kill a lot of people with any of those items. It is certainly easier to pull the trigger from 100 yards away.. but some homemade explosives can kill hundreds if not thousands all at once. You want to ban gasoline and fertilizer? Will that make the world a "better place"?

A knife.. think about someone in an extremely crowded place on a rampage with a knife.. At least a dozen fatalities I'm sure..

I guess my point is that banning something never works.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Apr 19 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]426048[/snapback]</div>

Right, and why did some senators vote against the resolution having seen the same evidence that Edwards saw?

Because they exercised the correct judgment while Edwards passionately suggested Saddam was an immediate threat and Blair was saying that Saddam could deliver a chemical weapon to the UK in 45 minutes :

Why didn't any non-anglo-saxon nation (other than Spain and Poland both have now withdrawn their troops and were never really contributed much) in the world buy into this, the way they bought in the first Iraq invasion or the Afghanistan regime?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 08:12 PM) [snapback]426468[/snapback]</div>

"Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 20 2007, 03:08 AM) [snapback]426598[/snapback]</div>

"Knife attacks are far less likely to be lethal than gun attacks. Or to put it another way, when a looney comes after you with a knife, you've got a far better chance of survival than you do if he comes after you with a gun.

Charles Whitman would have killed far few people if he'd been throwing knives at them from that bell tower. mad.gif"

As a student of Krav Maga i will disagree with you about surviving a lunatic attacking you with a gun or a knife - and this is a personal point of view after training many years against both threats. The proviso is that the attacker is hell bent on killing you. Attacks with hand guns are usually carried out from close distance as are knife attacks - obviously if the attacker uses the distance afforded by the gun there is nothing you can do - and most people realize hand guns become very inaccurate as the distance increases between the gun and the target. There is also the desire of the attacker to get in your face - the same as the guy who wields a knife. There is a sense of control and or fear that the attacker seems to thrive on.

An attacker with a gun is easier to disarm than if he is using a knife. The gun has only one vector from which death and destruction is distributed - while the knife has almost a limitless number of vectors he can attack from and multiple directions. As long as I am within striking distance, and if I can get to within reaching the gun with my own hands the probability of disarming and neutralizing the attacker is very high. The time to do both is about 5 to 10 seconds - and this can be done from any direction - even if you are in a kneeling position in front or behind the attacker. Trying to disarm a nut with a knife almost always leads to getting cut, it is just trying to minimize the location of the wound and its severity.

So if i had a choice of which type of weapon i had to face from a guy intent on killing me it would be a gun 100% of the time. Again, my own opinion, and after numerous years of training in both situations.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Apr 20 2007, 03:08 AM) [snapback]426598[/snapback]</div>

Imagine how much more quickly and/or how many more Tutsis the Hutu militia would have been able to kill if they had been using modern, efficient firearms.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 20 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]426618[/snapback]</div>

imagine iran with a nuke...... about one year or so away.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]426611[/snapback]</div>

If the d-man says knives are more dangerous, I think that proves conclusively that guns are more dangerous, since I am not aware of the d-man ever citing a supposed "fact" without turning it around 180 degrees. He is, in this respect, the most consistent poster on PriusChat.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 20 2007, 09:48 AM) [snapback]426712[/snapback]</div>

In his defense I think he meant light-saber.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Apr 20 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]426611[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking the same thing. After almost a decade of Karata, I'd much rather be attacked by someone with a gun than someone with a knife... not that I prefer to be attacked by anything.. but you know what I mean.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Apr 20 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]426618[/snapback]</div>

Your missing the point...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Apr 20 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]426744[/snapback]</div>

Au contraire, you are.

There is no way that Cho Seung-Hui could have killed 32 people had he been armed only with a knife. Perhaps one or two, but no more.