Skip to main content

View Diary: Why a gun owner opposes...Part III (25 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sadly, no right to life and limb (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet, LilithGardener

    Sadly, the Bill or Rights includes no right to be free of getting shot by an errant gun owner.  Many Americans see the right not to be shot as a funadmental human right, one that should not be restricted by gun enthusiasts.  Here in America, we hold bullets as more sacred than human bodies.

    The number of people injuried and killed every year by gunshot is documented by law enforcement and the Centers for Disease Control.  Gun enthusiasts like to claim there are millions who are "saved by guns" (whatever that means), but despite being asked many times over, can never identify any similar unbiased professional source that can support their claims.  The police report many instances of gun owners getting into disagreements with each other and then shooting at each other; I supposed in the minds of gun enthusiasts that qualifies as two separate instances of being "saved by guns" (or more properly, two separate criminal uses of a gun) (and is too frequently documented by law enforcement).  George Zimmerman famously claims he has been "saved by guns", so be sure to include him in your tallies.

    Though a large group, gun owners still represent a minority of Americans.  Hence, it makes sense to accord the fears of non-gun owners at least as important as the fears of gun owners when crafting laws regarding guns sales and use.  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 12:39:46 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  HJB you ignored the Pittman-Robertson (7+ / 0-)

      reference.  $4.5 billion.

      There's already a percentage added to sales of firearms, ammunition and components - earmarked for wildlife conservation.

      If a 20 round box of 9mm cartridges went from $22.50 to $25.00 at a local retailer, some people would complain - and pony-up the extra $2.50, supporting the medical costs.

      The problem as DSK pointed-out is the concept of a Chris Rock-inspired tax:
      Bullets @ $1000 each, which was met here with a chorus of: fuck yeah!  that's it, screw the teabaggers!

      As the learned Otteray Scribe noted in another diary: Creating of an environment ripe for Black Marketeers is no means of ensuring public safety.
      Chicago's violence of the 1920s wasn't caused by guns, nor cured by the National Firearm Act of 1934.
      It was caused by Prohibition, and cured by the repeal of the Volstead Act, which ended the conditions advantageous for Black Marketeers.   Thus ending war between factions seeking control of the trade.

      $1000 per bullet?
      Will result in the public buying bullets from Black Marketeers for $10 each, with no tax revenue collected.

      The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them.” ~ Joseph Heller, Catch-22

      by 43north on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 01:28:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In talking with an NRA lobbyist ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock, KVoimakas, Joy of Fishes

      which was an interesting event.  He was part time, paid a small stipend for lobby work at the State house.

      He answered that IF (like it couldn't happen) someone was hit by an errant gun shot, the law is clear that the shooter is responsible and liable for damages.  

      It might be possible to get a law passed that holds a person 100% responsible for where each bullet goes all the time. (Something NRA safety instructors say over and over)  And add an extra financial penalty to the charges of negligent discharge.

      As for George Z? We don't know if he was "saved by guns" until after the trial.  The NRA has been big in publishing "saved by gun" stories and there is a "guns save lives" web page to try to counter the "gun fail" pages.  

      The numbers of self defense gun use is weird.  One study says the FBI says 1.5 million times a year, LA Times says less than 250,000 times a year.  Each use a different measure, but no one really uses a good one.

      Is the guy walking down the street at night, who comes on a group of teens who eye him till he puts his hand on his gun using the gun to protect himself?  Or did he just scare a bunch of teens who thought it was weird that an adult would be out in that area?  We know how the NRA sees it.  But if you ask the guy, he would not be able to tell you yes or no.

      What makes it hard to determine self defense use is the claim that "a vast majority of defensive gun use never results in a shot fired or the police called".  My other brother says he pulled his gun one night coming home from work when two men with a knife out tried to stop him in an alley he was cutting through.  He said he did not call the cops because having the gun at work (a college) violated Sate law.  (which means he was breaking the law and then later used a gun to "save his life" or wallet).

      Was that a defensive use? He is not 100% sure they had a knife or just a small stick, or that they were trying to rob him.  They just asked him why he thought he could cut through their alley.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 02:11:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed, we will have meaningful legislation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      and public education, when gun owners come to see that suicide by gun is neither a right nor a benefit, and when they come around to see that shootings by children and teens, and shootings by anyone under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or rage, reflect failures of the general gun ownership culture, rather than inevitable accidental shootings.

      The preventing and reducing the menace of gun misuse is every bit as important as the preventing and reducing the menace of effing with the vote.

      The Connecticut Effect is not going away.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 03:46:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is suicide a human right or not? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        Or must we be burdened with the expense of using hospitals and medical personnel to self-terminate at our own choosing?

        Your hate-mail will be graded.

        by PavePusher on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 02:43:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Deliberately side stepped the point (0+ / 0-)

          Of course the right to die is a human right (IMO), but that doesn't mean that people have the right to use a bridge, a vehicle, a building, a gun, or a drug to die.

          Suicide by gun is more successful than other forms in part because the impulsive urge to die is more easily completed.

          The problem with your stance is that the mental distortions that precede impulsive suicide by gun too often sweep away others right to continue living.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 06:05:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site