Firearms

[Bob Phillips]

However, in that 32,000 number, slightly more than half were actually suicides, and then a large chuk of what was left were a result of accidental discharge. The number of deaths resulting from Person A intending to shoot at Person B, while tragically large, does not come close to approaching 32,000.

I am not arguing that guns creates more intentional shootings (although I belive that it does), but that it creates more deaths period. A suicide, or an accidental discharge is as much a waste of a life as being shot by somebody holding up the local liquor store.

This statement shows a misunderstanding of American history. Please do not take offense--most US citizens would not do any better. When the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia", the term did not refer to a "National Guard" or similar military force. The term at that time basically described all able-bodied adult men who have had at least rudimentary training in operating a firearm.

Absolutely no offense taken, the argument is more important. I accept it was a very different militia, but it was still REGULATED. Nobody could call gun ownership in modern day USA regulated in any form whatsoever.

[/quote=matthewspatrick]The writings of many of the "Founding Fathers" indicates that they fully intended the 2nd Amendment to confer the right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, they saw having private citizens being able to defend themselves as one of the guarantors of liberty and the last defense against a tyrannical, overreaching government. (Recall that the framers of the Constitution tended to fear a strong central government. Recall that the wording of the Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10, tends to say more about what the federal government cannot do than what it can do.)[/quote]

I think that is highly debatble. Just look at that Wiki article I posted earlier, it has been debated enormously, upto and including you Supreme Court.

That sort of gun control is very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but how effective is it at keeping the criminals unarmed?

Streets more effective than in your country.

In our society, there is a very strong presumption that if people want to do something they should be allowed to, unless the government can present a very compelling reason why they should not. There is no reasonable person who thinks pedophilia should be allowed. There are plenty of (IMHO) reasonable people who think firearms should be allowed with some reasonable restrictions.

I accept that point, but let's not get bogged down with my comparative. Just because that strong presumption exists, and just because reasonable people like yourself will argue for it, it does not make it right, or even civilised IMO.

Bush received campaign contributions from the NRA and its members, Bob, but it is absolutely not true that he has ever argued for unlimited gun access. Unlimited access means just that. It means things like "convicted criminals should be allowed to buy" and "there should be no background checks whatsoever." Bush is on record as an advocate of enforcing existing federal gun laws (which include such restrictions as limiting the ability of people with criminal convictions to get guns, and also mandating background checks).

That said, Bush is also for relaxing some limits (for example, he is a fan of "instant" background checks, which to me is just patently ridiculous).

So, let's be honest and accurate, especially when it comes to making statements about what we think other people believe.

Four things here:
- I wasn't referrring to Bush, but that guy who lambasted Hugo Chavez (for criticising Bush). I suggested (but do not know) that jingoists like him were in the pay of the NRA, the point I was making (and XLGibbs made better) was that such law-making is in the purview of large organisations that run the funding of politicians
- Bush's wanting to relax limits (because it works so well doesn't it) is not the action of someone who believes in gun controls
- demonstrate to me, with references, that he has never always argued against anyone who advocated unlimited gun control, and vetoed it if necessary
- do you honestly believe that in the USA the law that excludes criminals from buying guns has any effect whatsoever?

Yes, there is a certain logic to Iran being allowed to have nukes, but then again it is a very flawed analogy: the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation. In any event, I see a close to zero percent chance that Israel would ever make an offensive nuclear strike against Iran: it is unclear that Israel would be able to strike enough targets to be effective, and the moment it tried to do so Israel would find itself embroiled in a fight for its very survival and almost certainly abandoned by all its allies. Nukes are not for using, they are for having (i.e., their value comes from being a deterrent), and I think the Israeli government fully understands that.

I am sorry, but I find that argument laughable in it's lack of rigour and naievety. If nuclear weapons are for having not for using, their value is nil. Israel believes (and I do) that in the event of a strike against her the USA would support her all the way.

As for '... the rights and privileges accorded to a private citizen in a democracy are not the same as those accorded a sovereign nation ..', that is totally immaterial, we are talking about governments, and global interests. If you believe that the USA would not deploy exactly the same sort of measures that Iran would to protect what they see as their interests, I think you are deluding yourself. In that case, why are you in Iraq, but not in Somalia; why do you support a totalitarian Saudi Arabia, and so many more.