[barmar]

Accidental electrocution? How often does that happen? You have to first expose some high voltage wires, how do you do that accidentally? Are you talking about wires breaking (e.g. during a storm) and falling on a passerby? That's not a person causing the accident, it's more like being struck by lightning.

[barmar]

Also, I said "few other ways", not "no other ways". And those few other ways are unlikely to be as potentially destructive as guns and cars. You might accidentally electrocute yourself or one other person, but it would be pretty hard to accidentally electrocute several people at once, as you can with guns and cars.

The other important distinction is the balancing the need for the activity in which the accident might occur. It's acknowledged that car accidents are one of (if not the) most common causes of injury and death. But driving in cars is practically a necessity in modern life. Similarly, it would be completely impractical to stop using electricity, we have to live with the potential of electrical shocks.

Guns, however, are not a necessity. Even if you believe that gun ownership is a right, what is the need to have loaded weapons at a crowded event like a gun show? Put the weapons and ammunition on opposite sides of the trade show floor, so they'll never get together and cause harm. I guess the sellers want to be able to demonstrate the weapons, or buyers want to be able to "test drive" them. But is this really a venue where such activities should be encouraged? There are plenty of examples of hunters accidentally shooting each other (e.g. VP Cheney), and they're not crowded together. Firing loaded weapons in a crowd seems like asking for trouble. It's like drunk driving: you're not guaranteed to get into an accident, but the probability is higher and there's no good reason to allow it.

[mgoetze]

Are you saying it's not an accident if it's caused by negligence? Also, nowhere did I claim the probability is anywhere in the same ballpark, I'm just saying there are a lot of different types of ptentially lethal accidents.

[billw55]

I managed to teach my kids the difference between accident and negligence by the time they were about 10 years old.

[mgoetze]

I'm not saying they're the same word, but the way I use the word "accident", negligence is one of the possible causes.

[kenberg]

I think this argument that guns are needed to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government really needs to be put out to pasture. If a group of individuals wants to seriously attack the U.S, or other major, . government., we know how this is done in the modern world. Hijack a plane and fly it into a building. Put poison in the water supply. Use biological weapons. Civilians using guns to take on the U.S. government is the approach of the Lee Harvey Oswalds and Squeaky Frommes of the world. If I see some guy walking down the street with an AK-47 and he tells me that he is out to protect me from the oppressive federal government I first get the hell out of there and second call the cops.

Actually, like Cherdano, that reminds me of an incident. Quite a few years back I was driving to downtown D.C. and picked up a hitchhiker near the University. I thought he was a student. He wasn't. He went on and on about various affronts, and as we got near the NRA building he asked me if I thought they could help him. I said yes. I was sure they could. I would have said that McDonald's could help him if that would have gotten him out of the car. Then I did stop and tell a cop about this. I think the cop thought that it was me that was nuts. Anyway, I guess there was not much he could do.


At any rate, for all those who wish to arm themselves to protect me from Barak Obama's plan to turn this into a socialist Islamic state, I plead that you leave me out of your plans.

[Fluffy]

I had this random thought today: US haven't been conquered ever, and I think there is a real chance that they won't ever be, but if they were all those guns would probably make the conquer harder. Maybe slightly or maybe really tough, not sure.

[BunnyGo]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-22, 18:25, said:

I had this random thought today: US haven't been conquered ever, and I think there is a real chance that they won't ever be, but if they were all those guns would probably make the conquer harder. Maybe slightly or maybe really tough, not sure.

There are no shortage of alternate history and apocalypse books about this subject...

[nige1]

The bill of rights said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The NRA twists this to justify possession of hand-guns and rifles. But do these toys really qualify as state-of-the art armaments? We, who take our constitutional duties seriously, would never settle for less than a tactical nuclear weapon. My family keeps ours in a secure kitchen-cupboard, to which only we have keys. It affords us effective protection. Alone at home, my seven year old daughter was able to get rid of an annoying busybody, simply by threatening to take out half the city.

A responsible citizen said:

Nuclear weapons don't kill, people do

[kenberg]

The simple fact is that most of the scenarios put forth by the NRA and it's supporters seem downright nuts to the rest of us. Take the suggestion that we put armed guards in every school. I don't know how many schools we have in this country, but reasonable estimate is that there are a very great many. Now puttinh a gun into someone's hand does not automatically make him a responsible user of the weapon. Unless these guards are highly trained, it would make matters worse. And it really cannot be just train them, post them, forget them, they have to be monitored. Surely someone with a conservative bent can understand that such a massive program will have its weaknesses. No doubt some instances of serious weakness. And to the extent it is successful, what is the result? A large number of highly trained personnel sitting around on their duffs doing nothing. But of course then work will be found for them. Johnny mouths off to the teacher and he is sent to Officer O'Reilly who will stand there with his gun in his holster, I hope it stays in his holster, giving the kid what for. We want this do we? I don't.

Susan Eisenhower grew up with armed guards watching over her. Necessary for the granddaughter of a president, but she didn't much like it or think that this is the best way to bring up kids.
http://www.washingto...fecd_story.html

Of course Ms. Eisenhower is one of those wild-eyed liberal commies no doubt.

At any rate, I find the arguments put forth by the NRA to be totally nuts. Not just wrong, nuts. This does not mean that I think we should totally ban weapons. We need a serious discussion. But we have to realize that the NRA does not really discuss the issue or work toward common sense solutions, they are adamant and unyielding. Charlton Heston's comment about his cold dead hands frames their views very clearly. Perhaps we can come to a solutino, perhaps not, but the first step has to be the realization that there is not a snowball's chance that the NRA will play a productive role. The public should ignore their pronouncements, and insist that their elected representatives do likewise.

[billw55]

Actually, many schools already have police officers on duty. My wife works on the discipline team at a medium size high school. They have an officer on site full time, and he has enough work to do. The other two public high schools in town also have an officer. Grade schools do not.

The problem with the public ignoring the NRA, is that a fair number of the public support the NRA and their actions; and want their reps to listen to them.

[Trinidad]

So, what does a police officer at an American high school do all day that justifies his full time presence? Is the crime rate in a population of a couple of thousand American teenagers so high that it justifies permanent supervision by a law officer?

I can envision assigning a police officer to a school, in the sense that this is the officer you turn to when the school needs one. I can see advantages of combining a police station and a school in one building. But I cannot see that a school would give a police officer a full work week.

Rik

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-22, 10:15, said:

As for Jefferson, I'm old enough to recall those heady days before 2008 when the second amendment wasn't viewed as an individual right.
I very much look forward to returning to such interpretations of the Constitution.

Your memory is flawed.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 08:34, said:

> I'm old enough to recall those heady days before 2008 when the second amendment wasn't viewed as an individual right.
>I very much look forward to returning to such interpretations of the Constitution.

Your memory is flawed.

No, it's realities well known liberal bias.

Here's the opening paragraph's to Wikipedia's write up on the 2nd amendment

Quote

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 5 61 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

If you prefer, here's a quote from former Chief Justice Warren Burger regarding the "Individual Right" interpretation of the second amendment. Admittedly, this wasn't written as part of a formal opinion, however, its pretty hard to get the interpretation wrong.

Quote

"...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias--[preamble] would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment [referring to the preamble] refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2013-January-22, 11:06, said:

It helps to substitute the word "weapon" for the word "gun". I think it is obvious, even to the most rabid gun advocate, that not all weapons should be legally available to the general public. There is a gradient involved. How damaging does a weapon have to be, for banning it from ordinary citizens to be acceptable? I am pretty sure we don't want just anyone to own a nuclear bomb for example, or nerve gas bombs, etc. How about a fighter plane, should I be able to buy one if I am rich enough? An attack submarine? A tank? Rocket launcher, machine gun, etc ... ? Eventually there has to be a cut off between what we do and do not allow common citizens to own.

So Blackshoe, where exactly is the line? (I am not taunting you, just genuinely curious). Fully automatic, burst fire, semi automatic, caliber limit, magazine limit ... what is the upper limit weapon you are advocating for?

In US v. Miller, one of the arguments presented by the defense was that the Second Amendment prohibited the government from regulating sawed off shotguns because a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon. The Supreme Court declined to rule on this point because the defense did not present any evidence to back up the argument. This in spite of the fact that several justices had served in the militia and knew damn well that a sawed off shotgun was indeed a weapon used by the militia. Had they ruled in agreement with the argument, which seems likely, I think it would be clear that any weapon that would be used by the militia falls under the individual right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. That includes tanks, rocket launchers, machine guns, fighter planes and probably submarines.

I note that "machine guns," for example the M2A .50 caliber machine gun, are legally available to the general public (last time I checked, anyway), provided that Mr. Public obtains a ($200, again last time I checked) tax stamp. Of course, the government is not AFAIK currently issuing such stamps, but that's just an end run around the Amendment.

I would formulate the Golden Rule as the Wiccans do: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." On that basis I would have no objection to a private citizen (I think the term "common citizen" is an attempt to demean the citizenry) owning whatever weapons he or she wants, provided that anyone who does harm to another with such weapon(s) other than in self defense or defense of others pays (as in "makes reparations," not as in "goes to jail") for it. And I'm not talking about some minor fine - if you put someone in the hospital, you pay his hospital bills, and his rehab bills, and provide the equivalent to the salary he was earning before you did that until he can go back to work. If you kill someone, you take on all his legal financial obligations - pay his debts, support his family, whatever. If you go broke doing that, too bad.

Practically speaking, the liberals and other anti-gun types in this country will never stand for this. So I would compromise. Where to draw the line, though, is a matter of negotiation. I would say that I would accept nothing less than "all individual weapons fall under the Second Amendment". Crew served weapons, WMDs, tanks, ships, and airplanes are negotiable.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-23, 07:49, said:

So, what does a police officer at an American high school do all day that justifies his full time presence? Is the crime rate in a population of a couple of thousand American teenagers so high that it justifies permanent supervision by a law officer?

Probably the same thing that the guard at a bank does. Most banks are never robbed, and the guards just stand around all day. But the fact that they're there probably serves as a deterrent, and justifies their presence.

I suspect police in schools have a little more to do. They can break up fights, deal with drug-related incidents, trespassers, etc. I'd expect cops in inner-city schools would be busier than those in suburbs.

However, I'm not with the NRA in believing that this is the solution to gun violence in schools. It might be necessary, but doesn't obviate dealing with the root causes.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2013-January-23, 07:26, said:

Actually, many schools already have police officers on duty. My wife works on the discipline team at a medium size high school. They have an officer on site full time, and he has enough work to do. The other two public high schools in town also have an officer. Grade schools do not.

If a school; really needs an armed guard, it should have one. The decision should be made on a school by school basis. As far as I know, there are no armed guards at any of the schools that my grandchildren attend. It is most regrettable that some schools need them.

There were many rough things that happened in the high school that I attended. Some were adequately addressed, some were not, none would have been more adequately addressed by the presence of a security guard.

Issues must be dealt with, no doubt. Arming everyone is not the best choice of methods. I realize many think that it is. They are wrong. As you can tell, I am not undecided on this issue.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 12:43, said:

Are you saying it's not an accident if it's caused by negligence? Also, nowhere did I claim the probability is anywhere in the same ballpark, I'm just saying there are a lot of different types of ptentially lethal accidents.

Extremely unlikely accidents are not very interesting in a cost-benefit analysis, unless the potential impact is high.

mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 13:05, said:

I'm not saying they're the same word, but the way I use the word "accident", negligence is one of the possible causes.

When I wrote "humans to cause" I was thinking in terms of more active involvement.

And I'm still unsure what kind of accidental electrocution you're talking about. I said "such severe accidents", meaning accidents that can easily injure or kill several other people.

There are accidents like a toddler drowning a pool because it was not properly fenced in or the gate was open. Tragic and preventable, certainly, but there's a qualitative difference between this and a car or gun accident (and why was the toddler unsupervised in the first place?).

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 09:04, said:

I would formulate the Golden Rule as the Wiccans do: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." On that basis I would have no objection to a private citizen (I think the term "common citizen" is an attempt to demean the citizenry) owning whatever weapons he or she wants, provided that anyone who does harm to another with such weapon(s) other than in self defense or defense of others pays (as in "makes reparations," not as in "goes to jail") for it. And I'm not talking about some minor fine - if you put someone in the hospital, you pay his hospital bills, and his rehab bills, and provide the equivalent to the salary he was earning before you did that until he can go back to work. If you kill someone, you take on all his legal financial obligations - pay his debts, support his family, whatever. If you go broke doing that, too bad.

Practically speaking, the liberals and other anti-gun types in this country will never stand for this.

Just to be clear, our current legal structure allows for both criminal and civil suits.
The system that you describe is in effect right now.

The issue isn't that liberals "will never stand for this", rather the real problem is how do you plan to collect any significant amount of money from someone who (best case scenario) is currently serving 15-20 for assault with a deadly weapon?

The only time that you see these laws used is in cases like the civil suits against OJ
The defendant needs to have very deep pockets to justify the efforts required to collect.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-23, 09:04, said:

I would formulate the Golden Rule as the Wiccans do: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." On that basis I would have no objection to a private citizen (I think the term "common citizen" is an attempt to demean the citizenry) owning whatever weapons he or she wants, provided that anyone who does harm to another with such weapon(s) other than in self defense or defense of others pays (as in "makes reparations," not as in "goes to jail") for it. And I'm not talking about some minor fine - if you put someone in the hospital, you pay his hospital bills, and his rehab bills, and provide the equivalent to the salary he was earning before you did that until he can go back to work. If you kill someone, you take on all his legal financial obligations - pay his debts, support his family, whatever. If you go broke doing that, too bad.

There is also a similar rule in effect in most states regarding auto insurance, yet there are many uninsured motorists driving around.

I would go a step further than blackshoe and assign responsibility to the gun owner for acts committed by others with his gun. Maybe that is also covered under the current laws as described by hrothgar, but I think the responsibility should be criminal as well as civil.