Texas at it again

[Michael]

Well, sugar in the morning,

Sugar in the ev'ning,

sugar at supper time.

Be my little sugar,

and love me all the time.

Honey in the morning

Honey in the evening,

honey at supper time.

Be my little honey,

and love me all the time.

Put your arms around me

and swear by stars above

You'll be mine forever

in a heaven of love.

Sugar in the morning

Sugar in the evening,

sugar at supper time

Be my little sugar,

and love me all the time.

Repeat, then close

My sugar time is any t-i-m-e

That you are near

'Cause you're so d-e-a-r.

So don't you roam,

just be my honeycomb.

[Dustdevil]

I'm sorry, I don't follow when you find it a problem and when not.

I too am seriously confused.

If you don't approve of self-defense, then I really cannot think of any other instance in which this might be acceptable to you. So lemme get this straight... it's okay to own a gun, you just don't want anybody to use it to protect themselves or others? I guess I can identify with that. It's kind of like I don't have a problem with New Yorkers voting. It's when they actually count their votes that I have a problem with it.

[nbsp]

Since I personally have that choice only in jurisdictions in which I am not forbidden to use a gun, I don't understand what you are suggesting except that I should have that choice, ie, that I should not be prohibited from using a gun.

Well, I guess I over-zealously assumed that you were in a juristiction that didn't ban guns. However it appears that the original purpose was lost over the various responses.

I am not for gun prohibition, but for strict gun control. As I said before, the necessity of a gun is situational (largely by region), so, (I guess I should add "If guns are legal in your area" at this point), then figure out if your situation warrants a gun.

But unlike with guns, the default position everywhere is that everyone gets to drive until/unless their unsafe driving forfeits the confidence of the community represented by a government agency. We assume people drive reasonably until they show otherwise; we don't make them prove a special need for a car. Unlike with guns, the burden of proof is on the government to show that a motorist is untrustworthy.

Yes, the default position is that everyone gets to drive just as the default position in many places is everyone gets to own a gun. But in both scenarios the PRIVILEGE is very conditional. Whether you decide to interpret the conditions as a burden of proof on either side is up to you.

And by the way, the burden of proof is on the motorist to prove he has enough driving proficiency to deserve the privilege of driving. I don't know about you, but I took a driving class, driving permit test, and driving license road test before I was granted a provisional license.

Can't disagree with the rest of your post.

Asysin2leads, I must say I'm disappointed in you. Using a "what-if" scenario is just about the lamest and most unaccepted rhetorical strategies out there.

I've got a scenario for you. What if you had just entered a Home Depot and a small volcano spontaneously erupted in the center of the store? Do you chose to leave through the entrance you just came in from?

OH SNAP I'm sorry while your attention was focused on the volcano someone dropped a bear trap behind you. As you turn to leave the trap closes on your leg and you are trapped. You sit there helpless, nursing your broken leg. You'll have a limp on that side for the rest of your life.

Oh, did I say volcano? I meant baking soda and vinegar volcano. If you hadn't turned around you would never have sustained permanent damage to your leg.

[chbare]

It was pretty obvious that the goal of the scenario was to have people use lethal force, then try to make a point by adding additional information. This scenario could easily be changed to support any view you please.

Take care,

chbare.

[Scaramedic]

Here's another scenario A2L, you attempt to back out of the store and the guy grabs your son and puts a knife to his throat. The police show up and attempt to talk him down, he starts to lose it, the police fear for your childs life and the police shoot. Oh damn they missed, they just shot your son in the throat and your son dies on the way to hospital.

Sound far fetched, it happened in Portland about ten years ago. I knew the officer who fired the shot he was never the same again. It happened at the kids home, maybe if dad had used deadly force before it became a hostage situation his son would still be alive today.

My scenario was real A2L, the reverberations of which are still felt in the Portland Police Bureau to this day. Your point was a what if, what if is fantasy just like NBSP pointed out.

Peace,

Marty

[Michael]

Well, I guess I over-zealously assumed that you were in a juristiction that didn't ban guns. However it appears that the original purpose was lost over the various responses.

I am not for gun prohibition, but for strict gun control. As I said before, the necessity of a gun is situational (largely by region), so, (I guess I should add "If guns are legal in your area" at this point), then figure out if your situation warrants a gun.

Well, okay, thanks. But isn't that what everyone in those jurisdictions necessarily does?

the privilege of driving

This concept (though not you as its messenger) offends my ideals.

scenario

Since everyone's being so civil* here despite the freedom not to be (What a concept! That we don't operate at the pleasure of a ruler!) I offer this little story as a sop for my opponents to chew over. I won't be able to participate for the next days. Play nice!

*An armed society is a polite society.

[Michael]

This concept (though not you as its messenger) offends my ideals.

Well, while I'm at it, is bicycling a privilege? What about skateboarding? Speed-walking? Wrestling with your kids? Pro-Wrestling? Tennis? Carrying a sign on the street? Posting an angry message? Grrrr!

[hfdff422]

I have always been interested in the argument against guns by those who drive cars. I don't care what kind of gun you own, even the smallest car is far more deadly. A person who drives drunk should be considered guilty of the very same crime as a person who recklessly discharges a firearm. A person who drives drunk who kills or injures someone should be convicted under the same statutes as anyone who kills or injures someone with a firearm intentionally. You know the potential consequences, yet you get behind the wheel, just as with a gun you know the potential consequences when you put your finger on the trigger.

[Asysin2leads]

Let me clarify here. Having grown up in the country and having some libertarian tendencies, I am not for out right banning gun ownership. Personally, I don't think gun ownership is a fundamental right, but a privelege that rationale, responsible individuals can enjoy. However, having a good knowledge of violent crime and I think a better understanding of human nature than most, I am against notions of using firearms as a means of day to day protection. You can mock my scenario all you want, but chance of someone acting out violently because of a medical or emotional disturbance is far more plausible than being, er, ummmm, the bad guy terrorist who is going on a rampage at Home Depot. This is my entire point. When we start enacting laws that allow lay people to make these decisions with firearms, I believe tragic circumstances will proliferate. Also, statistically speaking, you getting shot after pulling out your gun is a fairly common occurence. Carrying a firearm drastically INCREASES your chances of death or injury from firearms. That's why I get a little indignant when people start talking about "Make my day" laws and "double taps to the chest."

Am I getting through to anyone here?

[hfdff422]

Asys- I never have viewed as some nut trying to take my gun away. But the scenario you gave does not necessarily lend itself to a peaceful outcome. You described someone who is unable to make rational decisions and could act violently to any activity. Retreat would not necessarily appease this person as it would likely appease a true criminal. And you did not tell me where my kids were in relation to him and me. There are too many variables to determine what the best course of action is. If I were armed and in that situation, I would have drawn a weapon and been prepared to defend myself, regardless of the cause of his violent actions. Just because he is suffering from a medical issue does not mean it is Ok for others to be injured or die. He loaded the weapon by not taking care of his medical needs.

As for the term "lay"- there are far more cops that should not have guns than "ordinary" citizens. There are generally two types of people that become cops- the type that are the very "make my day", power trip people who would make you indignant and the type who want to help people. The power trippers are going to create just as many problems as billy-bob and his gun that cost more than he has ever spent on oral hygene and the ones who want to help people are going to find it difficult to react to the stress of a potentially deadly encounter and if they do shoot someone they may need years of counseling. These trends are going to be the same as any other citizen.

The true problem though, is simply the fundamental issue that I have discussed in that government should not be the ones to decide if I should be allowed to carry a firearm if I have never demonstrated cause to prevent me from it. (which those laws are already on the books). Look at all the stupidity that oozes from government on a daily basis and tell me that some beareucracy that has overgrown its constitutional design is better at determining how to run my life than I am.