Now, how many of the people killed by guns was deliberate?

No-one drives their car through a school in a killing spree. Guns however are a different story with people just going wild. This is why gun control is needed.

And anyway, I think that use of my quote from that other thread is just a desperate attempt to justify the use of guns in the midst of such anti-firearm publicity.

BTW: I have just seen Tahna's post on the first page and he is saying exactly what I said. I must read the whole thread before posting the next time.

------------------
The line must be drawn here, this far, no further. Picard, First Contact

The line has to be drawn here, this far and no further. Quark, Dogs of War

Socialism works to a certain extent. Countries like the Netherlands have implemented some things the U.S. would consider socialist, but that doesn't mean simple little things will fail, either.

--Baloo

------------------
The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.
--Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

[Post-edit commentary: It continually amazes me how I can mis-spell words I know by heart, by typing a wrong letter that does not even have the saving grace of sitting next to the correct one on the keyboard.]

If you mean whiskey, the devil's brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean that evil drink that topples Christian men and women from the pinnacles of righteous and gracious living into the bottomless pits of degradation, shame, despair, helplessness, and hopelessness, then, my friend, I am opposed to it with every fiber of my being. However, if by whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the elixir of life, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer, the stimulating sip that puts a little spring in the step of an elderly gentleman on a frosty morning; if you mean that drink that enables man to magnify his joy, and to forget life's great tragedies and heartbreaks and sorrow; if you mean that drink the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars each year, that provides tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitifully aged and infirm, to build the finest highways, hospitals, universities, and community colleges in this nation, then my friend, I am absolutely, unequivocally in favor of it. This is my position, and as always, I refuse to be compromised on matters of principle.
--Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr, 1952 "Whiskey Speech"

By extension, your logic (that of you who insist that guns are unnecessary, and thus should be banned) should also include the banning of alcohol.

The train of logic is as follows:

1. Alcoholics cause unneccessary suffering through
   1. Traffic injuries and deaths caused by drunk drivers.

   2. Money squandered on alcohol which ought to be used to feed/clothe/shelter the alcoholic's family.

   3. Excessive public monies used to regulate and enforce the laws regarding public intoxication, drunk driving, etc.

      (I'm certain the list could be longer if I gave it more thought.)

2. Alcoholic beverage is not necessary to a functioning society.

3. It is difficult, if not impossible to determine who, of any group, is likely to become an alcoholic.

4. Since anyone could potentially be an alcoholic (waiting to happen, as it were), then everyone is equally likely to become alcoholic.

5. Therefore, to protect those of us from the potential alcoholics and deprive those who abuse alcohol of their substance-of-choice, alcohol must be strictly regulated, and should only be made available to professionals requiring it for the performance of their duties, such as doctors, nurses, and EMTs.

You can apply that sort of logic to any thing you dislike. It's still wrong to secure your own safety and prosperity at someone else's expense without their informed consent. To do so is one step short of enslavement. In short, it is tyrrany.

--Baloo

------------------
The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.
--Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

I'm not left wing. I support this measure. Definitely 100% for it. What I would like to see is adequate gun control properly enforced and the above penalties together in law. That oughta make one tough cookie against crime.

The availiability of guns through legal means makes things easier for gangs and criminals to obtain their weapons. A little gun control and judicial action can go a long way in preventing another massacre. And that's fine by me.

I won't further dispute your right to own a gun. You've made your point on that (actually, it was Baloo who made the points.....). Now if the US had Strict Gun Control laws like the Netherlands...... As I said earlier, like cars, it doesn't hurt to get a licence for your gun as well as registration.

*Police Officer Speak*: May I see your license and registration please?

With guns however, people deliberately target others with the sole intention of maiming or killing. That is the difference in this case, so I must again disagree. People killing themselves is one thing, but allowing others the opportunity to kill someone else is just plain ludicrous.

------------------
The line must be drawn here, this far, no further. Picard, First Contact

The line has to be drawn here, this far and no further. Quark, Dogs of War

(BTW, gang members under the age of 18, whether justifiably killed by police or shot by other gang members, make up a large percentage of those "children" killed by gunfire that the gun-grabbers use in their 'statistics.' Perhaps we should regulate gang membership?)

------------------
Calvin: "No efficiency, no accountability... I tell you, Hobbes, it's a lousy way to run a Universe." -- Bill Watterson

Except deaths caused by drunk drivers and so on.

If drink driving was legal, a lot more people would inevitably die. As I've argued with the gun issue, you can't completely eradicate gun related crimes and you also can't eradicate drink related crimes. You can however control them. If drink driving was legal, every time you walk somewhere, you'd be in danger of being killed because there could be a drink driver somewhere. With the legislation, this is controlled and it is much safer to walk the streets.

Guns work in the same way. If guns weren't so freely available as it is here in the UK, the risk of being killed by a gun is minimal. If however guns are freely available, there'd be a greater change of more poeple being victims of them.

Control is the key aspect of this. You control the usage, and minimise the risk.

------------------
The line must be drawn here, this far, no further. Picard, First Contact

The line has to be drawn here, this far and no further. Quark, Dogs of War

(In the US, shooting people is illegal, as is drunk driving. )