Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Beemnseven;454471]Yes, "arms" means guns. [B]There is little doubt to any rational person that the founders intended for the citizens to have the ability to kill government soldiers if the government got out of hand. [/B]

Knowing what they had to go through in order to separate from the king, is anyone here actually trying to argue that Madison wanted to make it [I]more difficult[/I] for the citizens to overthrow another tyrant should they ever gain control of the government?[/quote]


I guess the founders failed miserable in that respect because if you try to overthrow the government you're royally f'ed. Hell, even opposing it is a no-no.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;454459]It's not so simple. In interpreting the scope of the various rights conferred by the Bill of Rights (not in determining whether they even apply), the more conservative justices tend to defer to the states' "reasonable" restrictions on individual liberties. For example, conservative justices tend to grant the states broad rights to impose restrictions on free speech (e.g., porn). They just subscribe to a different philosophy when passing judgment on 2nd Amendment issues.[/QUOTE]

I agree. The "conservative" justices like states rights as long as they fit their agenda. They don't like states rights if the people of Oregon decide they want to allow doctor assisted suicide or medical marijuana.

So in reality, the "states rights" argument -- as I said earlier -- no longer holds any water. Both the liberal and conservative wings of the court will stay true to it only if stays within the confines of their personal political philosophy.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=saden1;454470]When you think of it abortion and gay marriage are after all morally reprehensible because of religious dogma.[/quote]
I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;454476]I am assuming you are referring to me when you say "when you think of it". I never mentioned what my personal views are on either of these issues, you are making an assumption based on my conservative political stances.

I don't care to share my personal view on either of these issues, but my personal views don't matter. I don't believe the gov't should be involved in pushing a particular set of values or morals on anyone. If there are values/moral issues they should be determined at the state level and voted on by the people.[/quote]

"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.

As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;454462][B]Not allowing gun ownership is a direct violation of the 2nd Ammendment. There is no constitutional right to abortion or gay marriage. The "right" to an abortion was based on the Roe v. Wade ruling, not by any legislation. [/B]

I'm all for states rights concerning abortion and gay marriage. If the people of a state want abortion and gay marriage, and it is voted into law, so be it. If other states don't want abortion and don't want gay marriage, so be it. The Supreme Court should only get involved in disputes between states, it should not be "legislating morality" one way or the other.[/quote]

Everything thing the high court deals with is a constitutional matter. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. [URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113"]Roe v. Wade[/URL] decision stated that laws against abortion were in violation of the 14th amendment and infringed upon a person's privacy under the due process clause.

[quote]3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164. [/quote]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=saden1;454484]"When you think of it" doesn't imply I am alluding to you personally. I am merely appealing to rational minds. The point is many Bible thumping conservatives feel that states should be allowed to ban abortion and gay marriage because the Bile says it's a sin/sinful. Let's not sugar coat the subject, everyone knows what's up.[/quote]
I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.

[quote]As for values/morals being determined at the state level being acceptable then how far can states go? What are the limits? Can states mandate via vote that no one under 21 may have sex and you break the law you get 1 year in the pen? What about the prospect of conflicting state laws (you're married in CA but you have no rights in GA...if you want to commit the crime of abortion hit the interstate, don't do it in our neck of the woods)? Also, if you can say values/morals can be determined at the state level then couldn't they be determined at the county level? City level? What's the point of having a federal system?[/quote]
There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=saden1;454487]Everything thing the high court deals with is a constitutional matter. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. [URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113"]Roe v. Wade[/URL] decision stated that laws against abortion were in violation of the 14th amendment and infringed upon a person's privacy under the due process clause.[/quote]
Here's some light reading from what I'm sure is one of your favorite publications and favorite authors....LOL

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200503140754.asp"]Mark R. Levin on Abortion & Courts National Review Online[/URL]

Even though we are polar opposites in a politcal sense I do enjoy the debate :food-smil

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;454488]You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;454509]I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.[/quote]
I agree 100% with your first point, any government entity (fed, state, local) should have very limited control in regulating morals/values issues.

My point about the states legislatures being more effective than US congressmen is that they are more in direct touch with their consitituents on a day-to-day basis. At the state level it is generally easier to reach agreement on issues because the scope is much smaller and although communities within a state are often very diverse, it is on a much smaller scale than at the federal level.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;454509]I agree, but I believe that state governments should have a very limited role in telling me what is in my best interests. I don't know why many conservatives say, "the federal government has no business whatsoever telling me what I can or cannot do on my property or how to live my life" and also say, "well if the state government wants to tell me what to do on my property or how to live my life I'm okay with that."

We're now a highly fluid/mobile society. The distinction between the states is diminishing with each year as more Americans move out of state each year than are born in this country. [B]It seems strange to say that state legislators have a much better idea as to what is in my best interests than do U.S. congressmen.[/B][/QUOTE]

As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I'll admit that state legislators [U]might[/U] have a slightly better idea of what I want and how I want to live my life. I just believe that I know better than anyone else what is in my best interests and how I want to live my life. All local, state, and federal governments should stay out of my business. So, for example, if I want to marry a dude (which, for the record, I don't), the government should say, "I might not agree with your lifestyle, but it's not my job or anyone else's to tell you how to live your life."

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;454488]I agree with your point, but it does cut both ways. Many hippie, pot-smoking liberals want legalized drugs and drive-thru abortion clinics. I'm obviously being absurd, but my main point is that the morals of CA aren't the same as KS and IMO the federal government shouldn't be dictating liberal or conservative morality to the entire country.[/quote]

Of course, there has to be limits and I don't know why anyone thinks abortion and gay marriage are somehow inside those limits. How far is too far and are bans on abortion and gay marriage too far?

One of the roles of the government is to protect the individual from the government itself (both federal and state). This includes protection from the mob and state sanctioned discriminatory laws based on the values of the mob.


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;454488]There are obviously limits on what laws a state could pass, but I would trust the people of a particular state to decide what's best for them rather than 535 congress-people or 9 judges in DC. [B]There are plenty of lawyers and advocacy groups on both sides to keep each other in check and the laws pretty reasonable[/B]. Yes, there would be conflicts between states' laws and that's where the Supreme Court would make determinations based on their constitutionality. You know I'm not advocating doing away with the federal system, but the federal government has grown far too large and has its fingers in way too many pies.[/quote]

That's how currently things work...states enact laws, someone challenges those laws and the US Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of these laws. Now, if you want to take the feds out of the picture and let entities within the state fight it out then you are bound to have [URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=349&invol=294"]Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka[/URL] and [URL="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1"]Loving vs Virginia[/URL]. In the Loving case the Supreme Court of Virginia in it's infinite wisdom said the law against interracial marriage is constitutional.

I know your position, I'm just asking where do you draw the line? What particular problem exists in our current system whereby the Supreme Court is the Ultimate decider in matters concerning constitutionality of things.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Beemnseven;454513]As a libertarian, I don't like government at any level telling me how I should live my life.

The theory is that state and local legislators know better than a politician in Washington how to represent their constituents. Take the federal speed limits for instance. Awhile back, those laws were rescinded in favor of local and state jurisdiction. How would a Washington hack in the House of Representatives know what the best speed limit is for a rural highway in Junction City, Wyoming if that congressman represents the people of Detroit?[/quote]
Cogress passed speed restrictions back sometime ago to help with the gas shortage we as a nation faced. I would not be surprised if they did not do it again. The libertarian party thinks that the federal, state and city gov. should be very limited on passing any laws concerning morals. But, they say if a person chooses to shoot up everyday it their problem and goverment will not be there to bail them out.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Just got back from vacation and catching up on some threads. It appears one of my favorites is back in play.

Yeah!!!

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=firstdown;454636]Well just today in the paper today a man who owned a pizza joint killed a robber who shot at him first. The man was told to open his safe and he tried to convince the robber just to take the money from the cash registar as he had no money in his safe. The robber insisted that he open the safe and as the owner was opening it up was shot at by the robber which missed. He had his gun in the safe and returned fire killing the guy. I guess if he was in DC he and maybe his employees would not be here today. The gun was legally owned and he also had a carry permit so he could have protection when leaving to make deposits.[/QUOTE]

I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

[URL="http://www.wyff4.com/news/16720869/detail.html"]Father accidentally shoots and kills baby[/URL]

[URL="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/22714089.html"]Man accidentally shoots friend in head[/URL]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I thought [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html"]this[/URL] was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=724Skinsfan;454700]I thought [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html"]this[/URL] was interesting. I would never have guessed 55%. In fact, I would have thought homicides, justified or unjustified, would overwhelmingly dominate the number of gun-related deaths.[/QUOTE]

That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense. :doh:
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

[url=http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm]Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC[/url]

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

STOP Already with the fact-based logic!!

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Hog1;454724]STOP Already with the fact-based logic!![/QUOTE]

LOL!

I also don't think gun related suicides should be included in gun related deaths because the would find a way to kill themselves another way if they had no gun. I understand the medium was a gun, but terminally suicidal people will jump off a bridge or slit their wrists or whatever if a gun wasn't the quick and easiest fix to their "problem". So really, only approx. 14k deaths are gun related. Since there are 38k second hand smoke deaths (about 2.5 times more deaths than gun related deaths if you subtract suicides), maybe we should all yell at smokers to "put down the cigarette, and step away"! LOL.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

I don't think anyone denies that smoking and smoking related illness/deaths is a major issue, but that shouldn't downplay the gun issue. They are two different issues.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454735]I don't think anyone denies that smoking and smoking related illness/deaths is a major issue, but that shouldn't downplay the gun issue. They are two different issues.[/QUOTE]

Point is, why bother going after a constitutional right, and notably something that can SAVE / PROTECT someone's life, when there is something FAR more dangerous to go after?
Gun related issues are a fraction of a fraction of the problem that tobacco related issues are. Maybe it's time to focus on real important issues.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=jsarno;454732]LOL!

I also don't think gun related suicides should be included in gun related deaths because the would find a way to kill themselves another way if they had no gun. I understand the medium was a gun, but terminally suicidal people will jump off a bridge or slit their wrists or whatever if a gun wasn't the quick and easiest fix to their "problem"[/QUOTE]

I think the article noted, however, that people who try to commit suicide with guns are far more likely to succeed than those who jump off buildings, bridges, etc.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;454751]I think the article noted, however, that people who try to commit suicide with guns are far more likely to succeed than those who jump off buildings, bridges, etc.[/QUOTE]

I didn't read that part apparently, but I find it hard to believe that a person that jumps off a building is less likely to die from it than a person that shoots themselves. Keep in mind plenty of people shoot themselves in places other than the head. (even shooting the head is not a guarentee of death)
I never did understand jumping off bridges. You are more likely to break bones then die. (not that death isn't a significant risk) But unless you're jumping off a tiny building, it seems that a leap would be 99.9% effective.

Oh, and as I have mentioned, using a gun is far easier and quicker, and "should be" less painful. Point is, even without a gun, suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves regardless.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;454713]That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense. :doh:
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm"]Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC[/URL][/quote]

With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Schneed10;454756]With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.[/quote]

I have been exposed to small pox. Of coarse it was the preventative type of exposure.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;454744]Point is, why bother going after a constitutional right, and notably something that can SAVE / PROTECT someone's life, when there is something FAR more dangerous to go after?
Gun related issues are a fraction of a fraction of the problem that tobacco related issues are. Maybe it's time to focus on real important issues.[/quote]

Point is they are still apples and oranges.

Gun control isn't an important issue??

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;454756]With the utmost respect for your opinion, I must disagree with the analysis.

Second hand smoke is not "more dangerous" than guns because it results in more deaths. Second hand smoke is way more prevalent in society, that's why it causes more deaths. Way more people are exposed to second hand smoke than are exposed to guns.

Now, there are plenty of guns in the US, legal or not. But a good portion of them stay locked away or otherwise secured safely. Many more people are exposed to smoking, hence the higher death numbers.

This anaylsis is akin to saying that the flu is more dangerous than small pox because more people die from the flu than small pox. It may be mathematically true, but only because nobody gets exposed to small pox.[/QUOTE]

That's a good valid argument.
However, the second hand smoke argument was only part of the argument (and the 2nd part at that, I just ran with it cause I wasn't expecting to see those numbers), what about the 4.9 mil that die from tobacco related deaths world wide?

Also, your argument helps my point that it's more important to stop tobacco than it is to stop guns since we are much more likely to be exposed to smoke. Let's also keep in mind the MASSIVE amount of medical assistance required by tobacco related issues that we pay for with our insurances.

ps- the guns that are locked away aren't the ones causing the problems, but they are the ones that will be taken away.


On a side note, I appreciate your candor.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;454761]

Gun control isn't an important issue??[/QUOTE]

I really don't think it's as important as people here think it is.

It's a matter of geographics I think. You guys see murders and such on the news or in the paper. I go to the gun range, or see (guessing) 75% of the people out here that own guns with no problems. The majority of the south and midwest and hunting states (minus large cities like Chicago) would not see this as a large issue either. The major players in the gun control issues are places like DC, New York, Boston, Chicago, and L.A., you see the negative side of gun ownership more than anything cause you are bombarded by it. WHile it does happen in other areas of the country, there are far more pressing issues.
I think a more pressing issue is the punishment for people that use weapons such as guns. If the punishment is weak, then it becomes more prevailant. But that's a whole nother can o' worms.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

FYI - Tonight 7/1 on FX Thirty Days explores gun control. those shows are are usually well done. I think it comes on at 10pm.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=mredskins;454782]FYI - Tonight 7/1 on FX Thirty Days explores gun control. those shows are are usually well done. I think it comes on at 10pm.[/quote]

Definitely a great show. Should be interesting.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;454755]I didn't read that part apparently, but I find it hard to believe that a person that jumps off a building is less likely to die from it than a person that shoots themselves. Keep in mind plenty of people shoot themselves in places other than the head. (even shooting the head is not a guarentee of death)
I never did understand jumping off bridges. You are more likely to break bones then die. (not that death isn't a significant risk) But unless you're jumping off a tiny building, it seems that a leap would be 99.9% effective.

Oh, and as I have mentioned, using a gun is far easier and quicker, and "should be" less painful. Point is, even without a gun, suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves regardless.[/quote]
MY take on the article is that people who jump from stuff or try to OD are not very successful. I could see how letting go of a ledge would be harder then pulling a trigger and I guess people who try to OD just don't take enough stuff, puke, or are found.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Mattyk72;454784]Definitely a great show. Should be interesting.[/quote]


Two weeks ago with the hunter living with the PETA people, that even made me second guess PETA and I hate them. It was hard to see what people do to animals at times.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;454643]I'll take your anecdote, and raise you.

[URL="http://www.wyff4.com/news/16720869/detail.html"]Father accidentally shoots and kills baby[/URL]

[URL="http://www.komonews.com/news/local/22714089.html"]Man accidentally shoots friend in head[/URL][/QUOTE]


I don't think anyone will try to argue that guns won't be used to kill innocent people, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I shudder to think what society would be like if some of the more extreme gun control advocates get their way and firearms are taken away from the law abiding.

In a free society, you have to live with the risks. If you don't want risks, there are many places in this world you can go to and be safe from everything. Personally, I'd choose the free society with all its warts over the police state.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;454762]That's a good valid argument.
However, the second hand smoke argument was only part of the argument (and the 2nd part at that, I just ran with it cause I wasn't expecting to see those numbers), what about the 4.9 mil that die from tobacco related deaths world wide?

Also, your argument helps my point that it's more important to stop tobacco than it is to stop guns since we are much more likely to be exposed to smoke. Let's also keep in mind the MASSIVE amount of medical assistance required by tobacco related issues that we pay for with our insurances.

ps- the guns that are locked away aren't the ones causing the problems, but they are the ones that will be taken away.


On a side note, I appreciate your candor.[/quote]

I would agree with the general notion that smoking is a bigger threat to public health than guns are. If I were going through the exercise of setting the federal budget, I'd invest significantly more in stop smoking programs than I would gun control.

But as for the 4.9 million tobacco deaths worldwide, again, that's due to the massive exposure to cigarrette smoke and other forms of tobacco. Approximately 20% of Americans smoke, and the % is higher worldwide. Nowhere near that % are exposed to guns.

All this is to say that increasing exposure to guns by allowing more on the street raises the acute risk of accidental death, suicide, and homicide.

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;454802]In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.[/QUOTE]

So you'd rather see someone robbed than someone killed? I think most people would. The problem is that of those 1000 people robbed, not all of them will escape unscathed by said armed mugger.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=Schneed10;454802]In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see [B]one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim[/B].[/quote]
Which poses three questions, if the mugger's bullet killed the innocent child he (in a vast majority of cases) obtained his weapon illegally, gun control laws won't stop him.

The other question is who would you rather see die, the innocent child or the innocent mugging victim. If strict gun control laws are in place, the mugging victim won't have a firearm to protect him/herself and if he/she resists he/she would be killed by the mugger. Probably no gunfire exchange so the innocent child is safe.

The third question is sort of a follow-on to the second, say gun control laws are in place so the mugger knows most people won't have firearms to fight back and won't put up much resistance once they see his weapon, making his job easier. But what about the unarmed female who is now also a potential rape victim?

I know we can throw statistics out all day long, but at the end of the day areas which allow conceal and carry permits and have less gun regulation for law abiding citizens tend to have lower crime rates. I own firearms and although the area I live in is pretty safe, I am able to protect my family if need be, not wait for the police and morgue to show up.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;454802]I would agree with the general notion that smoking is a bigger threat to public health than guns are. If I were going through the exercise of setting the federal budget, I'd invest significantly more in stop smoking programs than I would gun control.

But as for the 4.9 million tobacco deaths worldwide, again, that's due to the massive exposure to cigarrette smoke and other forms of tobacco. Approximately 20% of Americans smoke, and the % is higher worldwide. Nowhere near that % are exposed to guns.

All this is to say that increasing exposure to guns by allowing more on the street raises the acute risk of accidental death, suicide, and homicide.

In the end, I would rather see 1000 armed muggers escape Scott-free with the wallet of an unarmed victim than see one child killed by a stray bullet resulting from a gunfire exchange between said armed mugger and an armed victim.[/QUOTE]

Well, oddly enough, I respect that opinion. Problem is, we're talking about deaths, not exposure. The deaths speak for themselves. You are 100% right about exposure, but you also have to calculate for the fact that bearing arms is constitutional right. Harming someone with a cigarette (even yourself) is not. All in all, I understand where you're coming from.

I would like to add, I am not sure I agree with your 1000 armed muggers vs 1 stray kid. First off, I am not sure of the stats, but I am assuming it's far more mugged to each stray innocent child. That being said, those mugged people become victims and very jaded after each offense, and therefore become harder individuals making society less pleasant. I'm not saying they will become hard criminals, but you can't be held up at gun point and it not change you a little. No one wants to see children die, but there are more "shaken baby" deaths than there are accidental children deaths from guns. Unfortunately there are always negatives to everything. Keep in mind, I am all for criminals not having guns, they have them illegally. If you can come up with a plan to keep guns out of their hands, I'm down. But don't take a gun out of my hand. Even if the government banned them, I'd still keep mine.
You can't stop EVERY negative, look at that kid that died by a roller coaster. There have been numerous roller coaster deaths over the years, but that doesn't mean we should overreact and ban roller coasters.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[QUOTE=Slingin Sammy 33;454808]Which poses three questions, if the mugger's bullet killed the innocent child he (in a vast majority of cases) obtained his weapon illegally, gun control laws won't stop him.

The other question is who would you rather see die, the innocent child or the innocent mugging victim. If strict gun control laws are in place, the mugging victim won't have a firearm to protect him/herself and if he/she resists he/she would be killed by the mugger. Probably no gunfire exchange so the innocent child is safe.

The third question is sort of a follow-on to the second, say gun control laws are in place so the mugger knows most people won't have firearms to fight back and won't put up much resistance once they see his weapon, making his job easier. But what about the unarmed female who is now also a potential rape victim?

I know we can throw statistics out all day long, but at the end of the day areas which allow conceal and carry permits and have less gun regulation for law abiding citizens tend to have lower crime rates. I own firearms and although the area I live in is pretty safe, I am able to protect my family if need be, not wait for the police and morgue to show up.[/QUOTE]

Exactly...very good post. You are only hurting the legal owners who don't pose a problem.

Re: Ted Nugent on Gun Control
 

[quote=jsarno;454713]That's a good link.

But do you know what strikes me more than anything?
There was 31,000 gun related deaths, yet there are approx. 4.9 million tobacco related deaths in the world a year. In the US, there are 438,000 tobacco related deaths (approximately 1 in 5 deaths overall are tobacco related), and even MORE important, 38,000 (that's right 7k MORE deaths than guns) are directly related to SECOND HAND smoke. And people are up in arms about being able to defend yourself while cigarettes provide no defense. :doh:
Interesting that second hand smoke is statistically MORE deadly than guns themselves. WOW.

[URL="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm"]Tobacco-Related Mortality | OSH | CDC[/URL][/quote]


I think you've just solved both issues with one post. I wonder how many tobacco farmer's own guns in which the purpose is to protect their property? I'll bet 98%. If we restrict their ability to protect their property by taking away their guns then we'd see much, much less tobacco being produced. By ensuring that tobacco farmer's have no way of defending themselves from a home invasion we can assume that their deaths will in fact save nearly 5 million lives.