[Vision2020] Oath for gun ownership/self-government
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Fri, 16 May 2003 01:16:16 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Josh,</P>
<P>It is very clear you are highly emotional about this. It is also clear you misunderstanding what I am saying. So I will go through each of your arguments one at a time.<BR><STRONG></STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>>Seems to me if you are just worried about accidental or intentional deaths, you ought to be calling for much higher regulations on cars and who can drive them. In 1999 41,345 people lost their lives due to car accidents. That's only about 8 times your statistic on gun deaths. And how many of those deaths by bullet are due to self-defence? </P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>First, you are right, about my numbers being off, over 10,000 are killed every year from guns from murder alone. I don't have good numbers on the accidental deaths from firearms, it depends on what is considered "accidental".Cars are designed to transport people, not kill people. And they are heavily regulated, and need to be further regulated. And yes, I think there are many idiots on the road that should not be, and they should be prevented from driving. Second, their are twice as many vehicles on the road, about 500,000, vs, 200,000 guns. Most of these vehicles are on the road and used everyday. Most of the 200,000 guns are rarely is ever used. Third, most accidents occur because of untrained, unprofessional, inexperienced drivers, or drunk drives, or people violating the law by speeding or passing in a no pass zone, or running a stop sign or red light. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG> ">But the problem is that we have so many regulations. Should cars really be so regulated? Should houses be regulated? And why in the world are baseball bats regulated? We might as well regulate tree branches, since they can be very good clubs too. And rocks, which might kill if they accidentally hit someone hard enough on side of the head."</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Actually, cars are not regulated enough, many of them have safety problems that car manufactures lobby not to fix. Houses need to be regulated for safety and health reasons. Natural Gas has no smell to it. It is a regulation that an artificial additive be added to it so when there is a leak the inhabitance can smell and get out. This has saved many lives. Fire alarms are also regulations, and well as fire extinguishers. Another important regulation is that of the hot water heater. It builds up with pressure after about 10 years. A safety value is placed on it to relieve the pressure. In the early and mid 1900's before regulations were placed, these water heaters would suddenly explode killing people in and around the house. There is also the sewage system, electrical wiring, toilets, kitchen utilities, all that then kill a child or someone that does not have an excellent grasp on physics if they were not regulated be!
fore and after installation. How about a microwave with no safety on it, every see what that can do to human flesh? Or how about a home made out of asbestos, what to know what that does to your lungs?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Regulations rarely fix anything. Morons and criminals, as Mr. Hansen pointed out yesterday, can always get guns and weapons and tools that can be used to kill and murder. Regulations only restrict the law-abiding citizen. Think of how many car deaths are due to people driving with suspended licenses, no insurance, etc. etc. Did all the laws on the books do anything to keep those people alive? NO! </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Actually, regulations have saved many lives and have fixed many things. Lets name a few, Airplanes, the Stock Market, 20% mice meat in restaurant food and packaged goods, Safety in the work place,seat belts, fire escapes, railroad car connectors, playgrounds, toys, just about anything. The funny thing is, all these regulations have reduced the death rate in each area, and it saved money too!</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Here's an interesting statistic for your consideration. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker.[or anyone else!] That was about 9 years ago, but nonetheless clearly guns are used very regularly for legitimate defense.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Have no idea what your point is here! Nor data collected, nor the questions asked on the survey, Was the Survey of 2,500 or more people. What was the margin or error? What was the statistical significance on the test? Was the survey phone or personal interview? What was the non-response rate? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG> And get real. How many innocent bystanders die in burglaries, car-jackings, or the like?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Not many, most are not around when their car is stolen or their homes robbed, kind of reinforcing the point that a gun would not have done them any good if they weren't there.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG> And the nation over, how many children die in schools due to guns each year? Oh, yes, the media makes a big deal of about 5-12 dead at a school. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Yeah, gee, that liberal media, what is 5-12 children. Josh that is not kewl!</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>And indeed each time that happens it is a sad and serious tragedy and needs to be dealt with. The murderers, if they haven't killed themselves yet, need to be put to death for robbing others of life. And some of the teachers ought to be armed with handguns and trained carefully in how to deal with such situations.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Good idea! We give old Mrs.. Smith a machine gun so she can enter a shoot out with an emotional distraught teenagers in a room full of children. Now why didn't others think of that. Oh, maybe because it would end up killing more innocent children? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> <STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>If the teachers had been armed at Columbine, less people would have died. Criminals lose against armed civilians regularly. But really such things are blown out of proportion. Around the same number of people die in a large car pileup, to put it in perspective. And yet car pileups are national news for just a day or two, if that.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Humm, maybe because one is an unintentional accident by adults that had can control of their vehicle and knowingly took a risk driving on an icy road, and the other is an intentional and avoidable slaughter of children that had no control over the situation at any point. What you ought to be asking is how children get a hold of their parents guns, ammo, and go to school unnoticed?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Mr. Arnold, could you please back up your statement that "5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible." Especially the "most of them were accidents" part. I would guess, though I haven't checked, that a majority of them are due rather to intentional killing or murder, whether in self-defense or in assault. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>As I admitted earlier, I had misread that original statistic, and apologize. 10,000 people are murdered every year by guns. 1 to 2 children are killed every day by the use of guns that are under the age of 14. The number of teen suicides is about 20% of all teen deaths. Which means the overwhelming majority of juvenile deaths are caused by a gun. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>And Mr. Arnold, men have an inherent, God-given right to life. But that is not the same as a God-given right to avoid accidents, whether they be accidental discharges of a firearm or some other accident.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Yes we do have a right to be safe from accidents from criminal neglect. Would you permit a person with no Doctors license to operate on you? How would you feel if they forced you to operated on by this man. That is how I feel with retards walking around with loaded guns. No training, no care for another's life, no respect for your rights at all.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> <STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>If you're so afraid of people dying, like I said before, outlaw cars. Outlaw planes. Outlaw all sorts of things that yearly kill more people than guns. Outlaw slippery roads. Outlaw road-crushing rock slides.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Your first too points are well taken. But, they are designed for transportation, not for killing people like guns. Guns, are machines built for the purpose of killing another person. That is their only function and purpose. They do not fold laundry, they do not transport people from NY to LA. They do not get you work and back. They do not take you to the movies or children to soccer ball practice. The kill, they maim, they injure, they cause death and suffering, that is their function and only function. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Mr. Arnold, you say "It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use [a gun] to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community." Again, you can't stop criminals from getting guns. Legislating the object, or who gets to possess it, only affects those who are willing to obey the law. And anyone who is going to commit a crime with a gun or threaten his neighbors or his community or his fellow school-kids is obviously not willing to obey the law anyhow.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>You can't? Well why is it that every other industrialized nation in the world has successfully reduced to the number of guns to a tiny fraction of what we have in the United States. How is it that in the United States has more deaths by firearms then England, France, Germany, Sweden, Finland, China, Belgium, Canada, México, Japan, Russia, Australia, Indonesia, Italy and Spain COMBINED? Let me put it to you this way, in a typical year the US has 10,000 murders by hand guns. The UK has 7, not 7,000 just 7 murders.The closeted to us is Sweden which has about 55 murders by guns a year. Canada has 8 murders a year. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>You are neglecting personal responsibility again. You are blaming the gun, or access to it, instead of putting the guilt upon the person who does the crime, which is where the guilt ought to firmly and immovably rest. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>I agree! If you want to have a gun, and wave it around, shoot it, and carry it, you need to take the personal responsibility to get trained and educated before you do that. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Otherwise, your argument must then apply to cars, which are very deadly weapons and almost a full order of magnitude more deadly than the guns.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Again, you and your cars, you can't compare the two. One is used for transportation. A gun is far more deadly then a car. Do our troops drive Rambler's and Chevy Nova's onto the battlefield? No they don't, because a gun is more deadly when used. Most of the 250,000 million guns sit in a closet all year long never used. Most of the 1/2 billion vehicles in the US are driven 15,000 miles a year. Now I ask a simple question, if you doubled the number of guns in the country, you gave them to 16 year olds, and taught them to use them in public, loaded the guns and then shot each one 15,000 times each year in public on streets full of people, would you think the death rates of guns would be less then cars? Because that is what you would have to due to make them on the same level as cars. When you make your comparison of cars to guns it is like comparing China to Togo and saying that Togo is better living conditions because only !
2,000 people die in Togo each year and 10,000,000 die every year in China. There is very good reason why. The number of people in Togo is well under a million and the number in China is well over 1 Billion. No comparison. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> <STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>I for one am appalled at the ease with which college kids get cars to drive home on vacation weekends while they are drunk. College kids die from drinking and driving each vacation time. Someone ought to put a stop to this! Maybe you, Mr. Arnold, can start the Crusade against Cars Driven by Drunken Morons... I too am concerned about the poor innocent person riding in that car with the drunken college student.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Me too, my Aunt died at the age of 16 by a drunk driver right here in Moscow just one block from where I live. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>And that is not to make fun of the serious problem of drunken driving, but to point out that your arguments, Mr. Arnold, do not solve the problem of foolish weapon use, just like more laws won't solve the problem of foolish driving.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>I think the laws do. Had there been a stop sign up then she would not have died, or had they required the automobile manufacturer to install seatbelts in cars then she would be alive now. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>And it's all great and good to be concerned about the welfare of the average person on the street, but you, nor anyone else, can force people to be decent law-abiding citizens. Criminals will always get the guns and the poisons and the knives and anything else they want. As to your idea of simple common sense rules. Back in the war for independence, when boys learned to shoot at age 10, (most of them uneducated), everyone understood personal responsibility and understood that common sense was something that is learned. Which is why they had no laws about guns at all. People were their own gun-smiths, you know. I'm all in favor of citizens being allowed to manufacture their own guns, with the barrels whatever length they want, and whatever caliber they want. And whatever firing speed they want.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Actually, you don't know your history.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1) People were forbidden to own guns by the british in many areas</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>2) It took a full minute to load and fire a gun. A knives could kill you faster and more actually then a gun made in 1776. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>3) People lived miles away from the nearest neighbor, making it kind of hard to kill people</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>4) People did not make their own guns. As a matter of fact, most the materials used to make the guns they had were imported from Britain. Which changed Thomas Jefferson's mind about the US being a solely agricultural state because we needed to be able to independently protect ourselves without reliance on foreigners. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>5) Most the guns were made as one whole piece fully manufactured. Interchangeable parts were not made and manufactured and put into practical use until the mid 1800's, well after the war of independence.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>No one wants insane, doped, mentally unstable, dangerous people running about the place with guns. But really, Mr. Arnold, you are describing an extreme and trying to make it the norm. The world ain't perfect, Mr. Arnold. And it seems to me that you are discriminating heavily against the uneducated, the untrained, and those who happen to have slightly slower synapse firings than yours and can't quite grasp the nuances of your arguments. And that isn't right, Mr. Arnold. Just the fact that someone isn't educated doesn't mean that they cannot wield a weapon carefully. And there have been some amazing things done by people with low IQ's. And it ought to be standard operating procedure for parents to teach their kids how to handle guns carefully, if they have guns in the house. Perhaps we should make hunters-safety a required course for all elementary and highschool kids. That would be the only potentially reasonable regulation. But th!
at should only restrict those who don't pass! from buying hunting licenses and that sort of thing. To restrict ownership is to restrict the basics rights of the citizen.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG> </STRONG>Unfortunately, we must discriminate on the bases of intelligence when it comes to life and death issues. We can not allow someone who is not capable of understanding chemistry to make and work with rocket fuels. We can not allow someone who is unable to grasp the concepts of the human anatomy to perform heart surgery. I know it is unfair, but it is unjust to place another's life in jeopardy. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>It must be wrong for anyone to possess a TV bigger than 25 inches or a sound system that has more than two speakers. Who needs a bigger TV? Who needs to be able to watch their favorite movies at 36 inches? Who needs to have surround, realistic sound? Who needs a DVD player? VHS works just fine. Advocates of large-screen TV's are harming the argument for the right of owning a television. NOBODY needs to see high quality digital movies in full surround sound with a 42 inch flat-screen. NOBODY. >This argument of yours, Mr. Arnold, reminds me of the arguments that socialists use to attack the wealthy, accusing them of being wasteful because they have "unnecessary" things. The point isn't that the 60 rounds a minute argument says that we need such guns to defend ourselves successfully from robbers. The point is that once regulation starts, especially on such a relatively minute detail as the number of rounds a second, it never stops.!
Why restrict flash suppressors? Why restrict silencers? Why restrict the number of rounds a second? Most people buy them just to say they have them, the way some people buy trucks, not for use but for show. Others like the feel of a good set of 3-bursts popping out of their gun in a smooth stream. You, Mr. Arnold, have no good reason for restricting the number of rounds a second, except that you don't like it.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG></STRONG>You are wrong. I have several good reasons.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1) Police officers who are trying to protect our lives are placed a further risk.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>2) It is easier to kill a bunch of people in a school yard and harder for the police or local bystanders to tackle the suspect. One man can take out 50. If he had six shots, it would be over with less fatalities.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>3) It allows for drive by shootings. Drive by shootings where invented in Chicago in the 1930's with the Tommy Gun.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>4) Far more likely for one of the bullets to stray off and kill a bystander </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Consider this, too. If I were to own a 60-round/sec gun, I would rarely fire it. Think about the cost! I would literally be shooting my money into a stump. And the fact that barrels are not cheap and firing such a gun regularly would mean replacing the barrel regularly. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>Which is fine for a drug lord, but we don't mind giving them the equipment to kill innocent people on the street now do we?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Mr. Arnold, perhaps you don't understand that automatic or high-powered, large magazine guns are really more of a luxury item, just like the Laramie or the LT edition of a vehicle. Are the heated mirrors and the automatic headlights needed? Of course not. But is it fun to have and to drive? Definitely! </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> <STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>If you say so, I just know that if I was a cop, I would prefer that may car door and vest stopped the bullet. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Mr. Arnold, there aren't a whole lot of options. This is a right understood by citizens of countries down through the ages and preserved in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms. Notice it doesn't say "bolt action or semi-automatic 36.06 or smaller rifles". It says "arms". Pretty broad term, Mr. Arnold. We who know and understand the right to bear arms need give NO consessions! Especially not reasonable ones! It is a right, not something to be bargained over. Websters defines a right as "something that one may properly claim as due [him]." That means the whole right, Mr. Arnold. Not just a limited or "abridged" version of the right.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>You weaken your argument with that one. I can give you a stick or a rock and rubberband say your right to bear arms is not infringed. They are arms, you have them, no infringement. You are right, it doesn't even say what arms are. They knew what a gun was, and if they wanted to may sure you had a gun, they would use the word "GUN" The US constitution gives that interpretation to the US Supreme Court. If they decide that a gun is not arms, but a "luxury item", like you stated above, that "people don't need, and is not "necessary to maintain a free state" you are stuck with the rubberbands and a rock. As you claim, isn't the cost of the gun an infringement? Should they be free for everyone?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>It is sad that in your life there have been irresponsible gun owners/users. But you are comparing the wrong rights. You should be asking "At what point does the right of a moron to murder with whatever weapon he chooses override the rights of my family and friends to live." </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>None of them would have died had they used any other conventional weapon. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Any moron has the right to own a gun. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>If you want to give a monkey a loaded gun please do so in your own home.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>But no one has the right to take life without due process of law. That is a moral principle clearly understood by our founding fathers who wrote the right to own any arm into the constitution. That's why murder is illegal, Mr. Arnold. When gun owners start popping off members of your family and friends, that is the time for you, Mr. Arnold, to call for a quick (i.e. within a couple weeks) application of the death penalty. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>First, you don't get the death penalty for giving somebody major brain damage or being a moron and misfiring your weapon. Second, I want the person to pay for the crime, not escape punishment by getting to die. Fourth, the death penalty only causes the perpetrators family to suffer, not the criminal. Fifth, it does make me feel any better to kill them, it would make me feel better to prevent the problem and tragedy in the first place.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>Get the law to apply the right to a quick and speedy trial to the murderer. Only then will murderers think twice about murdering. Strike the fool and the simple gain wisdom. Same goes for car drivers. If anyone who murdered someone because they were ! driving and drunk or on drugs or whatever was immediately tried by jury and executed for the murder, there would be a lot fewer murders by car. People would be a lot more careful. From a purely economic perspective, the profit (personal whatever) of the murder is not worth the cost (inevitable death).</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG></STRONG>Not true, if people thought about the cost of the murder to themselves they would not commit the crime anyway as the penalty stands today 25 years in a cell. If they were rational, they would not be murdering people anyway. If they are on drugs, or intoxicated, they can not think rationally either. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>><STRONG>Josh Wrote: </STRONG>So Mr. Arnold, it seems to me that you have a lot of angst about guns because of your experiences. And they are sad. But I wonder how many of your family members would have been shot at if they were carrying guns at the time. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>"Actually, all of them were shot while they had a gun in their hand. Kind of ironic. Except one, he had just gotten out of the water from swimming, he was shot from the back. He does have a gun and is responsible with it. I think he had it with him too. He was shot trying to defend children from people shooting at beer cans in the area. My cousin is 6'2 and 220lbs. The guy who shot him was 140lbs and 5'8. My cousin is not dead. He is severely brain damaged, doesn't remember the last ten years, is blind, loss of motor skills, and emotional control and his mother had a nervous break down because of the incident and the loss. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P><STRONG>Arnold Wrote: </STRONG>SO the only point in a gun is to make up for a small dick. Sorry, but that is what I believe. If you don't hunt, aren't a cop or a soldier, you must feel it makes up for something else. :)</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Take care of yourself Josh. >
<DIV></DIV>
<P></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>You are absolutely correct that I don't know much about the detailed operations and workings of guns. No do I want too, I hate things designed to kill people. But I do know about the sufferings brought on by the destruction of family and friends by morons that legally own and operate guns that could have been prevented by basic simple regulations of who can own a gun. I can get into the gruesome details if you like.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I ask you, if cars are designed to drive, and we regulate them and who can drive them, If airplanes are designed to fly not kill and we regulate them, if baseball bats are designed to hit balls, and we regulate them, and we live in houses, and regulate them, Why does it not make sense to you to regulate something designed to kill so that children and innocent bystanders are not killed?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I am willing to accept "YOUR RIGHT TO OWN A GUN". However, I ask that you please recognize the right of my cousin not to have his brains blown out while he is going for a swim, and the right of my brother to send his daughters school without getting hosed down by a spray of bullets, and for people not to get blown away while hunting because of a moron's inability to tell the difference between a human and a 500lbs furry bear? Why is it too hard to recognize that people have a right not to be shot? 5,000 people are killed every year in this country by guns, and most of them were accidents by people that were careless and irresponsible. It is not the killing on purpose that is the problem, you can kill anyone you want without a gun, it is the children sleeping in bed when a bullet rips through a brick wall and enters their head. Or a drunk that grabs one and starts playing with it. Or a child who shows his friend "something really cool". ! It is the troubled emo!
tional teen th!
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> at grabs the family gun and uses it on himself or his peers. These are things I want to stop. I am not concerned with the drug dealer in a deal gone bad, or the pimp that ripped someone off. I am concerned for the well being of the everyday child, and person on the street that gets shot.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Simple common sense rules like having an IQ, education, and the training to make sure you don't hurt your own children and family, is not to unreasonable to someone who truly does love his family and wants to use a gun for protecting his family. It is not reasonable to someone who wants to use it to make up for small dick or wants to use it to commit a crime or threaten his neighbors or other members of his community.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I don't want somebody in my community that is insane, chemically dependent, mentally unstable, a very low IQ, uneducated, untrained, and oblivious as to deadliness of gun, owning one and using it at will. That is scary and very threatening to me, even more then a burglar coming into my home with a knife.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Not regulating and requiring people to meet certain requirements to own and operate a gun is not like not regulating who can be a doctor, firefighter, ambulance driver, taxi driver, or pharmacist. Both can be deadly and cost someone's life.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>People who want to do EVERYTHING to make sure they have right to bare arms in the future should be making some reasonable concessions that allow them to keep a gun in the house. Saying things like " No regulations on firearms or the people that will be using them" and guns that shoot people at 60 rounds a minute are "OK" is only hurting the legitimacy of the argument to keep a gun for personal protection. NOBODY needs to shoot 60 people a minute, NOBODY.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>I personally could care less if people own a gun or not. You want to own a gun, and go shoot at beer cans in a corn field, have at it, I don't care. But when gun owners start popping off members of my family and friends, you better change the way you are doing things. SO far three different guns owners have shot at 1 family member and 2 friends.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>At what point does the right of my family and friends to breath override the the rights of morons to own a gun?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Donovan Arnold
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>---------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Do you Yahoo!?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMKENUS/2734??PS=">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>