[Vision2020] : 11 year-old Montana girl shoots twohome intruders

[lfalen]

Ted
You make some good point. However gun regulation only keeps guns out of the hands od law abiding citizens. That is not to same that some tighter regulations are not needed, particularly background checks on those purchasing weapons.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:16:42 -0700
To: "Joe Campbell" joekc at adelphia.net
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] : 11 year-old Montana girl shoots twohome intruders

> All-
> 
> Someone "Offlisted" a response to a comment I made recently on Vision2020,
> about connections between irrational impulsive violence resulting in death,
> and firearm use and ownership.  This led to a long exchange that I wished
> had occurred on Vision2020, but the other person in this discussion did not
> want exposure to this public list.
> 
> We both made good points back and forth in the debate, which ranged from US
> Constitutional issues, rights to self protection (why not promote non-lethal
> stun gun ownership and training in use for home protection, I asked?),
> examples of lowered rates of firearm ownership correlated with increasing
> rates of violent crime in some nations (read study from Harvard at the link
> below), examples of nations that have more firearm regulation than the USA
> who have lower violent crime rates and firearm deaths and injuries, the
> slippery slope of firearm regulation potentially resulting in widespread
> loss of the right to own a firearm, even for the law abiding and responsible
> citizen, etc.
> 
> I took the position that firearm ownership should always require a test and
> background check, with ownership recorded as we do with automobile
> ownership, and a firearm license issued.  The rights of all law abiding and
> "responsible" citizens to own firearms should be protected.  But anyone with
> a violent crime conviction (think Hamilton) should have their firearms
> seized.  Automatic weapons, or weapons easily modified to full
> automatic, should be banned for general ownership.  There is no legitimate
> use for these weapons for self protection or hunting.  The argument to allow
> these weapons to be legal for general ownership is similar to the argument
> for legal ownership of RPGs...
> 
> I have heard all the objections to this position, and after debating this
> issue in depth "Off List," I'm not seeking a back and forth, so perhaps
> others on this list could parse through the details if anyone objects to
> what I just wrote.  I acknowledge the arguments from the limited or no
> firearm regulation position, but my ideals of promoting a world without
> violence perhaps biases my thinking against the claim that we should all be
> armed and ready to use lethal force to solve the problem of violent crime,
> via easy unregulated access to firearms.
> 
> I will forward this study from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy,
> regarding the firearm regulation debate, that I was sent by the person with
> whom I had the firearm regulation debate:
> 
> http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
> 
> Ted Moffett
> 
> On 7/25/07, Joe Campbell <joekc at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > Saundra says: "I'm happy to respond to your push, Kai, with a shove:  I
> > can dig up as many stories highlighting the tragedy of guns in homes as you
> > can pro-gun stories.  Here's a *local* example, and there are a
> > heartbreaking number of similar tragedies across the country."
> >
> > Kai responds: "Between 1996-1999 459 children under the age of 5 died from
> > accidental drowning in non-pool home accidents. Bathtubs accounted for 292
> > deaths, 5-gallon buckets were second with 58 deaths, even the toilet claimed
> > 16 lives. ... It doesn't matter whether it was an accidental shooting or an
> > accidental drowning. The fact remains, the ADULT failed in his or her
> > responsibilty. Is the death of a child any less tragic if it is by drowning
> > or being left in a vehicle?"
> >
> > I think you're missing the point, Kai. One suggested justification for
> > unrestricted gun laws is protection. If it turns out that there are more
> > folks who die by accidental gun death than folks who thwart murderers,
> > robbers, etc., then that original argument looses its steam: guns are more
> > likely to harm than help. No one claims that pools or bathtubs are needed
> > for protection, so the comparison is irrelevant to Saundra's point.
> >
> > Not that your comments are irrelevant altogether, though. Ultimately, the
> > responsibility for gun accidents rests on adults and for anyone who happens
> > to own a gun that is an important fact to keep in mind!
> >
> > Best, Joe
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> 
>