• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

911 call: Gun in Easter fight was 'to prove point'

independent_thinker2002 said:
Please notice that I endorse coupling this with a gun safety course. Education alone will reduce needless deaths that may occur from accidents.

Of course outlaws will still get guns. Nothing will prevent that.

.
Click to expand...

If it's mostly about a gun safety course, why does a FOID have to be renewed every 5 years? Answer: gov't bureaucracy making a right into a privilege.


I invite you to examine the data I posted on accidents.

Fatal automobile accidents are about 32 times more common than fatal firearms accidents; fatal gun accidents are not a major problem compared to many other types of fatal accidents... and again, driving isn't a right enumerated in the Constitution. Firearm ownership is.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Guns are also used to save lives, and far more often than they are used to take lives, even by the most low-ball estimates.
Click to expand...

Guns have legitimate purposes, I'm not trying to demonize them. I'm just saying that they are dangerous. They aren't a tool used in emergency rooms.


Goshin said:
As for accidents...the last time I checked automobile fatal accidents were around 40,000.
Click to expand...

That would be lower if cars were required to have the breathalyzer ignition system. ;)
 
Goshin said:
If it's mostly about a gun safety course, why does a FOID have to be renewed every 5 years? Answer: gov't bureaucracy making a right into a privilege.
Click to expand...

With rights come responsibilities. It makes sense to be proactive versus reactive with regards to responsible gun ownership. There are regulations on other rights as well.

Goshin said:
I invite you to examine the data I posted on accidents.

Fatal automobile accidents are about 32 times more common than fatal firearms accidents; fatal gun accidents are not a major problem compared to many other types of fatal accidents... and again, driving isn't a right enumerated in the Constitution. Firearm ownership is.
Click to expand...

Rights are not absolute. Cars are used more than 32 times more than guns are.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Guns have legitimate purposes, I'm not trying to demonize them. I'm just saying that they are dangerous. They aren't a tool used in emergency rooms.
Click to expand...


Many tools used in emergency rooms can also be used to kill, like defibriliators, scalpels and rib spreaders. So can a baseball bat, a shovel, a kitchen knife, a rock, or your bare hands. :shrug:

One of the most common ways women are murdered is by manual strangulation (strangulation using the hands only). Maybe we need a hand-owners card...


Those few states that use FOID need to be challenged in court for unConstitutionality. I'll speak to the GOA about it, sounds like a good one to take on.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
With rights come responsibilities. It makes sense to be proactive versus reactive with regards to responsible gun ownership. There are regulations on other rights as well.



Rights are not absolute. Cars are used more than 32 times more than guns are.
Click to expand...

So you support requiring law-abiding citizens to get a license for freedom of speech and freedom of religion then? Seriously, that's a level of prior restraint that would not be tolerated if put on any of your other rights in the BoR.

Nor have I seen any evidence that the FOID has significant positive impact. A right should not be infringed upon without a damn good reason, and there should be substantial REAL benefits from allowing the infringement to justify it, not just "in theory". As you admitted, nothing will keep criminals from getting guns... and as I demonstrated, cars are not as restricted as guns in a FOID state despite only a tiny fraction as many fatal accidents.

If you really want to save lives, have the national speed limit reduced to 35. It would save far more lives than FOID ever could. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Many tools used in emergency rooms can also be used to kill, like defibriliators, scalpels and rib spreaders. So can a baseball bat, a shovel, a kitchen knife, a rock, or your bare hands. :shrug:

One of the most common ways women are murdered is by manual strangulation (strangulation using the hands only). Maybe we need a hand-owners card...


Those few states that use FOID need to be challenged in court for unConstitutionality. I'll speak to the GOA about it, sounds like a good one to take on.
Click to expand...

You are reaching now. Hand owner's card?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You are reaching now. Hand owner's card?
Click to expand...

No more than you are reaching.

You support the FOID requirement. You have provided no evidence that it has any positive effects in the real world. I have asked the question whether you would tolerate that level of prior restraint being imposed on any other Constitutional right and gotten no direct answer. I have demonstrated that firearms are used to protect life more often than to take it.

I've demonstrated with facts that firearm accidents are not a major problem, compared to auto accidents, drowning and other common accidents. You have agreed that FOID will not prevent the criminally-inclined from arming themselves.

I am left to assume you support the FOID because... well, just because.
 
Goshin said:
So you support requiring law-abiding citizens to get a license for freedom of speech and freedom of religion then? Seriously, that's a level of prior restraint that would not be tolerated if put on any of your other rights in the BoR.

Nor have I seen any evidence that the FOID has significant positive impact. A right should not be infringed upon without a damn good reason, and there should be substantial REAL benefits from allowing the infringement to justify it, not just "in theory". As you admitted, nothing will keep criminals from getting guns... and as I demonstrated, cars are not as restricted as guns in a FOID state despite only a tiny fraction as many fatal accidents.

If you really want to save lives, have the national speed limit reduced to 35. It would save far more lives than FOID ever could. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Other rights aren't as immediately dangerous.

You keep leaving out the education part of what I support. You can't be opposed that. If nothing else, the FOID card is a picture ID that says that you would have completed that course and are cleared to own a gun, responsibly. I just want to help ensure responsible, educated gun ownership.

Cars get emission checks in some states. They require being registered every year, for exorbinant fees in some states. Cars are often impounded.

Saving more lives regulating cars doesn't mitigate that extra lives could be saved by regulating guns by requiring mandatory education.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Other rights aren't as immediately dangerous.

You keep leaving out the education part of what I support. You can't be opposed that. If nothing else, the FOID card is a picture ID that says that you would have completed that course and are cleared to own a gun, responsibly. I just want to help ensure responsible, educated gun ownership.

Cars get emission checks in some states. They require being registered every year, for exorbinant fees in some states. Cars are often impounded.

Saving more lives regulating cars doesn't mitigate that extra lives could be saved by regulating guns by requiring mandatory education.
Click to expand...


We've already established that driving cars is far more dangerous than gun ownership, yet car ownership isn't an enumerated right. You have not answered why a FOID card has to be renewed if it is mainly about completing an education course... if that were the case, it would be a lifetime card, not something you had to renew every 5 years. Nor have you demonstrated with facts that FOID actually reduces firearm accidents.

Turning a right into a licensed privilege should not happen...especially not if there is no solid proof of substantial positive benefits from the infringement, if then.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
No more than you are reaching.

You support the FOID requirement. You have provided no evidence that it has any positive effects in the real world. I have asked the question whether you would tolerate that level of prior restraint being imposed on any other Constitutional right and gotten no direct answer. I have demonstrated that firearms are used to protect life more often than to take it.

I've demonstrated with facts that firearm accidents are not a major problem, compared to auto accidents, drowning and other common accidents. You have agreed that FOID will not prevent the criminally-inclined from arming themselves.

I am left to assume you support the FOID because... well, just because.
Click to expand...

It's proof that you are allowed to own a gun to an officer in the field, especially Conservation officers encountering hunters. Some people shouldn't have guns. If it is already determined, an officer doesn't have to try to make that call. I know lot's of gun owners who have no problem with the card. I also know some that need a course in gun safety.

I support the fact that Free Speech is not absolute.

I support the Fifth Amendment not applying to Income Tax.
 
Goshin said:
We've already established that driving cars is far more dangerous than gun ownership, yet car ownership isn't an enumerated right. You have not answered why a FOID card has to be renewed if it is mainly about completing an education course... if that were the case, it would be a lifetime card, not something you had to renew every 5 years. Nor have you demonstrated with facts that FOID actually reduces firearm accidents.

Turning a right into a licensed privilege should not happen...especially not if there is no solid proof of substantial positive benefits from the infringement, if then.
Click to expand...

You are using the statistics erroneously. Cars are ubiquitous and used as such. Of course they have a higher number of fatalities. But if you examine the rate of fatal accidents per use you would come to a different conclusion.

They can take test every five years after the initial course. People don't always retain everything.

You keep pretending that education won't prevent accidents. That is a positive benefit.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It's proof that you are allowed to own a gun to an officer in the field, especially Conservation officers encountering hunters. Some people shouldn't have guns. If it is already determined, an officer doesn't have to try to make that call. I know lot's of gun owners who have no problem with the card. I also know some that need a course in gun safety.

I support the fact that Free Speech is not absolute.

I support the Fifth Amendment not applying to Income Tax.
Click to expand...


I think there's a misunderstanding here. Simply because it makes things convenient for Conservation officers isn't remotely adequate reason.

Gun ownership is an enumerated Constitutional right. Yes, rights are not without limits.... but to limit a right with prior restraint, as the FOID clearly does, you must demonstrate the following:
1. A compelling societal intrest in establishing the restriction;
2. That the restriction will have actual substantial positive benefits to society as a whole, not merely theoretical benefits.

Since FOID is definately a restriction on an enumerated right, the burden is on you to establish that it is worth allowing a core right to be thus restricted. So far I haven't seen a single fact establishing that FOID provides any substantial benefits to society.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You keep pretending that education won't prevent accidents. That is a positive benefit.
Click to expand...


You haven't proven that it has any effect on accidents, let alone a substantial effect that would make an infringement on a core right enumerated in the BoR potentially justifiable. You have provided no such evidence, merely assumptions.

Burden of proof is in your court.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
I think there's a misunderstanding here. Simply because it makes things convenient for Conservation officers isn't remotely adequate reason.

Gun ownership is an enumerated Constitutional right. Yes, rights are not without limits.... but to limit a right with prior restraint, as the FOID clearly does, you must demonstrate the following:
1. A compelling societal intrest in establishing the restriction;
2. That the restriction will have actual substantial positive benefits to society as a whole, not merely theoretical benefits.

Since FOID is definately a restriction on an enumerated right, the burden is on you to establish that it is worth allowing a core right to be thus restricted. So far I haven't seen a single fact establishing that FOID provides any substantial benefits to society.
Click to expand...

It isn't about making things convenient. It's about an opportunity to take guns away from someone who shouldn't have them. Just because you can't prevent all undesirable people from owning guns doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to prevent it and enforce the law. This makes society safer, that is the compelling social interest.
 
Goshin said:
You haven't proven that it has any effect on accidents, let alone a substantial effect that would make an infringement on a core right enumerated in the BoR potentially justifiable. You have provided no such evidence, merely assumptions.

Burden of proof is in your court.
Click to expand...

Education will prevent accidents. Right now, ignorant people have accidents with guns. The number could be reduced by requiring education. This is just common sense.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It isn't about making things convenient. It's about an opportunity to take guns away from someone who shouldn't have them. Just because you can't prevent all undesirable people from owning guns doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to prevent it and enforce the law. This makes society safer, that is the compelling social interest.
Click to expand...

What makes a person "undesirable" in terms of exercising their Constitutional rights? We already have the NICS system intended to prevent felons, loonies, known substance abusers and suchlike from buying firearms legally... so who else do you want to prevent from owning a firearm?

If someone is truly an idiot, like the woman in this story, would a safety class have prevented her from doing what she did? Doubtful.


independent_thinker2002 said:
Education will prevent accidents. Right now, ignorant people have accidents with guns. The number could be reduced by requiring education. This is just common sense.
Click to expand...

Again, you have offered no proof, only assumptions. If you wish to turn a Constitutional RIGHT into a licensed PRIVILEGE (that has to be renewed every 5 years), you should have to show that it has an actual, real-world proven, substantial positive effect on society as a whole (at a minimum!). At this point, you have offered no such proof.

Indeed, even if there were such proof, and none has been presented, one could argue that licensing a right in this manner is still Constitutionally dubious.

There are people who are "undesirable" in terms of free speech after all... like neo-Nazi White Supremacists. We could change your statement thus:

It isn't about making things convenient. It's about an opportunity to take political speech away from someone who shouldn't have it. Just because you can't prevent all undesirable people from spreading their dangerous ideology doesn't mean you shouldn't take steps to prevent it and enforce the law. This makes society safer, that is the compelling social interest
Click to expand...

Well, society would be safer if Neo-Nazi White Supremacists could not legally spread their ideology... so are you OK with a 5 year renewable Free Speech card?

I'm guessing the answer is "no". Neither am I. If you're going to respect one Constitutional Right, respect them all.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Gets ridiculous in a hurry, doesn't it....
Click to expand...
And yet, liberals are perfectly happy to regulate the right to arms in ways that, if applied to the rights they -do- like, would cause them to scream bloody murder.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It amazes me that people get upset when the government regulates dangerous things.
Click to expand...
Regulation that does not infringe on the right to arms bothers me not in the least.

A FOID? Infringement.
 
Deuce said:
The "criteria" for getting a driver's license is "not getting more than six DUI's" in some states. I don't really see what the worry is about.
Click to expand...
What's the constitutional criteria for exercising the right to arms?
That is, what requirement does the Constitution specify?
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
To say "at the government's whim" isn't an honest representation of reality. There are valid reasons that some people shouldn't have guns.
Click to expand...
Who argues this isnt the case?

The public safety trumps an individual right.
Click to expand...
Only when that 'public safety' is placed in a state of clear, present and immediate danger.

One vote can't take a life.
Click to expand...
And so...?
 
Goshin said:
What makes a person "undesirable" in terms of exercising their Constitutional rights? We already have the NICS system intended to prevent felons, loonies, known substance abusers and suchlike from buying firearms legally... so who else do you want to prevent from owning a firearm?

If someone is truly an idiot, like the woman in this story, would a safety class have prevented her from doing what she did? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

The NICS system won't stop someone from buying ammo at their local WalMart.

And it doesn't matter if would have stopped this woman or not. It would help prevent other situations.

Goshin said:
Again, you have offered no proof, only assumptions. If you wish to turn a Constitutional RIGHT into a licensed PRIVILEGE (that has to be renewed every 5 years), you should have to show that it has an actual, real-world proven, substantial positive effect on society as a whole (at a minimum!). At this point, you have offered no such proof.

Indeed, even if there were such proof, and none has been presented, one could argue that licensing a right in this manner is still Constitutionally dubious.
Click to expand...

You are asking me to prove that something that hasn't been tried yet works. As I have stated, it's just common sense that better education leads to more responsibility and fewer accidents.

Goshin said:
There are people who are "undesirable" in terms of free speech after all... like neo-Nazi White Supremacists. We could change your statement thus:



Well, society would be safer if Neo-Nazi White Supremacists could not legally spread their ideology... so are you OK with a 5 year renewable Free Speech card?

I'm guessing the answer is "no". Neither am I. If you're going to respect one Constitutional Right, respect them all.
Click to expand...

Find me a coroner's report or death certificate that states the cause of death as "free speech wound to the head".

Guns are more dangerous than words. People "shoot their mouth off" all the time and no one has to go to the emergency room or morgue.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
The NICS system won't stop someone from buying ammo at their local WalMart.

And it doesn't matter if would have stopped this woman or not. It would help prevent other situations.



You are asking me to prove that something that hasn't been tried yet works. As I have stated, it's just common sense that better education leads to more responsibility and fewer accidents.
Click to expand...

There are states that use FOID. Show proof that the use of FOID has had a substantial positive effect on accidents or crime IN those states and then we might have something to discuss. Until then it is just speculation. "I think that turning this fundamental right, enumerated in the Constitution, into a licenced privilege will help make things better" is an inadequate justification. The burden of proof is on you if you want to infringe on a fundamental right, whether that right is one of your "sacred cows" or not.

If you simply want everyone who might own a gun to take a safety course, simply make a gun safety course a standard High School class that everyone takes in their Senior year. No need for FOID.



Find me a coroner's report or death certificate that states the cause of death as "free speech wound to the head".

Guns are more dangerous than words. People "shoot their mouth off" all the time and no one has to go to the emergency room or morgue.
Click to expand...


The propagation of Nazi ideology resulted in millions of deaths in the 20th Century. Also culpable for many deaths are White Surpremacist ideology, Stalinism and Maoism. Words can indeed be far more dangerous than bullets. Epic Fail, my friend.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this happaned in Arabland if it would be labled a religious slaying all over the news?
 
That lady was not very smart. She should have made sure it wasn't even loaded when she held it at her. Or make sure safety was on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom