Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 31 Dec '14 00:44 / 2 edits
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

    Woman shot dead in Walmart by her 2 year old son who found a gun in her handbag. He could have shot anyone.

    Why on earth would a woman bring a handgun into Walmart! You guys in the US really need to sort this gun thing out.
  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    31 Dec '14 18:47 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by divegeester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

    Woman shot dead in Walmart by her 2 year old son who found a gun in her handbag. He could have shot anyone.

    Why on earth would a woman bring a handgun into Walmart! You guys in the US really need to sort this gun thing out.
    Perhaps, but don't hold your breath. No matter how many innocent people die in gun related deaths in the good old USA, most Americans want their guns. Yes, it's really stupid and destructive, but that's....America.
  3. 31 Dec '14 19:15
    Originally posted by divegeester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

    Woman shot dead in Walmart by her 2 year old son who found a gun in her handbag. He could have shot anyone.

    Why on earth would a woman bring a handgun into Walmart! You guys in the US really need to sort this gun thing out.
    The 'Daily Mail' website has an article (30 December 2014) about
    "Dressed to kill: Texas women who take their guns EVERYWHERE (emphasis
    in the original) and they all insist they won't hesitate to open fire in self-defence"

    I suspect that many proud Americans would regard this mother's death as
    a minor price to pay for celebrating America's glorious 'gun freedoms'.
    Will this incident lead to any change in American gun laws? I doubt it.
  4. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Dec '14 19:43
    Originally posted by divegeester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

    Woman shot dead in Walmart by her 2 year old son who found a gun in her handbag. He could have shot anyone.

    Why on earth would a woman bring a handgun into Walmart! You guys in the US really need to sort this gun thing out.
    Impossible. Because of a very tragic inability to see the future, our Forefathers made gun ownership a right.
  5. 31 Dec '14 19:56
    Originally posted by vivify to divegeester
    Impossible. Because of a very tragic inability to see the future, our Forefathers made gun ownership a right.
    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, which was a legal right.
    Anything in the US Constitution can be amended if enough US citizens want it.
  6. 31 Dec '14 20:12
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, which was a legal right.
    Anything in the US Constitution can be amended if enough US citizens want it.
    Yes but herein lies the problem (and coincidentally it was the same for slavery). The are certain regions in the US that will never willingly agree to stricter gun control laws. Namely the South, Midwest, and most parts of the west. There is a reason this kind of stuff happens more often in Texas than in Massachusetts. Enacting stricter gun control laws in Massachusetts would fly without much resistance. In Texas it might stir rebellion. This is the thing you Europeans don't seem to get about the United States. It's huge and the cultural differences and physical distances are as great as one end of Europe to another. In fact Dallas, Texas is as far away from Boston Massachusetts as Kiev or even Moscow is from London and while the language, economy, etc. is roughly the same there are tremendous cultural differences between the two.

    Strict gun control is not going to be enacted and enforced on the state of Texas without civil war. It's just not going to happen.
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Dec '14 20:45
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, which was a legal right.
    Anything in the US Constitution can be amended if enough US citizens want it.
    Slave ownership wasn't protected by the U.S. Constitution the way gun ownership is.
  8. 31 Dec '14 20:47
    Originally posted by divegeester
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

    Woman shot dead in Walmart by her 2 year old son who found a gun in her handbag. He could have shot anyone.

    Why on earth would a woman bring a handgun into Walmart!
    The woman paid a heavy price for her carelessness, in her handling of a deadly weapon.

    Walmart and other retailers during the Holiday season and all year long attract thieves and muggers who prey on innocent shoppers. Many of those are armed, and even if they aren't they often don't hesitate to injure and maim their victims. That's why a woman would bring a handgun into Walmart!

    Tragically, women who carry concealed, are more limited in places to conceal weapons than are men due to clothing, but a purse is just a horrible place to conceal a weapon. It is often the first target of the mugger, so if he surprises you he has your purse and weapon. If, as a last choice a woman must carry in her purse, it ought to be a specially designed holster purse, so that the gun is separated from junk normally found in purses that can block the barrel, and which has some form of safety catch to prevent easy access.

    In the required class I took for my CCW license, women were warned about the limitations, and against carrying a gun in their purse.
  9. 31 Dec '14 20:51
    Originally posted by bill718
    Yes, it's really stupid and destructive, but that's....America.
    That's your opinion, and might have been mine before I actually faced armed criminals.

    Outlawing guns would mean that only outlaws would have them. I can't tolerate that to make liberals feel good.
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    31 Dec '14 20:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Slave ownership wasn't protected by the U.S. Constitution the way gun ownership is.
    Yes, it was.

    The original Article IV, Section 2 (fugitive slave clause) stated:

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom Service or Labour may be due.

    This is arguably as strong a protection of slavery as the second amendment is of the right to possess guns.

    Of course, the fugitive slave clause was implicitly repealed by the 13th Amendment. The second amendment can be similarly limited or repealed if the people desired to do so.

    Still, even if it were repealed, as no1 would say, a natural right of self-defense and its corollary right to possess weapons reasonably necessary for self-defense would not disappear merely because the second amendment were repealed. But the right to gun ownership is not dependent specifically on what was or was not passed in 1791.
  11. 31 Dec '14 20:59
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    I suspect that many proud Americans would regard this mother's death as
    a minor price to pay for celebrating America's glorious 'gun freedoms'.
    Will this incident lead to any change in American gun laws? I doubt it.
    Your suspicion is unjustified. Most Americans, including the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment (which includes me), don't consider any death as a minor price. It is tragic, especially for the child in whose memory the event will be burned forever. We consider it as an inevitable fact that crime and accidents are part of being free humans, and many of us recognize that depending on government (police) to keep us safe is foolhardy.

    I hope you are right about our not changing based on any single tragic event.
  12. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Dec '14 21:00
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That's your opinion, and might have been mine before I actually faced armed criminals.

    Outlawing guns would mean that only outlaws would have them. I can't tolerate that to make liberals feel good.
    While that's true, you have to think of it like this: supposed guns were banned in the 20's, do you think that criminals would still be robbing people with Tommy Guns, muskets and other guns of that era today?

    The sooner guns are banned, the sooner the idea that only criminals will have guns will also be false. The longer we wait to ban guns, the longer it'll take for guns to be non-existent in the U.S. Otherwise, deaths by firearms will only guess with time.
  13. 31 Dec '14 21:02 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by vivify
    Slave ownership wasn't protected by the U.S. Constitution the way gun ownership is.
    My general point is that Americans are not forever destined to conform to
    the narrow paths envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the late 18th century.
    It was not until the early 20th century that women gained the right to vote.
    Now it appears that a woman has a realistic hope of being elected President.
  14. 31 Dec '14 21:04
    Originally posted by vivify
    Impossible. Because of a very tragic inability to see the future, our Forefathers made gun ownership a right.
    Actually, it was their ability to see into the future, and to recognize that man's nature wouldn't change, that the right to keep and bear arms became part of the bill of rights, which wasn't a part of the original Constitution draft, but the right to own slaves was a part of the original draft.

    The Bill of Rights was passed as a bone to the anti-federalist writers who opposed the adoption of the Constitution based on its lack of a bill of rights.
  15. Standard member vivify
    rain
    31 Dec '14 21:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    My general point is that Americans are not forever destined to conform to
    the paths envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the late 18th century.
    It was not until the early 20th century that women acquired the right to vote.
    Now it appears that a woman has a realistic hope of being elected President.
    Agreed. It's just that when it comes to the Constitution, things are much harder to change. When I said "impossible", that was just hyperbole.