A slightly different view of the "compensation" argument...

[PavePusher]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp

"LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.


A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem."

More at link...

[Ozymanithrax]

1. So how many dead 12-year old girls enough...

Is a thousand OK.

How about ten thousand?

I understand your view of the second amendment, but trying to build your defense of the second amendment on the bodies of dead children doesn't work.

[PavePusher]

2. And no-one is trying to do that.

But your innuendo is duly noted.

How many people have to be hurt or killed before we can restrict to First Amendment?

Freedom and Liberty have Risk as their constant companion. If you want to accept that risk, you must be willing to hold each individual responsible for their own actions. If you want to reduce risk, you must hold everyone responsible for the actions of the few. I really don't think the second option will result in protection of Freedom or Liberty.

Does that sound cold and unfeeling? Perhaps so. That is, after all, the way of logic and reason.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. This is your quote.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem."

This is your quote. Your argument is that when balancing your freedom to own a gun and a child's freedom to live, you right to own a gun must be held sacred and the child's life flushed down the crapper.

I admit that freedom is dangerous. But you should be able to make a better argument than saying your right to own a gun is superior to another humans right to life.

Not so long ago in history, a man had the right to rape his wife. Marriage, under law, gave him the right to use her vagina whenever the hell he wanted and removed her right to say no. The argument that a man held rape rights over a wife was utterly immoral and is not longer considered valid.

Your right to own a gun, or anyone's right to own a gun, can not trump a nother human's right to life or your life and every life becomes meaningliess.

Find a better arugment.

[X_Digger]

4. Perhaps you failed to note that the quote was from the author, not PavePusher? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

6. When does another human forfeit the right to life?

Does the death of another person at your hand always equal a crime?

Does an unprovoked criminal attack warrant a lethal response?

Do the circumstances and intentions of the humans involved make a difference?

Should the weak and infirm give up the means to self-defense for the "greater good?" Should they suffer their fate as natural targets of the strong and lawless drawing predators from the rest of the herd?

That a child suffer due to the negligence of an adult it tragic. It makes little difference if it be a carelessly stored gun, a poorly maintained space heater, or a bottle of household chemicals.

Ever since the first human discovered that a pointy stick could spell the difference between having supper or being supper weapons have been used for good and ill. Past societies, even primitive societies, affixed blame to individuals for the crimes they committed, not the tools they used.

[PavePusher]

7. Your responses seem to imply that my defense of gun ownership...

had something to do with the death of a child.

Demonstrate how this was the fault of gun owners in general, and not solely that of the specific owner of that gun, and you'll have a talking point.

Until then... :popcorn:

[Ozymanithrax]

8. You seem offended that someone would take the death of the child...

as evidence that some limits to gun ownership might be good.

Rights must be balanced and they can be limited for the benefit of people in society. Gun ownership should not be held sacred to the point where we ignore the columbines or accidental dead.

[spin]

10. I don't believe that anyone here has suggested that we drop ...

truly reasonable restrictions that many states currently have to regulate firearms. I will use my home state of Florida as an example of what I consider basically good gun law.

If you are curious you can review a summary of Florida gun law at:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_fl.htm

Note that the Brady Campaign dislikes Florida gun law intensely which indicates a state with fair laws.

[PavePusher]

11. You keep attributing things to me...

that I did not say or believe.

Good Day to you.

[Callisto32]

12. Yes, I do take offense at that.

Because you want to punish PEOPLE THAT DID NOT HARM THE CHILD!

Since this "other rights are all limited" argument keeps coming up...

These cases can be distinguished. When we limit the right for the good of society, it is limited at the point where it will either cause harm or is almost certain to cause that harm. If you think about it, we already limit firearms the same way. Carrying a firearm is not likely to cause harm to another, taking it out and menacing with or discharging the firearm IS. That activity is already limited, as all the things that you can do bad with a gun are ALREADY ILLEGAL.

[RSillsbee]

16. some limits to gun ownership might be good.

Most of the people that post here agree w/ you. I support limiting gun ownership to law abiding citizens who don't shoot little girls. Maybe we should pass a law

[spin]

9. My daughter is alive today because she used a firearm ...

to stop an intruder who was forcing the sliding glass door of our home open. A burglar alarm was sounding and there was a 60 pound black Lab in the home. Neither stopped the intruder. He was determined to gain entry and when he saw my daughter walk into the kitchen he told her, "I'm going to rape you!"

He hadn't noticed the large caliber revolver she held at her side, but when she drew down on him, he ran.

Firearms can be used for evil or for good. In our nation the number of incidences such as my daughter's are hard to count as many never are reported or make it into any database.

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

***snip***

On the Other Hand: Studying the Studies

Excerpted from ABCNEWS.com:

The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University's public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. "Many of the basic statistics about guns are in wide disagreement with each other depending on which source you go to," says Cook, a member of the apolitical National Consortium on Violence Research. "That's been a real puzzle to people who are trying to understand what's going on."
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So while is is tragically true that firearms accidentally kill children, it is also true that firearms save lives.

[spin]

5. The 12 year old girl died as a result of an accidental shooting ...

All such accidents are tragic and preventable using commonsense and basic firearm safety. It's unfortunate that we can't totally eliminate firearm accidents but we ARE making headway through education. Many responsible firearm owners now secure their firearms properly.



In order to reduce accidents; firearm safety, including hands on training, should be taught in high school. Gun owners have little problem with a quality firearm safety course being taught to teenagers, unfortunately those who oppose firearms believe that introducing students to firearms might cause an increase in interest in the shooting sports.

Firearms are very common in the American society and will remain so in the future. Just as everybody should know how to swim, everybody should know basic firearm safety.

The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling are:


1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
This is the primary rule of gun safety. A safe direction means that the gun is pointed so that even if it were to go off it would not cause injury or damage. The key to this rule is to control where the muzzle or front end of the barrel is pointed at all times. Common sense dictates the safest direction, depending on different circumstances.


2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
When holding a gun, rest your finger on the trigger guard or along the side of the gun. Until you are actually ready to fire, do not touch the trigger.





3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Whenever you pick up a gun, immediately engage the safety device if possible, and, if the gun has a magazine, remove it before opening the action and looking into the chamber(s) which should be clear of ammunition. If you do not know how to open the action or inspect the chamber(s), leave the gun alone and get help from someone who does.
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

The link goes on to list more rules for storing and handling firearms.

[Euromutt]

13. So how come one Gabriella Redding or Evan Lopez is NOT "too many"?

"Who?" I hear you ask.

Evan Lopez was a 2 year-old who was killed three days ago when his grandfather inadvertently backed a pickup truck over him: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_841b8ce6-e05e-5489-a88a-8396f578ee89.html

Gabriella Redding is another 2 year-old who came within "literally inches from death" (as a paramedic put it) when her twin brother released the parking brake on the family car and it rolled onto her.

Every year on average, some 1,500 children under the age of 10 are killed in motor vehicle collisions; of those, just over a hundred are killed in "backover accidents" like Evan Lopez. By contrast, about 30 under-10s are killed by unintentionally inflicted gunshot wounds. So how come to Ms Gorlin's anti-gun male, one Taniqua Hall is sufficient reason to severely restrict or completely outlaw private ownership of firearms (note that NYC's already stringent regulations on firearm ownership did not prevent Hall's death) but a hundred Edgar Lopezes every year (not to mention the other 1,400 or so under-10s killed in motor vehicle collisions other than backovers) is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of having privately owned and operated motor vehicles?

Frankly, there is no shortage of things that kill many more children under 10 every year than firearms do; poisonings kill twice as many, residential fires twelve times as many, drownings twenty-two times as many, and motor vehicles, as stated above, fifty times as many. Why are these not matters of more pressing urgency?

[PavePusher]

14. But-but-but-but-but....

cars are useful and not intended to kill with, while de gunz are meant only to kill people!

Come on, didn't you get the memo?

[lawodevolution]

15. How many dead children is enough for the gun control groups to stop

Blocking attempts at teaching children gun safety. When are they filing to stop trying to block widespread acceptance of the Eddie eagle program? They will not because gun accidents involving children is the gun control groups bread and butter. If gun accident rates reduce the people who run gun control groups will have smaller paychecks.

"I understand your view of the second amendment, but trying to build your defense of the second amendment on the bodies of dead children doesn't work."

Your side is the only side trying to use the dead bodies of victims to push your agenda.