Bowling for Columbine

[Dano]

A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can do the same)?
*****  To elaborate on this idea, I know a person who isn't allowed to drive because she is epileptic.  This sucks for her, but it would suck worse for her - and possibly others - if she had a seizure while doing 65 on the interstate.  So if they limit driving based on a record of physical health, why not also limit gun (and car) use based on a record of mental health.  In other words, no guns for the guy with a history of psychotic episodes.  Remember: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Funk, E.]

Remember also it was a self armed militia of non-professional military citizens that Washington mustered to fight the British until the French sent us professional troops. So yes, actually, there is an economic precedent that says guns are essential to the American economy.

I would not be surprised if one of the tacit understandings of a would be invader is that the amount of internal resistence they would encounter would be astronomical. A well armed public is apart of the American Way.

Furthermore a well armed public also keeps a certain honesty in the government. If they REALLY go around the bend on this terrorist emergency war acts and cut into our civil liberties too much we'll stop voting with ballots. I think that keeps us in the loop more than if we were not armed.

[Dano]

Remember also it was a self armed militia of non-professional military citizens that Washington mustered to fight the British until the French sent us professional troops. So yes, actually, there is an economic precedent that says guns are essential to the American economy.
*****  By that logic so are blacksmiths and saddle makers.  If guns were banned tomorrow - and again I don't think they should be - the effect on our economy would be negligible.  Not so if cars were banned.

I would not be surprised if one of the tacit understandings of a would be invader is that the amount of internal resistence they would encounter would be astronomical. A well armed public is apart of the American Way.
*****  An armed citizenry can deter invaders, but we have other advantages that kind of help (two oceans and the best navy the world has ever seen).  But I agree that gun ownership is a part of our heritage.  I wasn't making an argument for banning guns - just explaining what someone making that argument would say to the automobile analogy.

Furthermore a well armed public also keeps a certain honesty in the government. If they REALLY go around the bend on this terrorist emergency war acts and cut into our civil liberties too much we'll stop voting with ballots. I think that keeps us in the loop more than if we were not armed.
*****  God I hope it never comes to that, but yeah that's true.  I think our best hole card in the event of a totalitarian takeover is a military full of citizens who are educated about the principles our country is based on, and who swear their oath to the Constitution and not a political leader.
*****  I think I will see Bowling for Columbine when I get the chance.  I'm sure it will be far more interesting than the inevitable made-for-TV Columbine movie starring Brad Renfro and the kid from Malcolm in the Middle, with Craig T. Nelson as the Principle.

[Funk, E.]

Yeah... your right, Dano. I guess I was more trying to illustrate that there are ways in which gun ownership has a subtler impact on our economy than perhaps the car, but in none-the-less an indispensible part of it.

[JohnL]

>A better argument would be, if you have to pass a test to drive a car (which can
>kill innocent people if misused), then why not pass a test to own a gun (which can
>do the same)?

I'd support that *IF* passing a gun test gave you pretty much the same rights as a registered driver. In other words, if you have a permit to carry a gun, then you should be able to take it with when you travel to other states. There was a survey a few years ago that said that in tourist spots, criminals often target tourists because they know that they can't legally bring a gun with them from another state. Also, gun owners shouldn't be treated like criminals by the police. I know being a cop is a dangerous job and I think they're right to be cautious, but as it stands today, even after you've shown a cop your permit to carry a gun, they're ready to shoot you if you so much as touch it in their presense.

True story: My father used to manage a Texaco station. One day he was talking on the phone in the garage when a couple cop cars pulled up, the cops jumped out with their guns drawn and started yelling for him to drop the phone and put his hands up. He did, they slammed him against the wall, frisked him, throw his gun on the counter and demanded to know who he was.Seems some idiot had driven by, saw the station was open and called the cops saying they thought it was closed, but now there was some guy there. After he showed them his ID, proved that he was the manager, showed them his permit to carry a gun, they said ok and started leaving. He went to pick up his gun and they all acted like he was psycho. They told him he couldn't touch it until they left.

What the hell is the miles of red tape your have to go through to get a permit for, if the cops still consider you a criminal just waiting to commit a crime?

[Flangepart]

Wheresthecarrot is right. When i was in England last October, the crimes listed in the papers made me sorry for the poor fools who think disarming the law abideing people is a good idea.
One story...a young man was found stabbed to death in Manchester. Never heard how the case turned out....still dead, though. If some one wants to hurt you they will. Makeing them not want to hurt others....THATS the challange.
Compassion in a learned thing, i fear. Some people just don't get with the program.