Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
32. I'm sorry, but you're wrong...
Thu Feb 7, 2013, 02:28 AM
Feb 2013

about several things, most especially the issue of anyone who 'has one' (a gun) 'is automatically a monster in need of punishment.' No, there is no need for 'punishment,' for merely owning a gun, but I believe firmly that modern firearms exceed the capacity of the human animal to successfully manage the risk of physically possessing devices which are designed only for one purpose - the simple and efficient projection of small metal objects at extremely high speeds which, when they make contact with the human body, cause serious injury or death. That's a modern firearm - easy to use, with the capacity to emit multiple projectiles in rapid succession with very limited necessity to pause to load the device with additional projectiles when capacity is exhausted.

Human beings simply do not, on the whole, possess the capacity to manage the process of physically possessing such devices without profound psychological effects which result, in the aggregate, in the active use of such devices against other human beings. Most gun owners do not shoot other human beings during their lifetimes. However, that's logically similar to the exaggerated, but logically consistent statement that most countries that possess nuclear weapons have never deployed them against other human beings. They are still inherently exceptionally dangerous, and any nation that possesses them undergoes a tremendous change in perspective regarding foreign policy, yielding a tendency to engage in military activities, safe with the knowledge that they have a powerful deterrent against invasion. Modern firearms and nuclear weapons, one wielded by individuals, the other by nations. They both bring about a profound shift in the sense of power of the possessor. That shift is dangerous, and we have not evolved to the extent that we may engage in 'responsible' possession of either. If we had, not one civilian would possess a firearm to begin with, recognizing the tremendous potential for physical harm or death resulting from the mere proximity of such a device.

YES!!! I hope this passes and pushes the rest of the country... hlthe2b Feb 2013 #1
Agreed lsewpershad Feb 2013 #31
Require insurance coverage tooeyeten Feb 2013 #2
This would have the added effect of putting the insurance industry in the mix ashling Feb 2013 #9
definitely! mwooldri Feb 2013 #12
Nope. Require insurance coverage for each and every gun kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #22
Finally! This is what we need! JDPriestly Feb 2013 #3
It looks like somebody is not awawe of federal law Travis_0004 Feb 2013 #4
Abortion is also protected, but that doesn't stop states from imposing LeftInTX Feb 2013 #7
That needs to be challenged/changed at the Federal level, ashling Feb 2013 #10
Simple changed the Federal law 3...2...1 upaloopa Feb 2013 #26
You know a hundred or so Republicans that would vote for that? NickB79 Feb 2013 #30
The state needs to pass the laws in defiance of federal law. Gun laws are traditionally mountain grammy Feb 2013 #40
It is definitely coming. Average, everyday people are getting an education that we didn't want but libdem4life Feb 2013 #5
So well stated Tumbulu Feb 2013 #13
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/responsible smccarter Feb 2013 #6
Don't make the f...ing gun no problem. upaloopa Feb 2013 #27
Punitive and unnecessary and probably an unconstitutional status punishment. Deep13 Feb 2013 #8
Forget it Tumbulu Feb 2013 #11
You have the same answer to everything upaloopa Feb 2013 #28
You forgot the false analogy Lordquinton Feb 2013 #35
I'm sorry, but you're wrong... RiverNoord Feb 2013 #32
about time. robinlynne Feb 2013 #14
I have been saying ever since Sandy Hook that all gun owners should be required SheilaT Feb 2013 #15
+1,000,000 n/t cosmicone Feb 2013 #18
Guns are irresponsible. Lordquinton Feb 2013 #36
Wondering if lawmakers have discussed this with the insurance industry - lynne Feb 2013 #16
You are incorrect. cosmicone Feb 2013 #17
Sorry, but I AM correct - lynne Feb 2013 #19
It varies from state to state n/t cosmicone Feb 2013 #20
They need to be held CRIMINALLY liable if there is kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #21
yes, and no possible second amendment overlap samsingh Feb 2013 #23
The gun industry makes obscene profits, while socializing the public cost...$175 billion libdem4life Feb 2013 #24
Yes! Gun owners need to actually BE responsible. Maineman Feb 2013 #25
When a gun owner dies... Maineman Feb 2013 #29
I see the goal 1983law Feb 2013 #33
Sounds like a good plan. idwiyo Feb 2013 #34
Accountability.....+++++ marions ghost Feb 2013 #37
Exempting handguns makes no sense whatsoever hack89 Feb 2013 #38
This message was self-deleted by its author brooklynite Feb 2013 #39
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Colorado lawmakers want g...»Reply #32