PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

houghtam
12-18-2012, 06:02 PM
Here is the thing I have been thinking about regarding this incident and the gun debate.

During the Conn shooting the kid shoots his mom (with HER Gun) then shoots his way into the school kicking away the glass and crawling through the window. He shoots the 2 who approach him and try to stop him. Then shoots kids and teachers until he hears sirens then shoots himself.

In this instance someone having a hand gun in the glove box of their car is not going to have time to run out there get it and get back, chances are he would have likely been killed fleeing to his car or unable to get back into a building in lock down.

Trying to control guns is not the only answer, nut jobs will find other ways to carry out their plans as has been pointed out here.

The teachers having guns on site means they need to be trained how to use them and have the courage to kill someone else trained to use guns who is crazy and hell bent on death and mayhem, I don't see this working either. Plus if a citizen was packing and did return fire that only complicates the situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.

So I spent all weekend thinking about all these senarios and what would make me feel safer as a parent who is dropping his kids off at school, and I got my answer. Monday morning my daughter had seen the news and we talked about what happened and what she would do if the same thing should happen at her school, she was scared, she hugged me at least 3 times and gave me kisses and you could tell it was hard for her to muster the courage to go to school.

The thing is when we got to her school the principal was out there standing next to a policeman, and suddenly I didn't feel as concerned and I asked my daughter when I picked her up if she felt better have the officer there which she did.

I don't think having a dude(or more) sitting in the hall of every grade and middle school for the whole school day is the solution but having more police on the street, checking in at all public areas (schools, malls, churches, etc...) is a better option than arming the public.

I don't want to pack heat, it would hurt me physically to fire a round due to my disablity, I don't want to go through the training or target practice. I hate guns. I am tired of hearing about kids finding a gun in their house or their friends house and getting hurt or killed. I am tired about hearing of the shooting epidemic in the drug riddled areas of cities like Chicago. I am tired of hearing about multiple armed robberies in my town, which is far from the drug riddled areas of Chicago. I would rather have someone who has been trained and sworn to protect citizens, who knows what to do in shooting or hostage events, do what they were trained and prepared to do.

We will never have a way to stop crime or mass shootings, people have been going nuts and killing masses of other innocent people ever since men have walked the Earth. I think adding to our police and training them to act in events like this give us a better chance to live in a safe and free society. We haven't had armed robberies in our town in the 14 years I lived here and over the summer we had 3, the response was a larger police presence in the locations of the robberies.

The suburb I live in has 30,000 people, it is staffed with only 55 sworn officers, most of them have management roles or are in special roles like drug enforcement, etc... THere are 2 Traffic cops, 2 beat cops, and 29 other officers protecting us 24/7/365. There is one sworn officer to about every 550 citizens, it takes 15 minutes to drive from one end of my village to the other, maybe 6 if your in high persuit and don't get stuck by a train.

I am not sure how long the response time was from the 1st 911 call in Conn to the time the killer shot himself but the killer had enough time to shoot his way into the school, be confronted then kill the principal, then make his way into multiple class rooms killing 20 people along the way before turning the gun on himself. I read in this very thread that most of the people who pull killings like this usually turn the gun on and kill themselves once they hear sirens of approaching police. I really think having more police patroling and interacting with the community would reduce the carnage and possibly stop other events like this.

The shooter had a plan, he knew he would encounter no resistance for at least 3-5 minutes if not more. If you reduce the window nutjobs have to pull off their plan and make them account for the possiblity that the school might have an armed officer checking in at the time or being less than 90 seconds away I bet at the least the body count would be lower. Plus there is the ancillary benefit of other types of crime or confrontations being reduced.

Every year we hear about a police force being reduced or in financial trouble. I would pay more tax to increase our police presences so I can feel safe going to a movie or dropping off my kids at school or even driving late at night and not worrying about drunk drivers.

No one who has guns are going to give them up, if you want to pretend it is still 1776 and you want to hunt and eat what you kill or you think that the movie Red Dawn will come true or the Zombie Apocalypse will happen and you feel safer having a gun then fine. Keep it locked up and away from where kids, criminals, or mentally ill can find it. Make it harder to get a gun, document who comes into the store and inquires about buying a gun and report anyone who leaves because they can't get a gun before the waiting period. If it is true that the shooter walked into a gun store, wanted to buy a gun then left because he had to wait for it then shame on us.

In the meantime put more trained professionals on beats that take them into schools, malls, libraries, business parks, anywhere there are large amounts of people going about their lives. Let criminals and killers see our sworn protection out in places they haven't seen them before and maybe they will think twice about wrecking havoc on innocents.

I volunteer every week at my daughters school in the computer lab, making it harder for me to get in and help is not solving anything when there are nut jobs willing to shoot their way into a building. Increase the police presence and allow them to interact positively with the public and maybe our kids and their kids will have a chance to live their lives and learn in an environment that id less fortress and more fun, caring and nurturing.

While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

Jekyll15Hyde
12-18-2012, 06:28 PM
While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

And there is the rub...

It requires money somewhere. More money on access to and quality of mental health. More money on police, patrolling and in the schools. More money on metal detectors. More money enforcing current gun laws. More money on enforcing new gun laws (and there will be some). No matter which side you fall on, there is a cost to your proposed solution.

Yet the same folks who wont even think about thinking about having a discussion where gun regulation changes are the ones most violently opposed to any more government spending. That is the definition of a self feeding cycle.

oubronco
12-18-2012, 06:44 PM
It almost happened in my hometown

http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/local-news/police-bhs-shooting-planned.html

http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/local-news/bpd-search-turns-gun-notes.html

12:05 pm - December 18, 2012 — Updated: 12:24 pm - December 18, 2012

<HEADER class=entry-header>BPD search turns up gun, notes

</HEADER>

By Tim Hudson
thudson@examiner-enterprise.com (thudson@examiner-enterprise.com)


A return of search warrant filed Tuesday in Washington County Court reveals a list of items — including a weapon and notes with a “graveyard drawing” — were found during a search of the home of a local teen accused of planning a mass shooting at Bartlesville High School last week.

Eighteen-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after police received reports that the BHS senior was planning a mass shooting at the school. He currently faces charges of planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence and is being held at the Washington County Correctional Facility on a $1 million bond.

Following the arrest, police served a search warrant at a home on Adeline Street in west Bartlesville, where Chavez reportedly resides with his mother.

According to the “search warrant return” filed Tuesday morning, police found a “Marlin model 99 M1, .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with stock cut off and made into pistol grip type rifle” as well as two swords. Additionally, police report finding a red, white and blue wallet that contained a “RIP Graveyard” drawing, another drawing referred to as “suicidal Timmy,” a love letter and a recipe for homemade alcohol.

Police also say they found a spiral notebook that contained 59 pages of writings from April of 2011 through September of this year. Additionally, they say there were two handwritten notes in the home.

The findings appear to at least somewhat substantiate weekend reports from social networking sites that police were in possession of a notebook detailing Chavez’ plan. Police had previously been reluctant to confirm the existence of such notes.

The document states that police also found a “small black photo album” containing photos of seniors that had been cut out of an Examiner-Enterprise insert about 2012 graduates.
Marijuana and drug paraphernalia were also reportedly found.

The affidavit for the search warrant also indicates that Chavez’ mother told police that her son had recently checked the movie “Bowling for Columbine” out from the Bartlesville Public Library. The documentary focuses on the gun control debate centered around shootings by two students at a school in Columbine, Colo., in 1999 in which 13 people were killed.

Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after a student reportedly told authorities that he had been in the cafeteria on Dec. 12 and that Chavez “tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school cafeteria where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” a probable cause affidavit states.

Chavez reportedly said that if the students that were assisting him did not do as they were supposed to do “he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.” Police say he planned to “place bombs by the doors so when the police arrived he would detonate the bombs, killing the police as they entered the building.”

Authorities contend that Chavez had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the building. Chavez had reportedly told a teacher that “he had recently purchased a Colt .45 handgun and spent the weekend shooting it.”

Police say Chavez had performed Internet searches for a “.22 caliber rifle on a machine gun platform” on school computers as recent as Nov. 30, as well as information on “how to build pipe bombs” and information on “the Columbine High School Massacre.”

Police presence at all Bartlesville Public School District campuses was increased beginning Monday in response to the alleged threat, and counseling is available to any high school student wishing to speak with someone, BPSD officials said this week.

broncosteven
12-18-2012, 07:05 PM
While I agree with almost everything you've said, politically speaking, you're not going to get a ton of disagreement on raising taxes to hire more officers from the people who want stricter gun laws in the first place. The opposition you'll get will more than likely be from the same people who don't want gun control in the first place.

I agree, I think the whole issue of having to pay for more officers is too political to happen which is sad because it is really the only thing that could lessen the impact of a madman on the loose. By the time some nutjob has committed to his killing spree it is too late for gun laws to make any type of impact and vigilante justice is not the type of climate I want to raise my kids in.

Meck77
12-18-2012, 07:09 PM
situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.
.

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

broncosteven
12-18-2012, 07:13 PM
It almost happened in my hometown

http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/local-news/police-bhs-shooting-planned.html

http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/local-news/bpd-search-turns-gun-notes.html

12:05 pm - December 18, 2012 — Updated: 12:24 pm - December 18, 2012

<HEADER class=entry-header>BPD search turns up gun, notes

</HEADER>

By Tim Hudson
thudson@examiner-enterprise.com (thudson@examiner-enterprise.com)


A return of search warrant filed Tuesday in Washington County Court reveals a list of items — including a weapon and notes with a “graveyard drawing” — were found during a search of the home of a local teen accused of planning a mass shooting at Bartlesville High School last week.

Eighteen-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after police received reports that the BHS senior was planning a mass shooting at the school. He currently faces charges of planning, attempting or conspiring to perform an act of violence and is being held at the Washington County Correctional Facility on a $1 million bond.

Following the arrest, police served a search warrant at a home on Adeline Street in west Bartlesville, where Chavez reportedly resides with his mother.

According to the “search warrant return” filed Tuesday morning, police found a “Marlin model 99 M1, .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle with stock cut off and made into pistol grip type rifle” as well as two swords. Additionally, police report finding a red, white and blue wallet that contained a “RIP Graveyard” drawing, another drawing referred to as “suicidal Timmy,” a love letter and a recipe for homemade alcohol.

Police also say they found a spiral notebook that contained 59 pages of writings from April of 2011 through September of this year. Additionally, they say there were two handwritten notes in the home.

The findings appear to at least somewhat substantiate weekend reports from social networking sites that police were in possession of a notebook detailing Chavez’ plan. Police had previously been reluctant to confirm the existence of such notes.

The document states that police also found a “small black photo album” containing photos of seniors that had been cut out of an Examiner-Enterprise insert about 2012 graduates.
Marijuana and drug paraphernalia were also reportedly found.

The affidavit for the search warrant also indicates that Chavez’ mother told police that her son had recently checked the movie “Bowling for Columbine” out from the Bartlesville Public Library. The documentary focuses on the gun control debate centered around shootings by two students at a school in Columbine, Colo., in 1999 in which 13 people were killed.

Chavez was arrested on Dec. 14 after a student reportedly told authorities that he had been in the cafeteria on Dec. 12 and that Chavez “tried to recruit other students to assist him with carrying out a plan to lure students into the school cafeteria where he planned to begin shooting them after chaining the doors shut,” a probable cause affidavit states.

Chavez reportedly said that if the students that were assisting him did not do as they were supposed to do “he would not hesitate to kill them and/or himself.” Police say he planned to “place bombs by the doors so when the police arrived he would detonate the bombs, killing the police as they entered the building.”

Authorities contend that Chavez had been attempting to obtain a map or diagram of the building. Chavez had reportedly told a teacher that “he had recently purchased a Colt .45 handgun and spent the weekend shooting it.”

Police say Chavez had performed Internet searches for a “.22 caliber rifle on a machine gun platform” on school computers as recent as Nov. 30, as well as information on “how to build pipe bombs” and information on “the Columbine High School Massacre.”

Police presence at all Bartlesville Public School District campuses was increased beginning Monday in response to the alleged threat, and counseling is available to any high school student wishing to speak with someone, BPSD officials said this week.

I saw this in the paper the Saturday after the Conn, shooting.

Check out what the Police can do, I really think the real answer to this problem is more Police in our communities.

Meck77
12-18-2012, 07:13 PM
situation when the authorities do arrive. Who is the bad guy? What if a 3rd citizen shows up and returns fire, who does he choose to fire on? Now bullets are firing and no one knows who the bad guy is and even more people could get hurt. I don't think having more guns in this type of situation is the answer.
.

Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

lonestar
12-18-2012, 07:18 PM
Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

outstanding post.. :thumbs:

that said so many morons are so anti gun they do not have a clue on gun safety or conceal carry license and the training one has to go through to get it..

but then what do you expect from a lib..

broncosteven
12-18-2012, 07:20 PM
Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. They really get excited when a dozen or more people get gunned down. That's when the drum beats to control guns. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns actually making the news most of the time.

Why not put more trained professionals out in the communities. They should be a visible deterrent to anyone trying to break a law or pull off some other heinous act. I am at the point where I don't care if others want to waste their money on guns, I want to see police on beats that take them into public spaces often enough that people will not have the time to shoot their way into a building then take 27 lives.

I felt more safe seeing that officer standing out side my kids school than I would have if I had a gun on me.

misturanderson
12-18-2012, 07:55 PM
Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

Well there is one real (and I use the term "real" loosely since the Mississippi shooting was not actually stopped by the principle, the gunman was just stopped from driving away) example in this thread and one fabricated example of a mass shooting being stopped by an armed citizen. Methinks your "success stories" have been vastly overstated by sites, especially social networking sites, that pander to tea party members.

BroncoBeavis
12-18-2012, 08:20 PM
Are you willing to apply that same argument to idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?

That's already part of the equation.

Meck77
12-19-2012, 06:43 AM
Why not put more trained professionals out in the communities. They should be a visible deterrent to anyone trying to break a law or pull off some other heinous act. I am at the point where I don't care if others want to waste their money on guns, I want to see police on beats that take them into public spaces often enough that people will not have the time to shoot their way into a building then take 27 lives.

I felt more safe seeing that officer standing out side my kids school than I would have if I had a gun on me.

Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

houghtam
12-19-2012, 07:31 AM
Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

Okay, first of all...weren't you the one bemoaning all of those evil liberals' lack of knowledge about gun laws? And now here you are saying you can't own a gun in Chicago.

Secondly, we always hear about "ohhhhh but what if someone breaks into your home??" Now I know you conservative types either don't understand or don't believe in statistics, but let's take a look at some facts anyway, just for thrills. Does having a gun in the home really make people safer?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

- Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries.

- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

- For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments. [10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.

- When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.

- Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide. More than a dozen case-control studies have examined the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in the United States, and all find that firearms in the home are associated with substantially and significantly higher rates of suicide.

- These and other studies indicate that individuals have especially high risks of suicide if they live in homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns. (So if you keep it locked and unloaded, what good is it to you during a break-in?)

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- (Here's a one especially for Bronco Fanatic, who mentioned the Kennesaw law in an earlier thread) The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes. Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime. Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.

- One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gun ownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.

- Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.

- Police reports: One study examined Atlanta police department reports of home invasions during a 4-month period. Researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling when someone was at home. [90] In 32 instances, at least 1 of the offenders was known to have carried a gun. In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.

- Many private surveys have asked questions directly about self-defense gun use. Some general conclusions from these surveys are the following: ( a) more people report a self-defense gun use against an animal (eg, snakes, dogs) than against a human; ( b) police report more total self-defense gun uses than all civilians combined; ( c) there are far more illegal gun uses against people than self-reported self-defense uses by them; ( d) most reported self-defense gun uses do not occur at home, and relatively few protect children; ( e) most of the self-reported self-defense uses are either ambiguous or socially undesirable.

- The evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

That's just from the first three pages of the published study. I won't pull a lonestar and quote the whole thing, but...well, there ya go.

Science!

Heyneck
12-19-2012, 07:41 AM
Okay, first of all...weren't you the one bemoaning all of those evil liberals' lack of knowledge about gun laws? And now here you are saying you can't own a gun in Chicago.

Secondly, we always hear about "ohhhhh but what if someone breaks into your home??" Now I know you conservative types either don't understand or don't believe in statistics, but let's take a look at some facts anyway, just for thrills. Does having a gun in the home really make people safer?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

- Children aged 5 to 14 years in the United States have 11 times the likelihood of being killed accidentally with a gun compared with similarly aged children in other developed countries.

- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

- For every fatality from an accidental shooting, there are more than 10 people injured seriously enough in gun accidents to be treated in hospital emergency departments. [10] In other words, almost 20 people a day are shot unintentionally but do not die. This number does not include any of the more than 45 people per day who are treated in emergency rooms for BB/pellet gun wounds (2003–2007) or the many others injured by firearms in other ways (eg, powder burns, struck with a firearm, injured by the recoil of a firearm), many unintentionally.

- When 34 injury prevention experts were asked to prioritize home injury hazards for young children, based on frequency, severity, and preventability of the injury, the experts rated access to firearms in the home as the most significant hazard.

- Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide. More than a dozen case-control studies have examined the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in the United States, and all find that firearms in the home are associated with substantially and significantly higher rates of suicide.

- These and other studies indicate that individuals have especially high risks of suicide if they live in homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns. (So if you keep it locked and unloaded, what good is it to you during a break-in?)

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- A cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state's population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas.

- (Here's a one especially for Bronco Fanatic, who mentioned the Kennesaw law in an earlier thread) The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes. Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime. Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.

- One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership. But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gun ownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.

- Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.

- Police reports: One study examined Atlanta police department reports of home invasions during a 4-month period. Researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling when someone was at home. [90] In 32 instances, at least 1 of the offenders was known to have carried a gun. In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.

- Many private surveys have asked questions directly about self-defense gun use. Some general conclusions from these surveys are the following: ( a) more people report a self-defense gun use against an animal (eg, snakes, dogs) than against a human; ( b) police report more total self-defense gun uses than all civilians combined; ( c) there are far more illegal gun uses against people than self-reported self-defense uses by them; ( d) most reported self-defense gun uses do not occur at home, and relatively few protect children; ( e) most of the self-reported self-defense uses are either ambiguous or socially undesirable.

- The evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

That's just from the first three pages of the published study. I won't pull a lonestar and quote the whole thing, but...well, there ya go.

Science!

BOOM!!! There goes the dynamite!!! Great rebuttal!!!

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 07:41 AM
- According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY). For example, although there were virtually the same number of children aged 5 to 14 years in both groups of states, 82 had died from accidental gunshot wounds in these high gun states, compared with 8 in the low gun states.

I wonder how many died from alcohol related accidents.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 07:47 AM
BOOM!!! There goes the dynamite!!! Great rebuttal!!!

That reminded me of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Sometimes you just can't regulate crazy.

BroncoInferno
12-19-2012, 07:49 AM
I wonder how many died from alcohol related accidents.

I don't think bringing up alcohol makes the point you wish it did. Afterall, we do, in fact, have restrictions on alcohol use and possession as it applies to putting others in danger (DUI and open container laws, for instance).

houghtam
12-19-2012, 08:11 AM
That reminded me of something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Sometimes you just can't regulate crazy.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes you can't regulate crazy. But sometimes you can. The truth is that you don't know that this (or any other) shooter would have resulted to a different method of killing. And in fact, from a criminal psychology perspective, it takes a different kind of person to use a gun than it does a knife or a bomb. Also I love how when we have 20 mass shootings in less than 12 months, the best argument you can come up with is that 80 years ago a guy used explosives to kill a bunch of people.

But in truth, your argument is somewhat of a separate argument than what the study is making. The study only briefly touches on mental illness, but is rather pointed in its rejection of many of the common misconceptions (and arguments) held by the gimme-my-guns-at-all-costs crowd.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 08:28 AM
I don't think bringing up alcohol makes the point you wish it did. Afterall, we do, in fact, have restrictions on alcohol use and possession as it applies to putting others in danger (DUI and open container laws, for instance).

Are you insinuating it was lawful to carry loaded weapons to a school, break and enter through security and start firing in the direction of other people?

Meck77
12-19-2012, 08:29 AM
What I meant was own a concealed weapon. You can't in Chicago.

Houtam...I don't really care if you don't like guns, want to control them, or don't want to own them. I have plenty of them. Love to hunt, love to target shoot, and enjoy the right to carry one.

If you want to protect your family with a steak knife go ahead.

If you think regulating the 300 million people and the 300 million guns out there is going to make it safer for you go ahead. Personally I'm not one to leave things to chance, to the police, or the government.

I own a rural ranch in a community where there is no crime. Hasn't been a murder in decades. There are no robberies. People do not lock their doors. However, there is something in common you will see out there. The clerks at the local gas station visibly wear guns. People at the hardware store often have a pistol on their hip. We drive our trucks around town with guns. We use our guns to protect our livestock, we hunt with them, and well if some jackass acts like a fool in this town he won't last but 10 seconds because either me or some old cowboy will drop him. :thumbs:

In fact there really isn't even a sheriff in our town. He spends his time in the other community in the same county as there isn't anything for him to do in ours. Besides he knows the rest of us have our town covered.

BroncoInferno
12-19-2012, 08:35 AM
Are you insinuating it was lawful to carry loaded weapons to a school, break and enter through security and start firing in the direction of other people?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that folks like you wish to seperate the guns themselves from the equation. But we don't do that with alcohol. We makes protective laws not based on harm caused to others, but based on the potential of harm that could be caused to another. And no one argues against those laws, because it's obvious that a drunk driver is a danger to others on the road. It's similarly obvious that someone possessing, say, a semi-automatic rifle, poses an increased danger to those he/she encounters.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 08:37 AM
Of course not. What I'm saying is that folks like you wish to seperate the guns themselves from the equation. But we don't do that with alcohol. We makes protective laws not based on harm caused to others, but based on the potential of harm that could be caused to another. And no one argues against those laws, because it's obvious that a drunk driver is a danger to others on the road. It's similarly obvious that someone possessing, say, a semi-automatic rifle, poses an increased danger to those he/she encounters.

No. You've declared the car an "alcohol-free zone" to little effect. Sound familiar?

BroncoInferno
12-19-2012, 08:46 AM
No. You've declared the car an "alcohol-free zone" to little effect. Sound familiar?

Are you actually arguing against DUI/open container laws?

Rohirrim
12-19-2012, 08:50 AM
What I meant was own a concealed weapon. You can't in Chicago.

Houtam...I don't really care if you don't like guns, want to control them, or don't want to own them. I have plenty of them. Love to hunt, love to target shoot, and enjoy the right to carry one.

If you want to protect your family with a steak knife go ahead.

If you think regulating the 300 million people and the 300 million guns out there is going to make it safer for you go ahead. Personally I'm not one to leave things to chance, to the police, or the government.

I own a rural ranch in a community where there is no crime. Hasn't been a murder in decades. There are no robberies. People do not lock their doors. However, there is something in common you will see out there. The clerks at the local gas station visibly wear guns. People at the hardware store often have a pistol on their hip. We drive our trucks around town with guns. We use our guns to protect our livestock, we hunt with them, and well if some jackass acts like a fool in this town he won't last but 10 seconds because either me or some old cowboy will drop him. :thumbs:

In fact there really isn't even a sheriff in our town. He spends his time in the other community in the same county as there isn't anything for him to do in ours. Besides he knows the rest of us have our town covered.

Unless his name happens to be Marvin Heemeyer. ;D

elsid13
12-19-2012, 08:54 AM
Concealed weapon carriers are trained that when police arrive on scene you are to immediately put your weapon on the ground and lift your permit in the air.

If any fool starts shooting at me in public I'm taking him out if the police aren't there. The moment they are there or even close to being there I can tell you I'd have my gun down and my hands up. The police will easily sift through who is the bad guy after the scene is defused.

Steven...Simply put a good guy would put his weapon down immediately. The bad guy would more than likely pull the trigger on himself or get wasted by the police.

Yeah it's not a perfect world and their could be a mistake. Would one or two lives in a "mistake" shooting be better than 27 people in one room?

I'm seeing a real pattern now that more info is coming out. The media flat out doesn't cover all the success stories of would be mass shooters getting stopped or even nut jobs being stopped before they ever start. The media and the general public (see this thread) really start paying attention when the body counts hit double digits. One or two bodies just doesn't get people too worked up. Meanwhile it's the good guys with guns actually preventing all the bad guys with guns from killing more people than they would have otherwise.

Do you actually believe that someone that has little experience or actually training is capable of performing effective CQC without increase risk to other innocent bystanders in chaotic environment? I have watched trained experience professional make mistakes in training that would have resulted in death of their squad mates or innocents and they know what they are doing.

There is reason that the military and law enforcement spends hundred of hours training and train some more to handle the kinds of situations. We as country need to give up the myth that bystander with a gun is going make the right decision in very fluid stressful environment.

I have no problem with gun ownership or use, but we need stop lying to ourselves in believing that concealed weapons carriers are the solution to this problem.

Rohirrim
12-19-2012, 09:03 AM
Do you actually believe that someone that has little experience or actually training is capable of performing effective CQC without increase risk to other innocent bystanders in chaotic environment? I have watched trained experience professional make mistakes in training that would have resulted in death of their squad mates or innocents and they know what they are doing.

There is reason that the military and law enforcement spends hundred of hours training and train some more to handle the kinds of situations. We as country need to give up the myth that bystander with a gun is going make the right decision in very fluid stressful environment.

I have no problem with gun ownership or use, but we need stop lying to ourselves in believing that concealed weapons carriers are the solution to this problem.

Ha! Everybody pictures themselves as "The Man With No Name", with a cold eye, staring down the sights of their pistol while carefully aiming at the bad guy, ice running through their veins. The reality is more like Laurel and Hardy, hiding behind a trash can, firing wildly into the ceiling.

Jekyll15Hyde
12-19-2012, 09:22 AM
I wonder how many died from alcohol related accidents.

Do the words primary and secondary mean anything to you? Is the primary intent of consuming alcohol to inflict harm/pain/death? No, it is an unfortunate secondary effect.

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 09:32 AM
Secondly, we always hear about "ohhhhh but what if someone breaks into your home??" Now I know you conservative types either don't understand or don't believe in statistics, but let's take a look at some facts anyway, just for thrills. Does having a gun in the home really make people safer?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058
Says I have to log in to see this, which I didn't. Should we just assume you have posted "facts"?

skipping down....


- (Here's a one especially for Bronco Fanatic, who mentioned the Kennesaw law in an earlier thread) The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes. Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime. Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.
...
Science!
Your quote was from a 2006 book called "Private Guns, "Public Health"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21

I do not think that you, posting a link to an article, which is quoting from some book, can state that this is "fact". Being in a book does not make fact. Showing us the data behind it, however, would at least show hypothesis.
In fact, it sort of makes me think your entire article might not be based in fact, but instead is a paper with an agenda.

Aside from that...for one moment, please think. Do you believe that a town, where any local potential burglar knows that every household contains a firearm, will have similar burglary rates to a similar town where no one owns a firearm?
I don't think you can believe that

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 09:34 AM
Do the words primary and secondary mean anything to you? Is the primary intent of consuming alcohol to inflict harm/pain/death? No, it is an unfortunate secondary effect.

Well I don't think it's fair to say the primary intent of guns is to shoot innocent people. We're capable of a little more discernment than that aren't we?

Besides, I was responding to someone counting accidental deaths from guns in the less-than-hundreds over 4 years. Asking "Why focus on that?" while alcohol-related accidents kill tens of thousands each and every year is not quite the same as arguing whether enjoying a turkey and coke is more important than enjoying a real wild turkey.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 09:40 AM
Says I have to log in to see this, which I didn't. Should we just assume you have posted "facts"?

skipping down....


Your quote was from a 2006 book called "Private Guns, "Public Health"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21

I do not think that you, posting a link to an article, which is quoting from some book, can state that this is "fact". Being in a book does not make fact. Showing us the data behind it, however, would at least show hypothesis.
In fact, it sort of makes me think your entire article might not be based in fact, but instead is a paper with an agenda.

Aside from that...for one moment, please think. Do you believe that a town, where any local potential burglar knows that every household contains a firearm, will have similar burglary rates to a similar town where no one owns a firearm?
I don't think you can believe that

This gets to an important factor in school shootings. And partly even the Aurora shooting. It's psychological. This particular breed of psycho specifically targets the helpless. Doing anything to diminish that perception of defenselessness would do good beyond the actual capacity to defend.

There's a reason these guys don't go walking into police stations.

Kaylore
12-19-2012, 09:43 AM
I think it's time to move this to the WRP forum.

Meck77
12-19-2012, 09:47 AM
Elsid...Would you mind providing the data on how many innocent innocent people were killed by concealed weapon carriers in the last few years?

I see your profile says DC. I landed here this morning and am within a mile of the capital. The cameras, the blacked out cars, the police, the concrete barriers, the sirens going off.....I don't blame you for thinking that the government could and should fix all. Hell this town thrives off the idea that they are suppose to fix everything.

Ro...I think there is a cowboy in you longing to get out of the city and start living!
Trade that lap top in for a .357. Get yourself some land and livestock. Find a community like I'm talking about Ro. You'll love it! It's not for everyone luckily! That leaves plenty of room for us laurel and hardy types to misfire! lol!

houghtam
12-19-2012, 11:16 AM
Says I have to log in to see this, which I didn't. Should we just assume you have posted "facts"?

skipping down....


Your quote was from a 2006 book called "Private Guns, "Public Health"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#cite_note-isbn0-472-03162-7-21

I do not think that you, posting a link to an article, which is quoting from some book, can state that this is "fact". Being in a book does not make fact. Showing us the data behind it, however, would at least show hypothesis.
In fact, it sort of makes me think your entire article might not be based in fact, but instead is a paper with an agenda.

Aside from that...for one moment, please think. Do you believe that a town, where any local potential burglar knows that every household contains a firearm, will have similar burglary rates to a similar town where no one owns a firearm?
I don't think you can believe that

Don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

The article was written for the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the book and the article both were written by David Hemenway, PhD Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health. What exactly are your credentials on the subject? By the way, there are over 100 references in the article. Feel free to research them all.


References

Lizotte AJ, Bordua DJ. Firearms ownership for sport and protection: two divergent models. Am Sociol Rev. 1980;45:229–244.

Glaeser EL, Glendon S. Who owns guns? Criminals, victims, and the culture of violence. Am Econ Rev. 1998;88:458–462.

Hemenway D, Barber C, Miller M. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:1184–1188.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D. Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003 [published online ahead of print June 21, 2010]. J Trauma. doi: 10.1097/TA. 0b013e3181dbaddf

Centers for Disease Control. Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children, 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997;46:101–105. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Centers for Disease Control. WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999–2007. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accid Anal Prev. 2001;33:477–484.

Price JH, Thompson AJ, Dake JA. Factors associated with state variations in homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm deaths. J Community Health. 2004;29:271–283.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Vriniotis M. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accid Anal Prev. 2005;37:661–667.

Vyrostek S, Annest J, Ryan G. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries-United States 2001. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2004;53(SS-7):1–57.

Sinauer N, Annest JL, Mercy JA. Unintentional, nonfatal firearm-related injuries: a preventable public health burden. JAMA. 1996;275:1740–1743.

Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006.

Katcher ML, Meister AN, Sorkness CA, et al. Use of the modified Delphi technique to identify and rate home injury hazard risks and prevention methods for young children. Inj Prev. 2006;12:189–194.

Peterson LG, Peterson M, O'Shanick GJ, Swann A. Self-inflicted gunshot wounds: lethality of method versus intent. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142:228–231.

Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;181:193–199.

Gibb SJ, Beautrais AL, Fergusson DM. Mortality and further suicidal behaviour after an index suicide attempt: a 10-year study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005;39:95–100.

Jamison KR. Night Falls Fast: Understanding Suicide. New York, NY: Knopf; 1999.

Miller M, Hemenway D. The relationship between firearms and suicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 1999;4:807–814.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Goldstein CE, et al. Risk factors for adolescent suicide: a comparison of adolescent suicide victims with suicidal inpatients. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:581–588.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, Moritz GM, Wartella ME, Zelenak JP. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA. 1991;266:2989–2995.

Brent DA, Perper J, Moritz G, Baugher M, Allman C. Suicide in adolescents with no apparent psychopathology. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32:494–500.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Firearms and adolescent suicide: a community casecontrol study. Am J Dis Child. 1993;147:1066–1071.

Brent DA, Perper JA, Moritz G, Baugher M, Schweers J, Roth C. Suicide in affectively ill adolescents: a case-control study. J Affect Disord. 1994;31:193–202.

Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta L. Age- and sex-related risk factors for adolescent suicide. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999;38:1497–1505.

Conwell Y, Duberstein PR, Connor K, Eberly S, Cox C, Caine ED. Access to firearms and risk for suicide in middle-aged and older adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10:407–416.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467–472.

Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:974–978.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Liu X. Risk factors for male and female suicide decedents ages 15–64 in the United States: results from the 1993 National Mortality Followback Survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38:419–426.

Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R. Substance use, firearm availability, depressive symptoms, and mental health service utilization among white and African American suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15:614–621.

Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ. Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160:929–936.

Wiebe DJ. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;41:771–782.

Shah S, Hoffman RE, Wake L, Marine WM. Adolescent suicide and household access to firearms in Colorado: results of a case-control study. J Adolesc Health. 2000;26:157–163.

Grassel KM, Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Romero MP. Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury. Inj Prev. 2003;9:48–52.

Shenassa ED, Rogers ML, Spalding KL, Roberts MB. Safer storage of firearms at home and risk of suicide: a study of protective factors in a nationally representative sample. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:841–848.

Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA. 2005;293:707–714.

Wintemute GJ, Parham CA, Beaumont JJ, Wright M, Drake C. Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1583–1589.

Markush R, Bartolucci A. Firearms and suicide in the United States. Am J Public Health. 1984;64:123–127.

Lester D. Firearm availability and the incidence of suicide and homicide. Acta Psychiatr Belg. 1988;88:387–393.

Birkmayer J, Hemenway D. Suicide and gun prevalence: are youth disproportionately affected? Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2001;31:303–310.

Lester D. Availability of guns and the likelihood of suicide. Sociol Soc Res. 1987;71:287–288.

Lester D. Gun ownership and suicide in the United States. Psychol Med. 1989;19:519–521.

Hellsten JJ. Motivation and Opportunity: An Ecological Investigation of U.S. Urban Suicide, 1970–1990. Irvine, CA: University of California; 1995.

Miller M, Lippmann S, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 U.S. states. J Trauma. 2007;62:1029–1035.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenawy D. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 0 1988–1997. Epidemiology. 2002;13:517–524.

Kleck G, Patterson EB. The impact of gun control and gun ownership levels on violence rates. J Quant Criminol. 1993;9:249–287.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hepburn L, Hemenway D. The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981–2002. Inj Prev. 2006;12:178–182.

Kessler R, Berglund P, Borges G, Nock M, Wang PS. Trends in suicide ideation, plans, gestures, and attempts in the United States, 1990–1992 to 2001–2003. JAMA. 2005;293:2487–2495.

Sorenson SB, Vittes KA. Mental health and firearms in community-based surveys: implications for suicide prevention. Eval Rev. 2008;32:239–256.

Oslin DW, Zubritsky C, Brown G, Mullahy M, Puliafico A, Ten Have T. Managing suicide risk in late life: Access to firearms as a public health risk. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;12:30–36.

Miller M, Barber C, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Molnar BE. Recent psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with and without firearms: findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Inj Prev. 2009;15:183–187.

Ilgen M, Zivin K, McCammon R, Valenstein M. Mental illness, previous suicidality, and access to guns in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59:198–200.

Berman A, Brown R, Diaz G, et al. Consensus statement on youth suicide by firearms. Arch Suicide Res. 1998;4:89–94.

Mann JJ, Apter A, Bertolote J, et al. Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;294:2064–2074.

Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across US regions and states, 1988–1997. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1988–1993.

Miller M, Hemenway D, Azrael D. Statelevel homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64:656–664.

Zimring FE. The medium is the message: firearms caliber as a determinant of death from assault. J Legal Stud. 1972;1:97–123.

Hepburn L, Hemenawy D. Firearm availability and homicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav. 2004;9:417–440.

Hemenway D, Miller M. Firearm availability and homicide rates across twentysix high-income countries. J Trauma. 2000;49:985–988.

Brearly HC. Homicide in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2003.

Seitz ST. Firearms, homicide, and gun control effectiveness. Law Soc Rev. 1972;6:595–614.

Lester D. Relationship between firearm availability and primary and secondary murder. Psychol Rep. 1990;67:490.

Ruddell R, Mays G. State background checks and firearm homicides. J Crim Justice. 2005;33:127–136.

Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:1086–1114.

Cook P, Ludwig J. The social costs of gun ownership. J Public Econ. 2006;90:379–391.

Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084–1091.

Rowland J, Holtzhauer F. Homicide involving firearms between family, relatives, and friends in Ohio: an offenderbased case-control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;130:825.

Kleck G, Hogan H. A national case control study of homicide offending and gun ownership. Soc Probl. 1999;46:175–193.

Hemenway D, Shinoda-Tagawa T, Miller M. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates among 25 populous high-income countries. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2002;57:100–104.

Bailey JE, Kellermann AL, Somes GW, Banton JG, Rivara FP, Rushforth NP. Risk factors for violent death of women in the home. Arch Int Med. 1997;157:777–782.

Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multi-site case control study. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1089–1097.

Reiss AJ, Roth JA, eds. Understanding and Preventing Violence: Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1993.

Hastings JE, Hamberger LK. Personality characteristics of spouse abusers: a controlled comparison. Violence Vict. 1988;3:31–48.

Block C, Christakos A. Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime Delinq. 1995;41:496–526.

Hemenway D, Azrael D. Gun Use in the United States: Results of a National Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 1997.

Azrael D, Hemenway D. "In the safety of your own home": results from a national survey on gun use at home. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50:285–291.

Sorenson SB, Wiebe DJ. Weapons in the lives of battered women. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1412–1417.

Rothman EF, Hemenway D, Miller M, Azrael D. Batterers' use of guns to threaten intimate partners. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2005;60:62–68.

Catalano S. Victimization During Household Burglary. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2010.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimization in the United States 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice; 2010.

Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:1–21.

McDowall D, Lizotte AJ, Wiersema B. General deterrence through civilian gun ownership: an evaluation of the quasiexperimental evidence. Criminology. 1991;29:1085–1099.

McDowall D, Wiersema B, Loftin D. Did mandatory firearm ownership in Kennesaw really prevent burglary? Sociol Soc Res. 1989;74:48–51.

Lott JRJ. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL: Univeristy of Chicago Press; 1998.

Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.

Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.

Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74–107.

Wright JD, Rossi PH, Daly K. Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing; 1983.

National Research Council. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2005:89, 106.

Kellermann AL, Westphal L, Fischer L, Harvard B. Weapon involvement in home invasion crimes. JAMA. 1995;273:1759–1762.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Defensive gun uses: new evidence from a national survey. J Quant Criminol. 1998;14:111–131.

McDowall D, Loftin D, Presser S. Measuring civilian defensive firearm use: a methodological experiment. J Quant Criminol. 2000;16:1–19.

Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a Comprehensive National Survey on Firearms Ownership and Use. Washington, DC: Police Foundation; 1996.

Hemenway D, Azrael D. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: results from a national survey. Violence Vict. 2000;15:257–272.

Hemenway D, Miller M, Azrael D. Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys. Inj Prev. 2000;6:263–267.

Tark J, Kleck G. Resisting crime: the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes. Criminology. 2004;42:861–909.

Violence Policy Center. Unintended consequences: pro-handgun experts prove that handguns are a dangerous choice for selfdefense. http://vpc.org/studies/uninsum.htm. Accessed December 17, 2010.

Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm related deaths in the home. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:1557–1560.

Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma. 1998;42:263–267.

Lee RK, Waxweiler RJ, Dobbins JG, Paschetag T. Incidence rates of firearm injuries in Galveston, Texas, 1979–1981. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;134:511–521.

Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2000;105(4, pt 1):888–895.

JLesSPE
12-19-2012, 11:56 AM
It seems to me there are a lot of extremist arguments in this thread. Ban guns or don't touch my guns. I am a gun enthusiast, to say the least. However, I am in no way content with the current gun control laws. It does no good to argue stats on if lives are saved or not by concealed weapons carriers, because it is a right to own, carry, and use guns in self defense. There has to be compromise. A RATIONAL dialogue must begin on a federal level. Some things that, as a moderate conservative gun owner, I would be willing to compromise on are as follows.

Legal person to person firearms sales - I've always thought this to be ridiculous. I can go buy a gun from my friend right now perfectly legally. Legal firearm sales should go through dealers so a NICS check can be performed and registration of the firearm is completed. I think if this law was put into effect and you were found to have sold a gun to someone who committed a crime with it you should be liable for that crime as well as the illegal sale.

I believe you should have to register a sufficient method of securing your weapons. I should have to be able to provide proof and registration that I own a safe in order to buy a gun. In a perfect situation the capacity of your safe is crosschecked with how many guns you've purchased. I hate the idea of the government knowing exactly how many guns I have, what guns they are, and what kind of safe I have. But if that's what has to happen for our rights to own and bear arms to remain then I can compromise.

I'm not willing to compromise on assault weapons. Where is the line? I get the full auto ban, there's nothing to be gained from the public owning such weapons. I'm a sports shooter and use assault rifles in competition regularly. Even in this type of event a fully automatic weapon has no place.

Magazine capacity limits. Useless. Reloads take less than 2 seconds. I realize this can be argued both ways but they already make the mags.

I just don't get the people that are against conceal and carry. I wish more training was required than the current model. Other than that if I feel that I need to carry a pistol out of the view of everyone else in order to protect myself I should be able to do so. You can carry a pocket knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a taser, whatever else. One I pull my pistol I am bound by certain laws which include not harming anyone not trying to kill me or someone else. For law abiding citizens, this isn't a big deal. All the issues come down to people that are willing to break the law and how to keep them from harming other people. They should not be allowed any kind of weapon, including firearms. Good luck trying to figure that out. Without proper mental health care and threat assessment it's all a moot point. Some dude wants to end his life and take others with him he'll drive his truck into people standing in line for something, or he'll pick up a rock and bash someone's head in. Terrible violent things are going to happen until we, as a nation, can identify those that need help and be willing to provide that help without ridicule.

Jekyll15Hyde
12-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Well I don't think it's fair to say the primary intent of guns is to shoot innocent people. We're capable of a little more discernment than that aren't we?

Besides, I was responding to someone counting accidental deaths from guns in the less-than-hundreds over 4 years. Asking "Why focus on that?" while alcohol-related accidents kill tens of thousands each and every year is not quite the same as arguing whether enjoying a turkey and coke is more important than enjoying a real wild turkey.

The primary intent of guns is to inflict or threaten to inflict damage on something/someone whether as an aggressor or in self defense. I have heard too many times since this happened a comparison of something like DUIs, etc to gun related problems and it is a complete non sequitur.

But I didnt follow the exact chain of your response so I thought you were going down that road again.

Rohirrim
12-19-2012, 12:03 PM
Elsid...Would you mind providing the data on how many innocent innocent people were killed by concealed weapon carriers in the last few years?

I see your profile says DC. I landed here this morning and am within a mile of the capital. The cameras, the blacked out cars, the police, the concrete barriers, the sirens going off.....I don't blame you for thinking that the government could and should fix all. Hell this town thrives off the idea that they are suppose to fix everything.

Ro...I think there is a cowboy in you longing to get out of the city and start living!
Trade that lap top in for a .357. Get yourself some land and livestock. Find a community like I'm talking about Ro. You'll love it! It's not for everyone luckily! That leaves plenty of room for us laurel and hardy types to misfire! lol!

Already have one. ;D

It's a Ruger Blackhawk with a 6.5" barrel. Stainless Steel with rosewood grips. There's a pic of it somewhere on here in one of the old gun threads.

BroncoFanatic
12-19-2012, 12:09 PM
If a deranged drug-upped killer comes in to your kid's school, which classroom would you want him to be in:

the one with the teacher who will teach them to curl into a little ball and hide, hoping to avoid notice?
the one where the teacher will have them out of the way, while being ready with his/her own firearm, with which they are trained?

The liberal attitude on gun control contributed to deaths at Sandy Hook. An armed teacher, screened and trained properly, could have saved lives.

All you panty-waste libs can start crying now.

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 12:14 PM
Don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

The article was written for the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, and the book and the article both were written by David Hemenway, PhD Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health. What exactly are your credentials on the subject? By the way, there are over 100 references in the article. Feel free to research them all.
Don't pull yourself away from it now. My point before was that you stated these were "facts" and "science". I had heard something about the Kennesaw law, but didn't know or remember much. So I looked it up on a bunch of different sites. Not surprisingly, the issue spawned a lot of debate about what the law did, if anything at all.

I'll be happy to point you to what I read on the subject, which points out that the property crime rate in Kinnesaw in 2008 was 20 times lower than nereby Atlanta. I don't think that's necessary though, since it is no surprise.
In addition, I would just be quoting someone as you did. No, I have no credentials on criminology, nor do you.

Again, my point was you were claiming fact and science, when you really didn't see or know the numbers themselves. You merely quoted someone who quoted someone.

Back to the issue, I had asked you if you really believed that you would be safer from burglary in a town that demanded residents own guns versus a town that demanded residents couldn't own guns. You didn't answer, and I don't blame you. It's fairly rhetorical. Of course those without guns are less safe from burglary. We don't need studies to explain simple things and common logic.

Let's say I handed you two presents and told you to open one. Before you did, I informed you that opening the one on the left would trigger a bomb. Which would you choose? See?....just as rhetorical.

I do agree with a lot of what your fact-list said. Having guns increases the likelihood of gun related accidents, shootings, and suicide. Again, it's so logical that it is impossible to argue.
The choice for people to arm themselves really comes down to a choice between which dangers you wish to expose to you and your family. And when you do choose, it is then your responsibility to recognize those dangers and combat them as best you can.
- Don't arm yourself, and you will leave your family exposed in case of intruder entry. This is however, rare in most places. At least your family is protected from gun related accidents.
- Arm yourself, and do so in a prepared fashion, and you will be protected from intruders. With proper planning, you can minimize the other risks. If you do not, then don't be surprised when your kids find a gun and have an accident.

Requiem
12-19-2012, 12:14 PM
^ BAD QUESTION.

I want them home schooled in house with 40 guns!!!! BAAAM

Rohirrim
12-19-2012, 12:18 PM
Maybe we should arm the kids?

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 12:24 PM
I believe you should have to register a sufficient method of securing your weapons. I should have to be able to provide proof and registration that I own a safe in order to buy a gun. In a perfect situation the capacity of your safe is crosschecked with how many guns you've purchased. I hate the idea of the government knowing exactly how many guns I have, what guns they are, and what kind of safe I have. But if that's what has to happen for our rights to own and bear arms to remain then I can compromise.

I'm not willing to compromise on assault weapons. Where is the line? I get the full auto ban, there's nothing to be gained from the public owning such weapons. I'm a sports shooter and use assault rifles in competition regularly. Even in this type of event a fully automatic weapon has no place.


I find your application of the slippery slope argument to the second paragraph but not the first pretty arbitrary. All sorts of fun could be had with federalized gun safe requirements. And even some sort of registration for them. What about trigger locks? Why not biometrics? Wouldn't be long before they could make gun ownership quite an expense. Not to mention how in the world would they monitor it? I think I'd just rather let them have some kind of "assault rifle" cosmetics party where they decide how mean weapons should be allowed to look before banishment.

I just don't get the people that are against conceal and carry. I wish more training was required than the current model. Other than that if I feel that I need to carry a pistol out of the view of everyone else in order to protect myself I should be able to do so. You can carry a pocket knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a taser, whatever else.

You can carry a gun too. With or without a permit. The idea that the same demographic willing and able to pull the trigger on innocent bystanders is going to sweat whether they have a concealed carry permit is one of the funnier ideas progressive politics has ever brought us.

Like most of these things, the only people punished are the ones who were never the problem.

Dedhed
12-19-2012, 12:25 PM
That's already part of the equation.

How so?

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 12:25 PM
It seems to me there are a lot of extremist arguments in this thread. Ban guns or don't touch my guns. I am a gun enthusiast, to say the least. However, I am in no way content with the current gun control laws. It does no good to argue stats on if lives are saved or not by concealed weapons carriers, because it is a right to own, carry, and use guns in self defense. There has to be compromise. A RATIONAL dialogue must begin on a federal level. Some things that, as a moderate conservative gun owner, I would be willing to compromise on are as follows.

Legal person to person firearms sales - I've always thought this to be ridiculous. I can go buy a gun from my friend right now perfectly legally. Legal firearm sales should go through dealers so a NICS check can be performed and registration of the firearm is completed. I think if this law was put into effect and you were found to have sold a gun to someone who committed a crime with it you should be liable for that crime as well as the illegal sale.

I believe you should have to register a sufficient method of securing your weapons. I should have to be able to provide proof and registration that I own a safe in order to buy a gun. In a perfect situation the capacity of your safe is crosschecked with how many guns you've purchased. I hate the idea of the government knowing exactly how many guns I have, what guns they are, and what kind of safe I have. But if that's what has to happen for our rights to own and bear arms to remain then I can compromise.

I'm not willing to compromise on assault weapons. Where is the line? I get the full auto ban, there's nothing to be gained from the public owning such weapons. I'm a sports shooter and use assault rifles in competition regularly. Even in this type of event a fully automatic weapon has no place.

Magazine capacity limits. Useless. Reloads take less than 2 seconds. I realize this can be argued both ways but they already make the mags.

I just don't get the people that are against conceal and carry. I wish more training was required than the current model. Other than that if I feel that I need to carry a pistol out of the view of everyone else in order to protect myself I should be able to do so. You can carry a pocket knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a taser, whatever else. One I pull my pistol I am bound by certain laws which include not harming anyone not trying to kill me or someone else. For law abiding citizens, this isn't a big deal. All the issues come down to people that are willing to break the law and how to keep them from harming other people. They should not be allowed any kind of weapon, including firearms. Good luck trying to figure that out. Without proper mental health care and threat assessment it's all a moot point. Some dude wants to end his life and take others with him he'll drive his truck into people standing in line for something, or he'll pick up a rock and bash someone's head in. Terrible violent things are going to happen until we, as a nation, can identify those that need help and be willing to provide that help without ridicule.
great post, and I agree with most of what you said.

In NJ, there are basically no carry permits issued to the public, whether open or concealed. It is ridiculous. Handguns are home protection and target pratice only.

As you say, I would submit to stricter laws, so long as they make sense.
- I support a waiting period to buy a gun
- I support background checks
- I would even support a usage/safety test.
- I would also support something in place that would require ongoing background checks and ongoing testing. Cops are required in NJ to pass regular certification tests, why shouldn't gun owners? At the least, those that wish to carry in public. This would limit the public more than today, but at least those with guns would be considerably more reliable. I'll be happy to take that test, but I want to be able to carry in return.

Dedhed
12-19-2012, 12:28 PM
If a deranged drug-upped killer comes in to your kid's school, which classroom would you want him to be in:

the one with the teacher who will teach them to curl into a little ball and hide, hoping to avoid notice?
the one where the teacher will have them out of the way, while being ready with his/her own firearm, with which they are trained?

The liberal attitude on gun control contributed to deaths at Sandy Hook. An armed teacher, screened and trained properly, could have saved lives.

All you panty-waste libs can start crying now.

This is a ridiculous over-simplification of the issue and sadly par for the course.

Dedhed
12-19-2012, 12:34 PM
It seems to me there are a lot of extremist arguments in this thread. Ban guns or don't touch my guns. I am a gun enthusiast, to say the least. However, I am in no way content with the current gun control laws. It does no good to argue stats on if lives are saved or not by concealed weapons carriers, because it is a right to own, carry, and use guns in self defense. There has to be compromise. A RATIONAL dialogue must begin on a federal level. Some things that, as a moderate conservative gun owner, I would be willing to compromise on are as follows.

Legal person to person firearms sales - I've always thought this to be ridiculous. I can go buy a gun from my friend right now perfectly legally. Legal firearm sales should go through dealers so a NICS check can be performed and registration of the firearm is completed. I think if this law was put into effect and you were found to have sold a gun to someone who committed a crime with it you should be liable for that crime as well as the illegal sale.

I believe you should have to register a sufficient method of securing your weapons. I should have to be able to provide proof and registration that I own a safe in order to buy a gun. In a perfect situation the capacity of your safe is crosschecked with how many guns you've purchased. I hate the idea of the government knowing exactly how many guns I have, what guns they are, and what kind of safe I have. But if that's what has to happen for our rights to own and bear arms to remain then I can compromise.

I'm not willing to compromise on assault weapons. Where is the line? I get the full auto ban, there's nothing to be gained from the public owning such weapons. I'm a sports shooter and use assault rifles in competition regularly. Even in this type of event a fully automatic weapon has no place.

Magazine capacity limits. Useless. Reloads take less than 2 seconds. I realize this can be argued both ways but they already make the mags.

I just don't get the people that are against conceal and carry. I wish more training was required than the current model. Other than that if I feel that I need to carry a pistol out of the view of everyone else in order to protect myself I should be able to do so. You can carry a pocket knife, a baseball bat, a tire iron, a taser, whatever else. One I pull my pistol I am bound by certain laws which include not harming anyone not trying to kill me or someone else. For law abiding citizens, this isn't a big deal. All the issues come down to people that are willing to break the law and how to keep them from harming other people. They should not be allowed any kind of weapon, including firearms. Good luck trying to figure that out. Without proper mental health care and threat assessment it's all a moot point. Some dude wants to end his life and take others with him he'll drive his truck into people standing in line for something, or he'll pick up a rock and bash someone's head in. Terrible violent things are going to happen until we, as a nation, can identify those that need help and be willing to provide that help without ridicule.
Great post! It seems very difficult to mention "gun control" and engage in an actual conversation about the specifics that you've mentioned above. Gun control needs to be addressed; that doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment needs to be repealed. There is a lot of space between those two ideas, but very few seem capable of discussing what lies within those poles.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Back to the issue, I had asked you if you really believed that you would be safer from burglary in a town that demanded residents own guns versus a town that demanded residents couldn't own guns. You didn't answer, and I don't blame you. It's fairly rhetorical. Of course those without guns are less safe from burglary. We don't need studies to explain simple things and common logic.

Sigh. I love it when people bring up the Kennesaw argument. It's been done before.

I lived in Kennesaw for three years. Neighboring Acworth (the towns are nearly indistinguishable geographically and demographically) has a lower crime rate and a lower rate of burglaries than Kennesaw. I have an extensive relationship with both the Acworth PD and the Kennesaw PD, as they worked security for me every Friday and Saturday night. The topic of gun laws came up several times, and the consensus of the law enforcement in that area is that there is no discernible effect on crime by having a gun in the home, just as the research I posted from a guy who holds a PhD and is the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center suggests.

It's not just some guy who wrote a book, and it's not just a link on the internetz. These are real scholars in academia who write for real publications, such as the Journal of Community Health, The American Sociological Review, the American Journal of Psychiatry...if you don't understand the process of research, peer review, and publication, well...that's on you. If you can't (or won't) wrap your mind around that, then there's simply no sense in arguing with you about it, because you're simply not being honest.

So no...demanding people own guns doesn't make it a safer place to live.

Now are you going to make me post a picture to prove I lived in Kennesaw...again?

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 12:39 PM
How so?

Let's backtrack. I said the scale of these 'mass' shootings matters, at least in regards to our ability to do anything about them. You said

"Are you willing to apply that same argument to idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?"

And I said that's already part of the equation. Meaning we already do apply that argument to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Semis are generally legal and widely-owned. Fully-autos are heavily restricted and not at all widely owned (by the general public)

houghtam
12-19-2012, 12:47 PM
No. You've declared the car an "alcohol-free zone" to little effect. Sound familiar?

???

What exactly are you referring to with regard to "little effect"? The rate of drunk driver fatalities has dropped nearly 50% in the last 20 years.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics

ColoradoDarin
12-19-2012, 12:55 PM
Sigh. I love it when people bring up the Kennesaw argument. It's been done before.

I lived in Kennesaw for three years. Neighboring Acworth (the towns are nearly indistinguishable geographically and demographically) has a lower crime rate and a lower rate of burglaries than Kennesaw. I have an extensive relationship with both the Acworth PD and the Kennesaw PD, as they worked security for me every Friday and Saturday night. The topic of gun laws came up several times, and the consensus of the law enforcement in that area is that there is no discernible effect on crime by having a gun in the home, just as the research I posted from a guy who holds a PhD and is the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center suggests.

It's not just some guy who wrote a book, and it's not just a link on the internetz. These are real scholars in academia who write for real publications, such as the Journal of Community Health, The American Sociological Review, the American Journal of Psychiatry...if you don't understand the process of research, peer review, and publication, well...that's on you. If you can't (or won't) wrap your mind around that, then there's simply no sense in arguing with you about it, because you're simply not being honest.

So no...demanding people own guns doesn't make it a safer place to live.

Now are you going to make me post a picture to prove I lived in Kennesaw...again?

Acworth:
There were 5,453 housing units at an average density of 770.7 per square mile (297.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 79.7% White, 12.6% African American, 0.2% Native American, 2.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 3.2% from other races, and 2.00% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.05% of the population.

Kennesaw:
The racial makeup of the city was 64.2% White, 22.3% Black, 0.4% Native American, 5.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 4.7% from other races, and 3.0% two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 10.8% of the population.

I would argue that 15% fewer whites and 10% more blacks is not the same demographically.

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 12:55 PM
Sigh. I love it when people bring up the Kennesaw argument. It's been done before.

I lived in Kennesaw for three years. Neighboring Acworth (the towns are nearly indistinguishable geographically and demographically) has a lower crime rate and a lower rate of burglaries than Kennesaw. I have an extensive relationship with both the Acworth PD and the Kennesaw PD, as they worked security for me every Friday and Saturday night. The topic of gun laws came up several times, and the consensus of the law enforcement in that area is that there is no discernible effect on crime by having a gun in the home, just as the research I posted from a guy who holds a PhD and is the Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center suggests.

It's not just some guy who wrote a book, and it's not just a link on the internetz. These are real scholars in academia who write for real publications, such as the Journal of Community Health, The American Sociological Review, the American Journal of Psychiatry...if you don't understand the process of research, peer review, and publication, well...that's on you. If you can't (or won't) wrap your mind around that, then there's simply no sense in arguing with you about it, because you're simply not being honest.

So no...demanding people own guns doesn't make it a safer place to live.

Now are you going to make me post a picture to prove I lived in Kennesaw...again?
The Kennesaw law was put in place to prove a point, not to force people to own guns. It is/was uninforced. I read the stats that showed no drastic decrease in crime. But the fact was that there wasn't much crime to begin with.

I'm not looking to make people own guns, and putting laws like this in place is not going to solve the problem. My point was that your "paper" was misleading and agenda-driven.

Again with my endless analogies...if YOU were a burglar: You had a choice of 2 houses to rob, and you were going to rob 1 of them. House #1 you know has guns, and house #2 you know does not. Which do you rob?
Rhetorical.

Dedhed
12-19-2012, 12:57 PM
Let's backtrack. I said the scale of these 'mass' shootings matters, at least in regards to our ability to do anything about them. You said

"Are you willing to apply that same argument to idea of automatic and semi-automatic weapons?"

And I said that's already part of the equation. Meaning we already do apply that argument to automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Semis are generally legal and widely-owned. Fully-autos are heavily restricted and not at all widely owned (by the general public)

....and you missed my point. I was asking if you're willing to discuss semi-automatic restrictions based on your "scale matters" argument for having guns in classrooms.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 01:13 PM
???

What exactly are you referring to with regard to "little effect"? The rate of drunk driver fatalities has dropped nearly 50% in the last 20 years.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics

Hey that's a cool stat. But it seems that all traffic fatalities overall are down at about the same rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtio n_1900-2010.png/600px-U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtio n_1900-2010.png

Turns out cars are just getting safer.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-15/opinions/35231843_1_safer-switches-safer-vehicles-safety-standards

houghtam
12-19-2012, 01:14 PM
Acworth:
There were 5,453 housing units at an average density of 770.7 per square mile (297.4/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 79.7% White, 12.6% African American, 0.2% Native American, 2.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 3.2% from other races, and 2.00% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.05% of the population.

Kennesaw:
The racial makeup of the city was 64.2% White, 22.3% Black, 0.4% Native American, 5.3% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 4.7% from other races, and 3.0% two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 10.8% of the population.

I would argue that 15% fewer whites and 10% more blacks is not the same demographically.

You can argue that all you want, but I didn't live there in 2000. Times change, and so do demographics.

http://censusviewer.com/city/GA/Acworth

Black - 25.6% White - 62.5%

http://censusviewer.com/city/GA/Kennesaw

Black - 22.3% White - 64.2%

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 01:17 PM
....and you missed my point. I was asking if you're willing to discuss semi-automatic restrictions based on your "scale matters" argument for having guns in classrooms.

Discuss anything you want, I've already laid out my rule-of-thumb standard. If the average cop on the street is allowed to carry a certain weapon, the public should be allowed as well. I think that's about the right amount of balance.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 01:32 PM
Hey that's a cool stat. But it seems that all traffic fatalities overall are down at about the same rate.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtio n_1900-2010.png/600px-U.s._traffic_deaths_as_fraction_of_total_popualtio n_1900-2010.png

Turns out cars are just getting safer.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-15/opinions/35231843_1_safer-switches-safer-vehicles-safety-standards

Sure.

So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.

Let's just not pass any laws?

Do you really believe that the emphasis on DUIs has had no effect on the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest again to try proving a point?

Side note, the article you posted makes a great case for federal regulation of business.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 01:35 PM
Discuss anything you want, I've already laid out my rule-of-thumb standard. If the average cop on the street is allowed to carry a certain weapon, the public should be allowed as well. I think that's about the right amount of balance.

So then we're in agreement that there is no need for 30-, 60-, 100-round magazines and assault rifles.

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 01:39 PM
People die less in motor vehicle accidents because of better cars, not because of DUI enforcement. Problem is we can't redesign guns to not kill people.

Dedhed
12-19-2012, 01:42 PM
I've already laid out my rule-of-thumb standard. If the average cop on the street is allowed to carry a certain weapon, the public should be allowed as well.

Wow- I missed that; I didn't realize you were working off such a moronic baseline.

lonestar
12-19-2012, 01:45 PM
If a deranged drug-upped killer comes in to your kid's school, which classroom would you want him to be in:

the one with the teacher who will teach them to curl into a little ball and hide, hoping to avoid notice?
the one where the teacher will have them out of the way, while being ready with his/her own firearm, with which they are trained?

The liberal attitude on gun control contributed to deaths at Sandy Hook. An armed teacher, screened and trained properly, could have saved lives.

All you panty-waste libs can start crying now.

:thumbs:


But I have to say you are way to logical to be posting thoughts like these in this area.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 02:00 PM
Sure.

So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.

Let's just not pass any laws?

Do you really believe that the emphasis on DUIs has had no effect on the number of alcohol related deaths and injuries? Or are you just being intellectually dishonest again to try proving a point?

Side note, the article you posted makes a great case for federal regulation of business.

My feelings on DUI laws are pretty parallel to restrictions on guns. There's a floor of common sense somewhere, but every time something bad happens some political activist(s) somewhere has to build off of that floor in order to "do something" so everyone so-inclined can feel better. The floor of DUI laws (and real punishments) as established over the 1980's -90's or so was probably a good thing. But now what we're faced with is a steady push to lower those limits every time enough bad happens to stir emotions. Anti-drinking advocates are now talking about criminalizing .05% even though there's little to no evidence that level of "intoxication" is causing any real harm. It doesn't matter to them if the vast majority of truly alcohol-related tragedies were caused by people violating already-existing limits. They've got to "do something." And that something tends to be whatever's easiest, which means lowering limits to include mostly people who were never the problem in the first place.

And I believe what we likely will see come out of this tragedy (if anything) will be something that would've had next to no impact on the case at hand. Unfortunately it's all just an exercise certain people need to go through in order to give themselves the false hope that the inevitable isn't going to happen again.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 02:06 PM
Again with my endless analogies...if YOU were a burglar: You had a choice of 2 houses to rob, and you were going to rob 1 of them. House #1 you know has guns, and house #2 you know does not. Which do you rob?
Rhetorical.

And again with my endless facts and statistics. I even provided the bibliography for you.

"Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries [Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot. [Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:1–21,Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates, [Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates. [Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006. ] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less. [Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:1086–1114,Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74–107.] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns."

Just out of curiosity...do you have a college degree? Do you know what the difference is between peer-reviewed scientific research and a Wikipedia article is? Bonus question: Is Nate Silver a witch and the Anti-Christ?

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 02:09 PM
Wow- I missed that; I didn't realize you were working off such a moronic baseline.

It was in a different thread awhile back. And only people who don't understand the true intention of the 2nd Amendment (or I guess don't care about it) would think it moronic.

broncosteven
12-19-2012, 02:26 PM
Well Steven we probably would if our nation wasn't 16 trillion in debt and most states weren't broke. Instead we are shipping billions upon billions to the middle east. *shrug*

I agree that we should shift a billion to protect our children at home but we don't.

As far as wanting more police though Steven they can't be everywhere. If I'm not mistaken you live in the chicago area and if so you don't even have the right to own a gun? At the end of the day as my dad says "We are all captains of our own ship". We can rely on others to protect us or you have to just do it yourself. Steven ask yourself this. If someone forces themselves into your home to harm your family would you rather have a loaded gun ready for them or not? I sure as hell would and do. Go Ahead. Make my day.

Why wouldn't you want that security for you children at school?

I live in the suburbs, we are allowed to own guns, I don't think we can carry concealed weapons but not wanting one I never checked it out. My dad is big into guns he has a whole bunch of shotguns and rifles and a pistol that is more for quick draw type stuff.

Way back about 25 years ago he bought me a shotgun for Christmas and I was like what am I going to do with this but I figured I would give hunting a try. We went out shooting birds downstate once, it was kinda fun shooting things but late in the day I was following a flock and pulled off a round just as my uncle moved over into our blind and I am surprised to this day I didn't blow his head off. Maybe if we didn't waste what we killed and I didn't nearly kill my uncle I would have a different take on guns. As far as I am concerned they are made for one purpose and that is to take life. My dad still has my shotgun at his house, I won't allow it nor any kind of gun in my house.

I read our local paper and review the police reports and we don't get night time robberies. I feel safe in my home. I can't sleep most nights so there is usually some activity in the house almost all hours, We have motion sensing lights, keep the bushes around the house cut low leave a light on downstairs and make it generally less appealing for someone to break in. If some one did break in I wouldn't have the time to get a locked gun and load it, I feel better calling the police and knowing they are on their way than having a gun in my house. One would have to sleep with an unlocked loaded gun to have a chance at using it in an event like that. Plus if they did break in with my neck I wouldn't be able to aim and handle the recoil so all I would do is piss off the intruder and likely die because he killed me with my own weapon. Plus the couple times I have been rearended in my car the stress of the event was so shocking I was stunned and couldn't believe it was really happening. I doubt faced with an armed intruder hell bent on hurting me and my family I would be able to do more than call 911. I know everyone likes to think they could react under fire but without practicing and training for a home break in until it was second nature I wouldn't be able to do more than call 911.

My other piece of home protection is our dog, I really feel that if any door was opened he would bark and give us time to call the police and let them handle the intruder. I have gone out the front door late at nights with everyone else asleep and the dog sleeping upstairs has gone crazy when he heard the door open, and I thought I was as quiet as I cool be. Just my roaming around downstairs at night will set off a growl and he will come out and check on me.

My Brother in law has guns they live in the area, he keeps a bat by his bed because his guns are locked up in a safe in the basement. He knows if someone broke in he wouldn't have time to get to them and he doesn't want to keep an unlocked gun around his kids, he told me he would rather be beaten with his own bat than killed with his own gun.

I think raising my kids in a gun free environment is better for them in the long term. Talking to them about how to react to different scenarios and having plans for different events is more important to me than packing heat.

I think it would actually provide more jobs to add more police, and while they can't be everywhere (which is not the point) they would be more visible and quicker to respond which saves more lives. If you leave public places like banks and malls and even schools unpoliced we as a society are making it too easy for nut jobs and criminals to plan attacks and pull off robberies.

You like to bring up the gun violence in Chicago but the fact is most of it is in gang riddled areas where there is little to no patrols being done. Emanual moves cops around from one blighted area to another rather than expand the force to provide the the levels of enforcement that is truly needed, and most of that is because lack of funding. Do taxes suck? Yes, can someone making $100k pay more than someone making $30k **** yes. If you want to live in a country where you have a modicum of safety, infrastructure, schooling, public works, and quality of life then you have to expect to pay for those things. Too many people are too concerned about how much money they can make, protecting their wealth, and what they get out of life rather than worry about how they can make things better for the communities they and their familes live in.

Giving me a gun and telling me to protect mine is not the answer, we need to find a way to protect what is OURs.

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 02:29 PM
Broncosteven sounds like you got a shotgun, then went right out hunting before you were really ready to.

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 02:33 PM
it's really up to the individual to say whether or not a gun makes him/her safer. It's not up to another person or the govt IMO. When things cool down and the fight over guns starts that will be the big issue once again. Should the govt protect us, or do we have a right to protect ourselves, property, family when they fail to do so.

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 02:46 PM
And again with my endless facts and statistics. I even provided the bibliography for you.

"Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries [Kopel D. The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books; 1992.] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot. [Kleck G. Crime control through private use of armed forces. Soc Probl. 1988;35:1–21,Kleck G. Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. Hawthrone, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1997.] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates, [Mayhew P, van Dijk J. Criminal Victimization in Eleven Industrialized Countries: Key Findings From the International Crime Victimization Surveys. London, UK: Information and Publications Group; 1997.] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates. [Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 2006. ] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less. [Duggan M. More guns more crime. J Polit Econ. 2001;109:1086–1114,Cook P, Ludwig J. Guns and burglary. In: Ludwig J, Cook P, eds. Evaluating Gun Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute; 2003:74–107.] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns."

Just out of curiosity...do you have a college degree? Do you know what the difference is between peer-reviewed scientific research and a Wikipedia article is? Bonus question: Is Nate Silver a witch and the Anti-Christ?
So burglars prefer houses with gun owners, and even more, they prefer houses with gun owners when the gun owners are home?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.
Enjoy reading away on your research papers. They are obviously giving you wonderful information. :thumbs:

You cite research paper quotes, again, as fact. This is one of the most widely debated topics in the US and the world. You can read different sides, opinions, research papers, go hear lectures, etc to your heart's content. I do not doubt that some dude from Harvard wrote what you posted. What I doubt is that you or your professor can take a bunch of statistical facts, correlate and rearrange them in a manner of your choosing, and produce the answers to gun control. It is not cut and dry, and if it was, no one would debate the issue.

broncosteven
12-19-2012, 02:50 PM
Broncosteven sounds like you got a shotgun, then went right out hunting before you were really ready to.

I shot my dad's guns as a kid, he taught me how to shoot and gun safety from a young age but never thought it was cool, my heart wasn't in it. Before we went hunting we went to ranges a couple times, I did a gun safety and cleaning class on my own, and shot targets out at my a couple different family farms. The guy running the farm gave us a safety talk but I wasn't expecting my uncle who always talked about being this big hunter came out of no where and jumped in with us from the side. I was doing everything I was taught to and it was a mistake on my uncles part that nearly cost him his life.

Having that experience showed me that with a gun you can do everything you can to be safe with it but something you don't account for can cost someone their life.

I don't think I will ever be ready to hunt, it is not my thing. I would rather spend the time making something than killing something.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 02:51 PM
It was in a different thread awhile back. And only people who don't understand the true intention of the 2nd Amendment (or I guess don't care about it) would think it moronic.

It's good to know that you know what the "true intention" of the 2nd Amendment was.

You're insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was made so that people could overthrow their government. I say that is a silly argument because a new government would not put a provision in it to allow its people to overthrow it. The Civil War showed that the US never had any intention of allowing its citizens to do so.

Rather, if you have any understanding of military history, the specific wording of the Amendment is important:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Militias were the primary form of home defense back in the day. They were well-regulated. They trained to protect citizens from incursions from Native American tribes, and in the case of the Revolutionary War, invasions from foreign countries. Even during the Civil War, regulated militias played a huge part in the armies of both sides, and during time of war were put under command of the US Army. Think of these militias as the National Guard of their time.

In my experience, pro-gun people are always quick to quote the second half of the Amendment, but always seem to forget the first half.

Context.

Additionally, we passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, allowing black men to vote. Then the 19th Amendment 50 years later, allowing women to vote. This shows that, yes, we can revisit Amendments that have outlived their usefulness. The argument can be made as well that the framers of the Constitution could not have had any clue to the technological advances that would eventually take place with regard to gun manufacturing...hell, even using the word "manufacturing" as relates to guns in the 18th Century is a big-ass stretch.

That conservative fishwrap the New York Post said it pretty well the other day:

"Has technology rendered the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution obsolete?

That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?

We say: Yes."

tesnyde
12-19-2012, 02:59 PM
If a deranged drug-upped killer comes in to your kid's school, which classroom would you want him to be in:

the one with the teacher who will teach them to curl into a little ball and hide, hoping to avoid notice?
the one where the teacher will have them out of the way, while being ready with his/her own firearm, with which they are trained?

The liberal attitude on gun control contributed to deaths at Sandy Hook. An armed teacher, screened and trained properly, could have saved lives.

All you panty-waste libs can start crying now.

I have never worked in a district that allowed teachers to carry when I was Texas, though a few do, but I did have the code to the SRO's gun safe which contained several AR-15s. The SROs took the time to show me how to use them if things ever came to that. Ofcourse it never did, but there are work-a-rounds to provide some level of access for school administrators.

The district I know of that allows teachers to carry requires a concealed weapons permit plus additional training and individual approval from the supt and school board. Only the supt and board know who the armed teachers are. It's a district NE of Dallas.

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 03:01 PM
I live in the suburbs, we are allowed to own guns, I don't think we can carry concealed weapons but not wanting one I never checked it out. My dad is big into guns he has a whole bunch of shotguns and rifles and a pistol that is more for quick draw type stuff.

Way back about 25 years ago he bought me a shotgun for Christmas and I was like what am I going to do with this but I figured I would give hunting a try. We went out shooting birds downstate once, it was kinda fun shooting things but late in the day I was following a flock and pulled off a round just as my uncle moved over into our blind and I am surprised to this day I didn't blow his head off. Maybe if we didn't waste what we killed and I didn't nearly kill my uncle I would have a different take on guns. As far as I am concerned they are made for one purpose and that is to take life. My dad still has my shotgun at his house, I won't allow it nor any kind of gun in my house.

I read our local paper and review the police reports and we don't get night time robberies. I feel safe in my home. I can't sleep most nights so there is usually some activity in the house almost all hours, We have motion sensing lights, keep the bushes around the house cut low leave a light on downstairs and make it generally less appealing for someone to break in. If some one did break in I wouldn't have the time to get a locked gun and load it, I feel better calling the police and knowing they are on their way than having a gun in my house. One would have to sleep with an unlocked loaded gun to have a chance at using it in an event like that. Plus if they did break in with my neck I wouldn't be able to aim and handle the recoil so all I would do is piss off the intruder and likely die because he killed me with my own weapon. Plus the couple times I have been rearended in my car the stress of the event was so shocking I was stunned and couldn't believe it was really happening. I doubt faced with an armed intruder hell bent on hurting me and my family I would be able to do more than call 911. I know everyone likes to think they could react under fire but without practicing and training for a home break in until it was second nature I wouldn't be able to do more than call 911.

My other piece of home protection is our dog, I really feel that if any door was opened he would bark and give us time to call the police and let them handle the intruder. I have gone out the front door late at nights with everyone else asleep and the dog sleeping upstairs has gone crazy when he heard the door open, and I thought I was as quiet as I cool be. Just my roaming around downstairs at night will set off a growl and he will come out and check on me.

My Brother in law has guns they live in the area, he keeps a bat by his bed because his guns are locked up in a safe in the basement. He knows if someone broke in he wouldn't have time to get to them and he doesn't want to keep an unlocked gun around his kids, he told me he would rather be beaten with his own bat than killed with his own gun.

I think raising my kids in a gun free environment is better for them in the long term. Talking to them about how to react to different scenarios and having plans for different events is more important to me than packing heat.

I think it would actually provide more jobs to add more police, and while they can't be everywhere (which is not the point) they would be more visible and quicker to respond which saves more lives. If you leave public places like banks and malls and even schools unpoliced we as a society are making it too easy for nut jobs and criminals to plan attacks and pull off robberies.

You like to bring up the gun violence in Chicago but the fact is most of it is in gang riddled areas where there is little to no patrols being done. Emanual moves cops around from one blighted area to another rather than expand the force to provide the the levels of enforcement that is truly needed, and most of that is because lack of funding. Do taxes suck? Yes, can someone making $100k pay more than someone making $30k **** yes. If you want to live in a country where you have a modicum of safety, infrastructure, schooling, public works, and quality of life then you have to expect to pay for those things. Too many people are too concerned about how much money they can make, protecting their wealth, and what they get out of life rather than worry about how they can make things better for the communities they and their familes live in.

Giving me a gun and telling me to protect mine is not the answer, we need to find a way to protect what is OURs.
Good post and, while it is not mine, I don't mind your stance.
I would prefer to keep the police force low, taxes low, and I'll take care of myself.

I live in a good community. There is very low crime in the area and we also feel safe.
I do own numerous guns, but like your dad, they are currently useless to me in an invasion and locked up in the basement, away from my kids. Prior to my kids, I kept a loaded handgun within reach in the bedroom.

I will soon buy a fingerprint opened safe, so I again can keep the handgun in the bedroom, loaded, within reach. I would like to eventually have another on the 1st floor. Given my community is generally safe, keeping my kids safe from my guns is priority #1, and protecting them is priority #2.

I can't get a carry license in NJ, but I would if I could. In my life, had I had one, I admit I would never have had a reason to even remove it from the holster. That said, the thought of being in a situation where I could not actively protect my wife or children is sickening enough that I would certainly carry if I could. Dialing 911 is just not an acceptable option to me

houghtam
12-19-2012, 03:04 PM
So burglars prefer houses with gun owners, and even more, they prefer houses with gun owners when the gun owners are home?

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my life.
Enjoy reading away on your research papers. They are obviously giving you wonderful information. :thumbs:

You cite research paper quotes, again, as fact. This is one of the most widely debated topics in the US and the world. You can read different sides, opinions, research papers, go hear lectures, etc to your heart's content. I do not doubt that some dude from Harvard wrote what you posted. What I doubt is that you or your professor can take a bunch of statistical facts, correlate and rearrange them in a manner of your choosing, and produce the answers to gun control. It is not cut and dry, and if it was, no one would debate the issue.

Statistically speaking, burglars rob more houses with gun owners than without. It doesn't mean they prefer to rob gun owners. It means that there is no evidence to support the claim that having a gun in the house does anything to prevent burglaries on said house. There is a big difference between those two stances, and the latter disproves the theory that since I have a gun in my house, I am less likely to be robbed.

Furthermore, research shows that households that have guns are much more likely to have gun accidents. So not only are you really not protecting yourself or your family, you're actually putting them in more danger.

That was the point of the paper.

I'm not going to belabor this point any more, because it's obvious that you do not have it in you to debate honestly. You're just claiming that (for the millionth time) a peer-reviewed article published by a medical professional is bunk because you think so.

It's clear to me that you have no background in research methodology, otherwise you wouldn't be so afraid of facts and figures published and reviewed by people with far greater knowledge of a subject.

Don't be afraid of science.

broncosteven
12-19-2012, 03:05 PM
I have never worked at district that allowed teacher to carry when I was Texas, though a few do, but I did have the code to the SRO's gun safe which contained several AR-15s. The SROs took the time to show me how to use them if things ever came to that. Ofcourse it never did, but there are work-a-rounds to provide some level of access for school administrators.

It is sad to think a job requirement for an already under paid teaching job would be commando experience. I just don't see my daughters 50 something teacher firing off rounds Rambo style.

I would much rather have increased patrols and lower response times by those sworn and trained to protect, not just in schools but all public areas.

Requiem
12-19-2012, 03:07 PM
A Gene Kranz in every school! With laser guns and weed!

broncosteven
12-19-2012, 03:11 PM
Good post and, while it is not mine, I don't mind your stance.
I would prefer to keep the police force low, taxes low, and I'll take care of myself.

I live in a good community. There is very low crime in the area and we also feel safe.
I do own numerous guns, but like your dad, they are currently useless to me in an invasion and locked up in the basement, away from my kids. Prior to my kids, I kept a loaded handgun within reach in the bedroom.

I will soon buy a fingerprint opened safe, so I again can keep the handgun in the bedroom, loaded, within reach. I would like to eventually have another on the 1st floor. Given my community is generally safe, keeping my kids safe from my guns is priority #1, and protecting them is priority #2.

I can't get a carry license in NJ, but I would if I could. In my life, had I had one, I admit I would never have had a reason to even remove it from the holster. That said, the thought of being in a situation where I could not actively protect my wife or children is sickening enough that I would certainly carry if I could. Dialing 911 is just not an acceptable option to me

I agree, I can respect your stance, the bold may work for you but what about your neighbors or community? Are they willing and able to protect theirs?

Do you trust your neighbors and community to take the measures you are willing to in order to keep their guns safe?

I would prefer to have a trained professional doing their job over hoping my neighbors are doing the same or better job securing their weapons.

broncosteven
12-19-2012, 03:12 PM
A Gene Kranz in every school! With laser guns and weed!

Now you are talking!

Requiem
12-19-2012, 03:20 PM
Now you are talking!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pp1e505TBHI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jerseyguy4
12-19-2012, 03:22 PM
Statistically speaking, burglars rob more houses with gun owners than without. It doesn't mean they prefer to rob gun owners. It means that there is no evidence to support the claim that having a gun in the house does anything to prevent burglaries on said house. There is a big difference between those two stances, and the latter disproves the theory that since I have a gun in my house, I am less likely to be robbed.
I don't actually doubt this. Unless I have a sign out front warning people of my armed status, a burglar wouldn't know the difference from the outside of who is armed and who isn't.
What I don't like is the statement that 'there is no evidence that gun ownership deters burglary'.
If I KNEW a homeowner had easy access to a gun, I would not burglarize the house. Or, if all home owners had easy access to guns, there would be less home burglary, most especially when homeowners were home.

I do not need a phd to come to this conclusion.
Furthermore, research shows that households that have guns are much more likely to have gun accidents. So not only are you really not protecting yourself or your family, you're actually putting them in more danger.
I agree, no surprise.

That was the point of the paper.

I'm not going to belabor this point any more, because it's obvious that you do not have it in you to debate honestly. You're just claiming that (for the millionth time) a peer-reviewed article published by a medical professional is bunk because you think so.

It's clear to me that you have no background in research methodology, otherwise you wouldn't be so afraid of facts and figures published and reviewed by people with far greater knowledge of a subject.

Don't be afraid of science.
Haha, fairly incorrect. I won't mention what I do, because this is the internet and you wouldn't believe me anyway.

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 03:24 PM
It's good to know that you know what the "true intention" of the 2nd Amendment was.

You're insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was made so that people could overthrow their government. I say that is a silly argument because a new government would not put a provision in it to allow its people to overthrow it.

Yeah, totally. There's no way that a bunch of guys who just violently overthrew their government would think it necessary to protect the ability to violently resist a government.

Luckily their words left you little material with which to delude yourself.

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson
(as Constitutional as Separation of Church and State)

lonestar
12-19-2012, 03:35 PM
This is a ridiculous over-simplification of the issue and sadly par for the course.

Which is obviously over your dedhed..

Panty waisted liberals.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't actually doubt this. Unless I have a sign out front warning people of my armed status, a burglar wouldn't know the difference from the outside of who is armed and who isn't.
What I don't like is the statement that 'there is no evidence that gun ownership deters burglary'.
If I KNEW a homeowner had easy access to a gun, I would not burglarize the house. Or, if all home owners had easy access to guns, there would be less home burglary, most especially when homeowners were home.

I do not need a phd to come to this conclusion.

Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 03:56 PM
Yeah, totally. There's no way that a bunch of guys who just violently overthrew their government would think it necessary to protect the ability to violently resist a government.

Luckily their words left you little material with which to delude yourself.



-Thomas Jefferson
(as Constitutional as Separation of Church and State)

Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

BroncoBeavis
12-19-2012, 04:02 PM
Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

I think I just got done drawing my line in another post.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 04:05 PM
I think I just got done drawing my line in another post.

Good, so pretty much the only thing we disagree on is whether they should be carried in public.

Requiem
12-19-2012, 04:08 PM
Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.

We have some crazies here, but you should check out a website that was started by people in South Dakota (http://www.primalrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6322). The sad thing is, the guy who actually owns the site and a few others are a part of police forces in various parts of the state. Pretty sick when we have law enforcement officers touting beliefs like that. The kind of mentality they have, unfortunately, is likely shared with a majority of them.

houghtam
12-19-2012, 04:25 PM
We have some crazies here, but you should check out a website that was started by people in South Dakota (http://www.primalrights.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6322). The sad thing is, the guy who actually owns the site and a few others are a part of police forces in various parts of the state. Pretty sick when we have law enforcement officers touting beliefs like that. The kind of mentality they have, unfortunately, is likely shared with a majority of them.

I wonder if he's willing to have his taxes raised the billions of dollars it would take to arm and train every teacher in every school, or if he's willing to accept the monumental drop in teachers we will have if we make owning, being trained with, and carrying a gun to school a requirement of becoming a teacher.

My guess is probably not.

Someone has gone off the deep end. I feel sorry for anyone who is under his jurisdiction as an officer of the law. Not because he carries a gun, but because he comes up with such a completely useless, illogical and impossible solution as arming every teacher.

DAN_BRONCO_FAN
12-19-2012, 05:03 PM
so it seems the media is tryin to blame video games and movies .so one evil fvvck tard murders several innocent children and they blame video games and movies .
great

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 05:49 PM
I wonder if he's willing to have his taxes raised the billions of dollars it would take to arm and train every teacher in every school, or if he's willing to accept the monumental drop in teachers we will have if we make owning, being trained with, and carrying a gun to school a requirement of becoming a teacher.

My guess is probably not.

Someone has gone off the deep end. I feel sorry for anyone who is under his jurisdiction as an officer of the law. Not because he carries a gun, but because he comes up with such a completely useless, illogical and impossible solution as arming every teacher.

Surprised you don't just suggest a 1% sales tax on all guns and ammo. With the money going to schools to beef up security. At least that might actually help. But just wanting stupid bans on certain guns is a joke. It won't help anything.

cutthemdown
12-19-2012, 05:54 PM
This morphing into a war on hollywood would be funny because all the liberals who want gun control make tons off there violent movies.

how about a violent movie tax. If your movie is r rated for violence you pay an extra buck a ticket. Money goes to help crazy kids before they kill people. Come on liberals im not a taxer and i am coming up with way better taxes then you all do. You always say govt should tax behavoir they don't like, and make incentives for what they do.

So tax violent movies and music. Make people pay more for it. Make people pay a ton of tax to buy ammo and guns.

errand
12-19-2012, 06:19 PM
Well there is one real (and I use the term "real" loosely since the Mississippi shooting was not actually stopped by the principle, the gunman was just stopped from driving away) example in this thread and one fabricated example of a mass shooting being stopped by an armed citizen. Methinks your "success stories" have been vastly overstated by sites, especially social networking sites, that pander to tea party members.

the 16 yr old suspect was stopped from driving away to go to middle school and shoot even more kids.....so it is an accurate statement that the law abiding citizen that had a gun did indeed stop the shooting.

errand
12-19-2012, 06:58 PM
So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.






Laws do not prevent people from committing crimes....morals do.

errand
12-19-2012, 06:58 PM
April 2012, Aurora CO Church shooting stopped by off-duty cop in congregation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/police-congregation-likel_n_1446969.html

March 2012, NC Church shooting stopped by armed citizen
http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781/1112

December 2007, CO Church shooting stopped by armed security guard
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/11/nation/na-shoot11

April 2012, Salt Lake City mass stabbing:stopped by armed citizen:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx#.UA3BQ5iNMfH.facebook

January 2002, Appalachian School of Law shooting stopped by armed citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

August 2012, TX mass shooting stopped by armed citizen (including saving the life of a cop who was pinned and taking fire from a gunman):
http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-shoot-out-10236.html

errand
12-19-2012, 07:00 PM
This morphing into a war on hollywood would be funny because all the liberals who want gun control make tons off there violent movies.

how about a violent movie tax. If your movie is r rated for violence you pay an extra buck a ticket. Money goes to help crazy kids before they kill people. Come on liberals im not a taxer and i am coming up with way better taxes then you all do. You always say govt should tax behavoir they don't like, and make incentives for what they do.

So tax violent movies and music. Make people pay more for it. Make people pay a ton of tax to buy ammo and guns.

Hollywood types remind of that Rosie O'donnell shag gagger who spoke out against guns, but has an armed bodyguard herself

errand
12-19-2012, 07:02 PM
Surprised you don't just suggest a 1% sales tax on all guns and ammo. With the money going to schools to beef up security. At least that might actually help. But just wanting stupid bans on certain guns is a joke. It won't help anything.

Well, like I said.....if banning all the guns will stop all the murders and crimes, then ban them.....but I wanna see the criminals turn theirs in first.

errand
12-19-2012, 07:29 PM
Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

So pray tell where can one purchase a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Better yet, who can purchase one?

On edit - OK...found a website that sells silencers, but it takes 4-6 weeks as the government (ATF) checks you out, plus a $200 transfer fee....etc.

http://www.impactguns.com/silencers.aspx

Didn't notice if they carried rocket launchers.....

errand
12-19-2012, 07:50 PM
wouldn't it be easier to just install solid steel doors with bullet proof glass in the schools? Maybe where the teacher just hits a panic/silent alarm button and it deadbolts until the police arrive and subdue the shooter?

But surely someone's already thought of that right?

jerseyguy4
12-20-2012, 10:34 AM
Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.
For the most part, I am with you. I also do not want to live in a society resembling the wild west. I don't want to carry a gun wherever I go.
But I do want to be safe, both me and my family.

And so my question becomes, how do you make the American people safe from those that have guns when the ones we own are gone?

I expected the answer in this country to come from the taser.
- Ban handguns and assault weapon sale to anyone but government and police
- institute a long term buy-back program, to get existing handguns and assault rifles off the street
- institute a viable taser program, where people who want personal protection can get that in a non-lethal, but effective form.

Quite honestly, I do not think the taser is yet an acceptable replacement. They are still fairly new, and they need to be further developed. They need to be so good, that someone like myself (who is not dead set on packing heat and expressing my constitutional rights), will hand over his handgun, replace it with a taser, and feel that it will be just as effective. It needs range, accuracy, multiple shot capability, penetration ability, and be affordable

And like always, it comes down to money: a LOT of money to finance a buy back program. A LOT of money to kill the arms industry.

In the end, I'd still like to be able to own and use my hunting rifles (for hunting). But I am also acceptable to having all of them not being semi-automatic. I am acceptable to them all having built-in restricted size magazines. I am acceptable to them all being a minimum length.
And should the King of England get saucy again, there would still be millions and millions of these in American hands to fight him off (said in jest)

And if you did have a taser that could replace the handgun, America would be a lot more acceptable to letting civilians carry them. Arming teachers goes from really scary to a nice precaution. Practically every mass shooting this country has seen could be minimized.

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 11:16 AM
For the most part, I am with you. I also do not want to live in a society resembling the wild west. I don't want to carry a gun wherever I go.
But I do want to be safe, both me and my family.

And so my question becomes, how do you make the American people safe from those that have guns when the ones we own are gone?

I expected the answer in this country to come from the taser.
- Ban handguns and assault weapon sale to anyone but government and police
- institute a long term buy-back program, to get existing handguns and assault rifles off the street
- institute a viable taser program, where people who want personal protection can get that in a non-lethal, but effective form.

Quite honestly, I do not think the taser is yet an acceptable replacement. They are still fairly new, and they need to be further developed. They need to be so good, that someone like myself (who is not dead set on packing heat and expressing my constitutional rights), will hand over his handgun, replace it with a taser, and feel that it will be just as effective. It needs range, accuracy, multiple shot capability, penetration ability, and be affordable

And like always, it comes down to money: a LOT of money to finance a buy back program. A LOT of money to kill the arms industry.

In the end, I'd still like to be able to own and use my hunting rifles (for hunting). But I am also acceptable to having all of them not being semi-automatic. I am acceptable to them all having built-in restricted size magazines. I am acceptable to them all being a minimum length.
And should the King of England get saucy again, there would still be millions and millions of these in American hands to fight him off (said in jest)

And if you did have a taser that could replace the handgun, America would be a lot more acceptable to letting civilians carry them. Arming teachers goes from really scary to a nice precaution. Practically every mass shooting this country has seen could be minimized.

We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.

BroncoFanatic
12-20-2012, 11:55 AM
We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.

Well put. A simple concept that escapes many here.

jerseyguy4
12-20-2012, 11:57 AM
We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.
If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

http://images.piratenews.org/Wolverines_Red_Dawn_PirateNews-org4.jpg

BroncoFanatic
12-20-2012, 12:11 PM
If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

http://images.piratenews.org/Wolverines_Red_Dawn_PirateNews-org4.jpg

You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...

jerseyguy4
12-20-2012, 12:25 PM
You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...
Haha, I couldn't find a good pic with a hunting rifle. And that's probably full-auto.

I don't need a semi auto to hunt, and I'm pretty quick with a lever. I really show those empty beer cans who's boss!

I don't think they're really God given....more like Constitutionally given. However, if you feel like they are god given, then I doubt I will change your mind. Listen, I don't want to change your mind. But you must admit, there is a huge abyss between the thoughts of the far left and far right. If we all don't compromise, no ground can be gained. How long will we argue without progress?

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 12:29 PM
If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

http://images.piratenews.org/Wolverines_Red_Dawn_PirateNews-org4.jpg

Just FYI, they weren't really worried so much about foreign invaders as domestic "caretakers." And it's not about going toe to toe with a field army. The founders never really saw it that way either.

And I'm probably less well-armed than you are (from the sounds of it :)) I just hate the constant push to rewrite clear history.

BroncoFanatic
12-20-2012, 12:54 PM
I don't think they're really God given....more like Constitutionally given. However, if you feel like they are god given, then I doubt I will change your mind. Listen, I don't want to change your mind. But you must admit, there is a huge abyss between the thoughts of the far left and far right. If we all don't compromise, no ground can be gained. How long will we argue without progress?

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it merely stipulates those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The Founders' words there, and there are a plethora of quotes from them to know the intent. If our rights are not "granted" by government, then government does not have the authority to take them away. Whether or not a person is religious, that should be good news.

I don't see compromise as a virtue in every case.

Another example, somewhat extreme but to make the point:

Police officer A wants to rape my wife. Police officer B only wants to cop a feel.

Do I allow a compromise on this? Or, even though this is an "authority" figure, do I resist, and violently if necessary?

Before anyone poo-poos the example, things like that happen in despotic countries, and the freedoms we take for granted are historically the exception, not the rule. I will resist every effort to strip away those freedoms.

Rohirrim
12-20-2012, 01:27 PM
I think it's a moot point, whether or not individuals can keep guns. I see no reason not to restrict gun ownership to bolt action rifles, 3 shot shotguns, and revolvers. That certainly doesn't violate the Constitution. The idea that you are going to fight off the government is ludicrous, on its face, so we have to rely on other ways to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Frankly, I'm more worried about corporate control of the government and the effects of Citizens United. The next tyranny might not be a militaristic one that you fight with bullets. Maybe it will be based solely on economics and credit control? Don't play along and you get removed from the game. Maybe it will be social? A Facebook tyranny? "Why do you have this distasteful statement in your status, Mr. Citizen? We may have to remove you and of course, Mr. Employer won't hire you if you don't have a profile he can look at, or a good credit rating. Oh, and you can forget about buying a house." What matters individuality when you have been swallowed up in the herd?

Also, what worries me more is the corporatization of our military; Private enterprise taking over military functions. An army of citizens might not fire on those who they consider their own brethren (especially if the people revolt over issues shared by military members, as we saw in Egypt), but would an international, private military force have any qualms about taking orders from their employer? The Romans started hiring out their military duties. Look what happened to them? Perhaps those sitting on their basement arsenals are looking in the wrong direction while their freedoms erode away right under their noses? While they look out for the commie tank to come over the hill, their freedoms are losing their potency, one by one, as the freedom of individuality disappears.

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 01:32 PM
I think it's a moot point, whether or not individuals can keep guns. I see no reason not to restrict gun ownership to bolt action rifles, 3 shot shotguns, and revolvers. That certainly doesn't violate the Constitution. The idea that you are going to fight off the government is ludicrous, on its face, so we have to rely on other ways to keep the government from becoming tyrannical.

Really? If it would be so easy here, why do we have so much trouble controlling unarmed 3rd world countries?

misturanderson
12-20-2012, 01:56 PM
Really? If it would be so easy here, why do we have so much trouble controlling unarmed 3rd world countries?

What 3rd world countries are you talking about? The ones where 12-year-olds have AK-47s?

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 02:45 PM
What 3rd world countries are you talking about? The ones where 12-year-olds have AK-47s?

Yeah, some terrorist group gave a gun to a kid. Therefore all kids in Afghanistan have guns.

Bronco Yoda
12-20-2012, 04:18 PM
I just learned that one of the little girls went to a school near our house last year in kindergarten before her family moved back east this year. Everyone is so heartbroken over this.

I'm so grateful that my wife is willing to homeschool our two youngest and supervise our older one in her cyber schooling. I thought she had lost her mind at first taking on such a challenge. But I've come to see the overwhelmingly positive results and benefits. And I know they are safe and actually learning something.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 05:39 PM
The Constitution doesn't grant any rights, it merely stipulates those inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. The Founders' words there, and there are a plethora of quotes from them to know the intent. If our rights are not "granted" by government, then government does not have the authority to take them away. Whether or not a person is religious, that should be good news.

I don't see compromise as a virtue in every case.

Another example, somewhat extreme but to make the point:

Police officer A wants to rape my wife. Police officer B only wants to cop a feel.

Do I allow a compromise on this? Or, even though this is an "authority" figure, do I resist, and violently if necessary?

Before anyone poo-poos the example, things like that happen in despotic countries, and the freedoms we take for granted are historically the exception, not the rule. I will resist every effort to strip away those freedoms.

Please quote for me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that any rights are God-given.

The Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting, has no legal authority. Period. It can't be cited as precedent. It is not legally binding in any way.

There is absolutely no mention of or reference to God, creation, or anything else along those lines in the Constitution, except, of course, about how the State must separate itself from religion.

So yes, legally, your rights are granted by the Constitution, which you can actually go look at in Washington DC. Not by some being that may or may not exist.

errand
12-20-2012, 05:41 PM
You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...

Actually it is an assault weapon as it has the ability to switch to full auto...just saying.

errand
12-20-2012, 06:32 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/two-shot-at-texas-movie-theater-during-showing-of-the-hobbit

Yet another potential shooting spree by a bad guy with a gun, stopped by a good woman with a gun. I'd rather go to my grave never needing to use my gun than go there wishing I had one.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 06:51 PM
http://www.examiner.com/article/two-shot-at-texas-movie-theater-during-showing-of-the-hobbit

Yet another potential shooting spree by a bad guy with a gun, stopped by a good man with a gun.

It was an off-duty police officer working security and in uniform. As a former theater manager, it's a great idea to have traine law enforcement armed and in uniform. Not some yahoo with a CCL.

errand
12-20-2012, 06:58 PM
It was an off-duty police officer working security and in uniform. As a former theater manager, it's a great idea to have traine law enforcement armed and in uniform. Not some yahoo with a CCL.

Yeah, because the uniform and the sign that said "gun-free zone"is what stopped the shooter......point is there was no waiting on the cops...and like those stats say average victims during shooting spree stopped after police are called 14.3...average number when stopped by armed citizens 2.1

Or are you seriously going to try and convince people that she wouldn't have done likewise if she was just a customer with a CCL

houghtam
12-20-2012, 07:14 PM
Yeah, because the uniform and the sign that said "gun-free zone"is what stopped the shooter......point is there was no waiting on the cops...and like those stats say average victims during shooting spree stopped after police are called 14.3...average number when stopped by armed citizens 2.1

Or are you seriously going to try and convince people that she wouldn't have done likewise if she was just a customer with a CCL

She wouldn't have been "just a customer". She would have been an off-duty cop...you know, a paid professional.

errand
12-20-2012, 08:02 PM
She wouldn't have been "just a customer". She would have been an off-duty cop...you know, a paid professional.

You act like the only person who can save someone from drowning is a life guard that is either on or off duty....guess no need for any average Joe to perform CPR either since they too aren't paid professionals.

You still miss the point clown.....the fact is that someone else (the good guy) other than the criminal shooter (the bad guy) had a gun and used it to save lives.

You think the people this idiot was gunning for care if it was an off duty cop or a private citizen with a CCL that saved their life?

houghtam
12-20-2012, 08:12 PM
You act like the only person who can save someone from drowning is a life guard that is either on or off duty....guess no need for any average Joe to perform CPR either since they too aren't paid professionals.

You still miss the point clown.....the fact is that someone else (the good guy) other than the criminal shooter (the bad guy) had a gun and used it to save lives.

You think the people this idiot was gunning for care if it was an off duty cop or a private citizen with a CCL that saved their life?

When someone performs CPR on a drowning victim, what are the chances that they're accidentally going to harm an innocent bystander?

If an EMT arrives on the scene, what are the chances that the person performing CPR is going to be killed accidentally by the EMT?

errand
12-20-2012, 08:22 PM
When someone performs CPR on a drowning victim, what are the chances that they're accidentally going to harm an innocent bystander?

If an EMT arrives on the scene, what are the chances that the person performing CPR is going to be killed accidentally by the EMT?

You brought up that it should be a paid professional not some yahoo..

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5939904-Citizen-shoots-trailer-park-gunman-saves-Texas-officer/

I'm gonna guess this cop is very thankful you don't live in his town......

houghtam
12-20-2012, 08:33 PM
And this is all discussing situations where there is an actual active shooter. More or less unmentioned in this conversation thus far is the potential for an armed citizen to attempt to stop an active shooter when one doesn't exist. A school was put on lockdown the other day because four kids were playing with a long umbrella. What happens when an armed citizen sees something like that and decides to draw? Is the inevitable accidental shooting acceptable collateral damage for your right to pretend like there's still a gold rush out west?

Cops shoot people whom they think are armed, and it turns out they're holding a soda can. Cops. Trained professionals. No way I want some guy with an itchy trigger finger pulling a weapon on someone who isn't doing anything wrong.

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 08:41 PM
Please quote for me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that any rights are God-given.

The Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting, has no legal authority. Period. It can't be cited as precedent. It is not legally binding in any way.

There is absolutely no mention of or reference to God, creation, or anything else along those lines in the Constitution, except, of course, about how the State must separate itself from religion.

So yes, legally, your rights are granted by the Constitution, which you can actually go look at in Washington DC. Not by some being that may or may not exist.

I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has referenced the Declaration for precedent on more than one occasion.

BroncoFanatic
12-20-2012, 08:58 PM
Please quote for me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says that any rights are God-given.

The Declaration of Independence, which you are quoting, has no legal authority. Period. It can't be cited as precedent. It is not legally binding in any way.

There is absolutely no mention of or reference to God, creation, or anything else along those lines in the Constitution, except, of course, about how the State must separate itself from religion.

So yes, legally, your rights are granted by the Constitution, which you can actually go look at in Washington DC. Not by some being that may or may not exist.
So....you then advocate that our rights come from government then? So when government says you have no right to have children without their permission (China for instance), you will bow down and say "yes massa!", because government said so?

You sir are clearly ready to be enslaved. I recommend instead that you break free of your intellectual bondage, embrace the idea that any government only has power by consent of the governed.

No piece of paper gave us our rights, that piece of paper only acknowledges that our rights are inalienable.....inherit because we are...and demands that any government respect those self-evident truths.

The choice before us all:

Freedom, self-determination, with all of the inherent responsibilities, or
surrender your security to the bureacratic powers, and hope they will always be benevolent

houghtam
12-20-2012, 09:19 PM
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has referenced the Declaration for precedent on more than one occasion.

While the Supreme Court may reference the Declaration of Independence in a decision, please remember that the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether something is constitutional.

They may use the Declaration as a guide for interpreting certain situations and determining how the Constitution applies to a given case. But the only legal document the Supreme Court is concerned about is the Constitution. At the end of the day, all the bills passed, all the executive orders issued by the executive branch, all of the regulations issued by the various agencies and departments are nothing more than items fleshing out as detailed in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court exists in the first place. Their only job is to make sure that local, state and federal governments are operating within the bounds of the US Constitution. The only thing the Supreme Court is bound to is the Constitution. Not even their own precedent is legally binding on them.

The way you can see this very clearly is to look at Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. If precedent were legally binding, it would have taken an Amendment to the Constitution to take effect. Most often, Supreme Court justices who claim to follow an originalist or strict interpretation of the Constitution use the Declaration as a primary source document to help them infer the Founders' opinions on situations not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's not precedent in the sense of previous case law, and previous case law isn't even legally binding. The Court likes observe stare decisis in most situations in order to preserve some sort of consistency, but that's a function of court procedure and tradition, not the legal framework of how the court actually works. In many cases, the most important decisions the Court has handed down are instances where they have abandoned stare decisis all together (cf. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court makes a decision based off what the Constitution says, not what the Declaration of Independence or any other document says.

With all that said, you have to ask yourself why, if the idea that rights are God-given were so important to the Framers, that they completely left God out of the actual document.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 09:29 PM
So....you then advocate that our rights come from government then? So when government says you have no right to have children without their permission (China for instance), you will bow down and say "yes massa!", because government said so?

You sir are clearly ready to be enslaved. I recommend instead that you break free of your intellectual bondage, embrace the idea that any government only has power by consent of the governed.

No piece of paper gave us our rights, that piece of paper only acknowledges that our rights are inalienable.....inherit because we are...and demands that any government respect those self-evident truths.

The choice before us all:

Freedom, self-determination, with all of the inherent responsibilities, or
surrender your security to the bureacratic powers, and hope they will always be benevolent


Are you familiar with the term "check and balances"?

The sky isn't falling. We're not China, nor will we ever be. Our system of government was designed explicitly to prevent that from happening.

And if I recall correctly, the last time someone attempted to throw off the shackles of government, the government had something to say about it, and won the argument handily on the battlefield. If you want to talk about precedent, if that doesn't dismiss the idea that the Second Amendment was designed so that we can just take up arms against our government, I don't know what does.

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 10:03 PM
While the Supreme Court may reference the Declaration of Independence in a decision, please remember that the responsibility of the Supreme Court is to determine whether something is constitutional.

They may use the Declaration as a guide for interpreting certain situations and determining how the Constitution applies to a given case. But the only legal document the Supreme Court is concerned about is the Constitution. At the end of the day, all the bills passed, all the executive orders issued by the executive branch, all of the regulations issued by the various agencies and departments are nothing more than items fleshing out as detailed in the Constitution, which is why the Supreme Court exists in the first place. Their only job is to make sure that local, state and federal governments are operating within the bounds of the US Constitution. The only thing the Supreme Court is bound to is the Constitution. Not even their own precedent is legally binding on them.

The way you can see this very clearly is to look at Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. If precedent were legally binding, it would have taken an Amendment to the Constitution to take effect. Most often, Supreme Court justices who claim to follow an originalist or strict interpretation of the Constitution use the Declaration as a primary source document to help them infer the Founders' opinions on situations not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It's not precedent in the sense of previous case law, and previous case law isn't even legally binding. The Court likes observe stare decisis in most situations in order to preserve some sort of consistency, but that's a function of court procedure and tradition, not the legal framework of how the court actually works. In many cases, the most important decisions the Court has handed down are instances where they have abandoned stare decisis all together (cf. Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.)

At the end of the day, the Supreme Court makes a decision based off what the Constitution says, not what the Declaration of Independence or any other document says.

With all that said, you have to ask yourself why, if the idea that rights are God-given were so important to the Framers, that they completely left God out of the actual document.

Sorry but what you're saying would also lead to the conclusion that "Separation of Church and State" is a fictional construct of the modern court. It is found nowhere in the document, therefore it has no legal standing.

BroncoBeavis
12-20-2012, 10:06 PM
Are you familiar with the term "check and balances"?

The sky isn't falling. We're not China, nor will we ever be. Our system of government was designed explicitly to prevent that from happening.

And if I recall correctly, the last time someone attempted to throw off the shackles of government, the government had something to say about it, and won the argument handily on the battlefield. If you want to talk about precedent, if that doesn't dismiss the idea that the Second Amendment was designed so that we can just take up arms against our government, I don't know what does.

This makes zero sense. A war proved the citizenry had no right to arms? Interesting.

baja
12-20-2012, 10:11 PM
Don't know if this has been posted but a remarkable thing is coming out of this unspeakable tragedy.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Kindnesses-are-multiplying-far-beyond-26-acts-4136281.php

Google 26 acts of kindness - it's happening all over the world.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 10:32 PM
This makes zero sense. A war proved the citizenry had no right to arms? Interesting.

No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 10:41 PM
Sorry but what you're saying would also lead to the conclusion that "Separation of Church and State" is a fictional construct of the modern court. It is found nowhere in the document, therefore it has no legal standing.

You are absolutely correct, and that is why Christianity is not the state religion, yet we still have "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Supreme Court cannot use Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to prevent legislative bodies from putting "under God" at the end of the Pledge of Allegiance, much to my chagrin.

cutthemdown
12-20-2012, 10:56 PM
It was an off-duty police officer working security and in uniform. As a former theater manager, it's a great idea to have traine law enforcement armed and in uniform. Not some yahoo with a CCL.

In an earlier thread you implied you feel that cops were likely to be killing people then making up storied they killed themselves. That shows you don't feel cops are somehow special. But now you seem to think only a cop should have gun, like that proves they are worthy. How can you have it both ways?

In one thread you make it sound like you don't trust police. But then in this one you are saying you only would trust police? And not some privately trained yahoo?

houghtam
12-20-2012, 11:01 PM
In an earlier thread you implied you feel that cops were likely to be killing people then making up storied they killed themselves. That shows you don't feel cops are somehow special. But now you seem to think only a cop should have gun, like that proves they are worthy. How can you have it both ways?

In one thread you make it sound like you don't trust police. But then in this one you are saying you only would trust police? And not some privately trained yahoo?

Wow. If you got "Houghtam doesn't trust cops" from "How did someone somehow sneak a gun past a pat down and then magically shoot themselves in the back of the head with their non-dominant hand while handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser", then you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

houghtam
12-20-2012, 11:26 PM
Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:

Loughner deserved his punishment. But during the sentencing, I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition...

...Reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them...

I get it. Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the "mass" out of "mass shooting," or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder...

Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it.

I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That's why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state...

And I say it, finally, mindful of the arguments on the other side, at least as I understand them: that a high-capacity magazine is not that different from multiple smaller-capacity magazines; and that if we ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines one day, there's a danger we would ban guns altogether the next, and your life might depend on you having one.

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2012, 05:25 AM
Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:

Pretty scary that there's a federal judge who strained to make a Fox News vs MSNBC argument but didn't bother himself with a second amendment argument.

Not even mentioning a judge writing opeds about where he thinks federal law should take us. He should probably recuse himself from any related cases going forward.

BroncoFanatic
12-21-2012, 05:31 AM
No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.
Translation: if the government can kill you, then they are clearly in the right.

Brilliant

Rohirrim
12-21-2012, 05:47 AM
But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

This is where this judge is wrong. The Right has no interest in "sensible." All they care about is ideological purity. Results have nothing to do with it.

BroncoInferno
12-21-2012, 06:17 AM
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help. Anyone who reads the 2nd amendent and concludes they have a personal right to own an assault rifle is simply seeing what they want to see.

jerseyguy4
12-21-2012, 06:21 AM
Here is an excellent op-ed written by the federal judge (appointed by George W. Bush) who presided over the mass shooting in Tucson. He is making the case as a conservative for a strict federal ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

Excerpts from the piece:
He says it very well

Rohirrim
12-21-2012, 06:36 AM
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help. Anyone who reads the 2nd amendent and concludes they have a personal right to own an assault rifle is simply seeing what they want to see.

Like I keep saying, in keeping with the originalism of Scalia, et al, they have the right to keep a musket. ;D

houghtam
12-21-2012, 07:41 AM
Translation: if the government can kill you, then they are clearly in the right.

Brilliant

I wonder why the southerners themselves coined the term the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy", and not "see ya'll next Saturday"

But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure...

This is where this judge is wrong. The Right has no interest in "sensible." All they care about is ideological purity. Results have nothing to do with it.

Roh, Roh, Roh...what could be more sensible than a childish, whining, take no prisoners attitude on being able to carry military grade weaponry in public, combined with undertones of open rebellion if I don't get my own way and a fundamental misunderstanding of military, political and constitutional history and function?

houghtam
12-21-2012, 08:20 AM
Pretty scary that there's a federal judge who strained to make a Fox News vs MSNBC argument but didn't bother himself with a second amendment argument.

Not even mentioning a judge writing opeds about where he thinks federal law should take us. He should probably recuse himself from any related cases going forward.

Sure, as long as you're going to ask Scalia to recuse himself from presiding over any of the myriad of issues he's made his opinions known about over the years.

Federal judges editorializing is not a new thing at all.

Jetland
12-21-2012, 08:49 AM
hope you all got to see the NRA presser today. They had a week to plan this and basically came up with a Colbert sketch.....just worthless

Pony Boy
12-21-2012, 09:06 AM
Firearms Supplier Sells More Than Three Years Worth Of Magazines In Just Three Days

Well at least Obama finally found a way to boost the economy ........

Brownells, the world's largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-supplier-sells-more-three-years-worth-magazines-just-three

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2012, 09:40 AM
No. A war proved that the right to bear arms wasn't about arming the populace to overthrow the government.

Just because you have a right doesn't mean you're not accountable for how you exercise it. I keep hearing about how you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Using your logic, it would mean, yes, absolutely you can.

And let's not pretend that everything that happened in war, or even the Civil War suddenly necessarily has to apply to Constitutional precedent.

Lincoln also suspended habeas corpus and tried Southerners by military tribunal. Is that all constitutional for everyone now too?

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2012, 09:43 AM
Sure, as long as you're going to ask Scalia to recuse himself from presiding over any of the myriad of issues he's made his opinions known about over the years.

Federal judges editorializing is not a new thing at all.

I've never heard him talk about what policies he thinks the federal government should specifically enact. He'll tell you what he believes the law and the Constitution "is" but not so much what he thinks it should be.

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2012, 10:12 AM
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It was an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem. Look at the plain language of the text: it's CLEAR that the intent of the amendent was to arm local militias, which was crucial to local defense at the time. After all, if there were some emergency, you couldn't wait for the Feds to chopper in help.

Over and over again, it has to be said... the founding fathers would've been far more concerned about what happened when the Feds WERE "choppering in" than when they weren't.

but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist #29

The second amendment was primarily a check and balance ON the government. That's not a role government can take over for itself.

Rohirrim
12-21-2012, 10:28 AM
NRA's LaPierre says it's basically everybody else's fault, from Hollywood, to video games. Ha!
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069537-nra-blames-media-music-and-more-for-culture-of-violence?lite

Didn't even have to hear him speak to know what he was going to say. It's always somebody else's fault.

BroncoInferno
12-21-2012, 11:11 AM
Over and over again, it has to be said... the founding fathers would've been far more concerned about what happened when the Feds WERE "choppering in" than when they weren't.



Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist #29

The second amendment was primarily a check and balance ON the government. That's not a role government can take over for itself.

First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.

Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.

Rigs11
12-21-2012, 11:24 AM
so the nra wants the evil gubmint to put police officers in schools now.bigger gubmint! what say you righties on this proposal?

houghtam
12-21-2012, 12:35 PM
First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.

Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.

That is exactly what people who hold an originalist view of the Constitution would have you believe. Justice Scalia is on record as saying the Second Amendment affords citizens the right to keep any bearable arms to fight off the government. When I mentioned this earlier, racist errand made an ignorant and useless comment about how you can't purchase rocket launchers. However, Scalia clearly did not say "purchasable" weaponry, he said bearable. If you can get your hands on it, in his opinion, you should be able to use it.

And yes, the framers of the Constitution were not some monolithic body who made decisions based on one will. How long did it take them to haggle about, write an ratify the document, again?

Besides which, regardless of their political writings on the fact, it's just folly to think that they intended to allow their citizenry to arm themselves for the sole purpose of being able to overthrow the very people who put the provision into the Constitution to begin with. Otherwise, why even bother putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?

BroncoBeavis
12-21-2012, 12:39 PM
First of all, we all need to move past this notion that when we refer to "The Founding Fathers" that we are talking about a bloc of people who all shared the same opinions on every topic. Of course, they weren't. What you just posted was the opinion of Hamilton and the Federalists only.

Any legal question about the law's intent starts with the intent of those who authored and ratified the law. Basic stuff. I can quote the guy who wrote the amendment. I can quote numerous people responsible for its ratification. Can you quote me anyone saying anything resembling "Guys, guys... hear me. We have nothing to fear from Government! This gun stuff is all about securing us Venison and succulent Pheasant Breast, nothing more!"

Some more background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #Ratification_debates


Second, even if the Founders did all share this same opinion on arms, it's merely another example of how the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. In the 18th century, it might well have been reasonable to think an armed citizenry could fight off the government. Unless you think citizens ought to have Apache helicopters and tanks, that isn't a remote possibility in the 21st century.

There was field artillery and other weaponry back in the day well beyond the means of the average agrarian. The citizenry had little chance going toe to toe with a standing field army. But standing field armies can't really control the people. Just as we've seen it hold true today in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. You can't truly rule people with tanks and aircraft any more than you can control mosquitoes with a sledgehammer. It takes boots on the ground. And on American soil, those boots owned by the government shouldn't have effective immunity. This is what the authors of the Constitution believed. Nothing has changed.

And I'll go one step further to say that if one truly believes that the time for the second amendment has passed, one should only go so far as to support its fully democratic repeal or amendment. This support for restraining the Constitution by legislative increment and/or judicial fiat brings danger far beyond those just related to the 2nd Amendment. When you attack any of the Bill of Rights by illegitimate means, you're really undermining each and every one.

Rohirrim
12-21-2012, 12:54 PM
That is exactly what people who hold an originalist view of the Constitution would have you believe. Justice Scalia is on record as saying the Second Amendment affords citizens the right to keep any bearable arms to fight off the government. When I mentioned this earlier, racist errand made an ignorant and useless comment about how you can't purchase rocket launchers. However, Scalia clearly did not say "purchasable" weaponry, he said bearable. If you can get your hands on it, in his opinion, you should be able to use it.

And yes, the framers of the Constitution were not some monolithic body who made decisions based on one will. How long did it take them to haggle about, write an ratify the document, again?

Besides which, regardless of their political writings on the fact, it's just folly to think that they intended to allow their citizenry to arm themselves for the sole purpose of being able to overthrow the very people who put the provision into the Constitution to begin with. Otherwise, why even bother putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?

Not to mention that if they were all still alive 60 years later, half of them would have voted to secede. ;D

cutthemdown
12-21-2012, 04:10 PM
why even bring the Constitution up everyone knows it ain't getting changed. Congress can't even do a budget compromise/tax bill let alone change the Constitution. Best you can hope for is a ban on assault rilfes similar to the brady gun law I guess. 10 round clips and some stupid stuff about what the rifle looks like.

Have you guys seen that new rapid fire stock for AR's? It basically uses the gun momentum with a moving stock to slap fire the gun but pretty acccurate. Guys on youtube were unloading a 30 round clip in seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mZ4URGglWs

I guess it isn't as accurate as a real automatic but still pretty sick.

cutthemdown
12-21-2012, 04:13 PM
I bet Ted Nugent has said something stupid but we just haven't got a chance to hear it yet.

Pony Boy
12-22-2012, 07:01 PM
so the nra wants the evil gubmint to put police officers in schools now.bigger gubmint! what say you righties on this proposal?

Bring our National Guard home and let them focus on protecting local communities as originally intended. The Governors have the power to deploy them to protect our local schools. Who better to protect our children than combat trained members of the local community?

W*GS
12-22-2012, 07:18 PM
Who better to protect our children than combat trained members of the local community?

Why are our schools arenas of combat?

Do you see the problem?

Pony Boy
12-22-2012, 07:36 PM
Why are our schools arenas of combat?

Do you see the problem?

Combat trained simply means they are train to handle any situation that might arise ......... say when a crazy zombie attacks an elementary school with multiple weapons and body armor. The local police are not trained or equipped to do so.

W*GS
12-22-2012, 07:38 PM
Combat trained simply means they are train to handle any situation that might arise ......... say when a crazy zombie attacks an elementary school with multiple weapons and body armor. The local police are not trained or equipped to do so.

So, the NRA's suggestion to put armed officers in our schools (more than there already are) is a non-starter?

Again, why should we need anyone with combat training in our schools? That's just sick.

baja
12-22-2012, 07:46 PM
Why are our schools arenas of combat?

Do you see the problem?

We have created an economic structure that renders the collective us unable to truly help one another. We are living a lie and the lie has no substance or sustainability.

Bronco Yoda
12-22-2012, 11:31 PM
The semi-auto's are flying off the shelves. I stopped by my small local gun shop today and they were sold out of everything related to semi-automatic. They sell only between 10-12 AR-15s a month. They sold out their entire stock on hand (83) within 48 hours of Obama's speech. Same with the AK's. The magazines went the first 24 hours. Same with two other shops I went too. Cleaned out bare. They've never seen anything like it. Every web site i've checked is sold out as well. $15 dollar steel mags (30rds) are going for as much as $100 dollars on ebay if you can find them at all. Crazy...

baja
12-23-2012, 05:24 AM
The semi-auto's are flying off the shelves. I stopped by my small local gun shop today and they were sold out of everything related to semi-automatic. They sell only between 10-12 AR-15s a month. They sold out their entire stock on hand (83) within 48 hours of Obama's speech. Same with the AK's. The magazines went the first 24 hours. Same with two other shops I went too. Cleaned out bare. They've never seen anything like it. Every web site i've checked is sold out as well. $15 dollar steel mags (30rds) are going for as much as $100 dollars on ebay if you can find them at all. Crazy...

Think about what drives that. Either people fear their own government or they anticipate a break down of society to the extent that they will need to protect themselves with military type weapons.

Pony Boy
12-23-2012, 07:33 AM
Think about what drives that. Either people fear their own government or they anticipate a break down of society to the extent that they will need to protect themselves with military type weapons.

I think it's more like twinkies, people were clearing the store shelves that never had a twinkie in their life. Another example would be to ban the manufacturing and sales of SUV's .......... everyone would rush to the dealerships to buy or order one.

W*GS
12-23-2012, 08:12 AM
Either people fear their own government or they anticipate a break down of society to the extent that they will need to protect themselves with military type weapons.

You'd like that, eh?

Or else they figure they can buy cheap now, sell for far more later, and turn a tidy profit.

lonestar
12-23-2012, 08:23 AM
Think about what drives that. Either people fear their own government or they anticipate a break down of society to the extent that they will need to protect themselves with military type weapons.

Yet the ar15 is a civilian Firearm. The military at least in the US do not carry it as a standard weapon.

But you are correct about the rest of your post.

DenverBrit
12-23-2012, 10:40 AM
Will the NRA pay for that armed response in schools?

And when the gun toting loons strike the movie theaters again, will they pay for them there too? And when they strike in the malls, will they add more there? And when they realize the 'armed security' is outgunned by 30 round, semi automatics, will they provide fully automatic weapons in all those locations?

Why not just make every weapon legal. Let's sell RPGs at gun shows where background checks, for 30% of all gun sales, are non existent. And **** making gun owners responsible for locking up their weapons and keeping them out of the hands of kids and petty criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/gunlaws-graphic.jpg

Bronco Yoda
12-23-2012, 12:45 PM
Could I get that said RPG in a collapsible stock and a double action trigger?

cutthemdown
12-23-2012, 12:52 PM
Why do people think that is reasonable argument Yoda?

An AR-15 shoots a .223 and is semi automatic. The only thing that makes it assault looking is a collapsable/adjustable stock and the pistol grip. It really can't do much more damage then a hunting rifle or a handgun at close range.

So lets say you make the clips only 10 like calif. Fine. But does it really make sense to band pistol grips and adjustable stocks? Seriously explain to me how pistol grips make a crazy killer more dangerous to me at the mall. It just seems like a joke to me.

Thats why conservatives see this is only a start and why we will fight all of it. After this ban someone with a handgun will kill 30. People will say we still aren't safe and make more gun laws. Then someone with a shotgun will kill some people and we will make more laws. i just don't buy that we are less safe now then under the brady assault weapons ban. I feel safer then in the late 80's early 90's where in my area is all about the crips and bloods killing eachother with fully automatic ak-47s and uzis. I am firmly in your camp on that. No full military weapons allowed.

But comparing owning an ar-15 to a grenade launcher is not credible.

DenverBrit
12-23-2012, 01:36 PM
Could I get that said RPG in a collapsible stock and a double action trigger?

Sure, any particular color?

Meck77
12-23-2012, 04:08 PM
Think about what drives that. Either people fear their own government or they anticipate a break down of society to the extent that they will need to protect themselves with military type weapons.

Or people simply want something they think they will no longer be able to get. I know ranchers out here are stacking up the ARs for prarie dog control. Those 30 round clips are ideal for clearing out fields quickly. Once you jump a field it's key to knock down as many as you can quickly because they tend to hide after the first clip!

Oh baja you might have to move your doomesday deadline back again. I know you went on record saying you would gladly admit you were wrong. Are you there yet? Or do you need to revise the date yet again?

Baja you might just consider moving back dude.

lonestar
12-23-2012, 04:30 PM
Why do people think that is reasonable argument Yoda?

An AR-15 shoots a .223 and is semi automatic. The only thing that makes it assault looking is a collapsable/adjustable stock and the pistol grip. It really can't do much more damage then a hunting rifle or a handgun at close range.

So lets say you make the clips only 10 like calif. Fine. But does it really make sense to band pistol grips and adjustable stocks? Seriously explain to me how pistol grips make a crazy killer more dangerous to me at the mall. It just seems like a joke to me.

Thats why conservatives see this is only a start and why we will fight all of it. After this ban someone with a handgun will kill 30. People will say we still aren't safe and make more gun laws. Then someone with a shotgun will kill some people and we will make more laws. i just don't buy that we are less safe now then under the brady assault weapons ban. I feel safer then in the late 80's early 90's where in my area is all about the crips and bloods killing eachother with fully automatic ak-47s and uzis. I am firmly in your camp on that. No full military weapons allowed.

But comparing owning an ar-15 to a grenade launcher is not credible.

Great post.

But you fail to get that the far left use that tactic to muddle the facts. When they have zero facts to debate with they change the dynamics of the debate/argument with changing the subject. Age old tactic.

Once there is a ban then the slippery slope starts. All of a sudden they Are banning owning more than one single shot guns. Because God forbid a nut jobs could come in with 35 guns and kill folks.

What they need to do is realize it is the NUTJOB that is the problem, not the gun.

baja
12-23-2012, 04:41 PM
Or people simply want something they think they will no longer be able to get. I know ranchers out here are stacking up the ARs for prarie dog control. Those 30 round clips are ideal for clearing out fields quickly. Once you jump a field it's key to knock down as many as you can quickly because they tend to hide after the first clip!

Oh baja you might have to move your doomesday deadline back again. I know you went on record saying you would gladly admit you were wrong. Are you there yet? Or do you need to revise the date yet again?

Baja you might just consider moving back dude.

I'd say things are heating up Meck, just look at what this thread is about. I wouldn't call these good times. i hope the bottom doesn't fall out but it sure could. I pray it does not.


I live whereI live not because I don't want to or am afraid to live elsewhere but because I like where I am. Don't know why that is so hard to grasp.

DenverBrit
12-23-2012, 04:42 PM
Great post.

But you fail to get that the far left use that tactic to muddle the facts. When they have zero facts to debate with they change the dynamics of the debate/argument with changing the subject. Age old tactic.

Once there is a ban then the slippery slope starts. All of a sudden they Are banning owning more than one single shot guns. Because God forbid a nut jobs could come in with 35 guns and kill folks.

What they need to do is realize it is the NUTJOB that is the problem, not the gun.

Every country has 'nutjobs,' the problem is the easy access to multiple weapons.

If we own a car, we must get a license and liability insurance, but guns, don't require either.

Any 'nutjob' can buy weapons at a gun show and get thousands of rounds of ammo online.

Why is it so difficult to understand that easy access to weapons and ammo is a problem we can address.

BroncoBeavis
12-23-2012, 06:48 PM
Every country has 'nutjobs,' the problem is the easy access to multiple weapons.

If we own a car, we must get a license and liability insurance, but guns, don't require either.

And I'm totally sure that someone aiming to kill people with a vehicle would make absolutely sure that vehicle is registered and properly insured first. LOL

DenverBrit
12-23-2012, 07:13 PM
And I'm totally sure that someone aiming to kill people with a vehicle would make absolutely sure that vehicle is registered and properly insured first. LOL

Think about what you're saying.

Almost any car taken will have registration and insurance, which means liability is covered, and the victims, or family, have recourse.

I know of exactly that scenario taking place right now. Kid takes keys, passenger ends up paralyzed, parents and insurance company being sued.

Why not have at least the same rules for weapons designed to kill!!

Pony Boy
12-23-2012, 08:16 PM
Three years for 70 bucks makes a great stocking stuffer.........

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=bonusgiftwy&EK=Y3ARPPBD&pubID=148.30&hid=19909170

Bronco Yoda
12-23-2012, 08:29 PM
Why do people think that is reasonable argument Yoda?

An AR-15 shoots a .223 and is semi automatic. The only thing that makes it assault looking is a collapsable/adjustable stock and the pistol grip. It really can't do much more damage then a hunting rifle or a handgun at close range.

So lets say you make the clips only 10 like calif. Fine. But does it really make sense to band pistol grips and adjustable stocks? Seriously explain to me how pistol grips make a crazy killer more dangerous to me at the mall. It just seems like a joke to me.

Thats why conservatives see this is only a start and why we will fight all of it. After this ban someone with a handgun will kill 30. People will say we still aren't safe and make more gun laws. Then someone with a shotgun will kill some people and we will make more laws. i just don't buy that we are less safe now then under the brady assault weapons ban. I feel safer then in the late 80's early 90's where in my area is all about the crips and bloods killing eachother with fully automatic ak-47s and uzis. I am firmly in your camp on that. No full military weapons allowed.

But comparing owning an ar-15 to a grenade launcher is not credible.

You got me wrong. I don't think it is a reasonable argument. I own an AR-15 so I know what they are about. They are nothing more than a small-med caliber over priced rifle that is a very versatile platform. They can be made to look just very intimating with all the bolt on configurations. Nothing nearly as powerful as even the 308.

In all actuality these assault rifles are like BB guns compared to where the shotguns are evolving too.

You can put a 30 round clip on a Saiga 12 guage and empty 00 buck in a few seconds. Thank god this lunatic didn't do this or things would have been far worse.

I was looking at a new style shotgun the other day that was not much more than 26 inches long but could be shot with one hand (12 guage 00 buck). Now that's a lot of power with little recoil & could be hidden under any jacket. It had 12 shot quick change revolving mags. Saw it shoot 36 slugs in under a min. You can buy an extended barrel that holds 9 right now at your local Big 5 sporting goods store.

Guns are dangerous. Any of them are lethal when misused. Our mental health system is broken. Our educational system is broken.

Where do you draw the line?

In the end can anyone really successfully legislate personal responsibility?

Meck77
12-24-2012, 08:26 AM
I'd say things are heating up Meck, just look at what this thread is about. I wouldn't call these good times. i hope the bottom doesn't fall out but it sure could. I pray it does not.


I live whereI live not because I don't want to or am afraid to live elsewhere but because I like where I am. Don't know why that is so hard to grasp.

Baja you spent YEARS spreading fear and nonsense on this forum about some random event that would end the world even bumping back the date to try and fit it in 2012...

Time to man up and admit you were wrong. Or you want to hold out another week or so?

Bottom line is the world has always been a tough place beyond the American border.

Just being born an American is a PRIVILEGE in and of itself. Yes some gruesome acts of evil have hit our country lately but we can't stop living and loving.

Take a moment to reflect on this baja. http://www.slideshare.net/hectorham/lighteninginajar

Merry Christmas to you. Let's make 2013 a good one and help some people.:thumbs:

W*GS
12-24-2012, 09:02 AM
Baja you spent YEARS spreading fear and nonsense on this forum about some random event that would end the world even bumping back the date to try and fit it in 2012...

Time to man up and admit you were wrong. Or you want to hold out another week or so?

baja and gaffe just have too much invested in doomsterism to let it go.

Bronco Yoda
12-24-2012, 11:21 AM
Lost in all this gun talk is the fact that this kid was mentally disturbed! The parent was totally irresponsible & it all set up for the perfect **** storm.

The CIA could not have created a more dangerous killing machine.

First of all the kid was seriously messed up. His own brother wouldn't live there anymore or even visit because he was afraid of him. The Husband and ex boyfriend was also freaked out over this kid. He should have been in a facility. There had been such a facility nearby but had been shut down due to budget cuts. The mother was clearly in denial but had recently talked about moving out west and putting him in such a facility but she obviously dragged her feet too long.

...but let's not talk about mental illness and the lack of proper care available.

Secondly the young man lived his life in their huge basement decked out in camo playing first person shooters all day long. Most kids can play these games without any problems... but obviously it's not the sort of thing that should be around a troubled mind!

... but let's not talk about personal responsibility and the breakdown of society.

Third... Her weapons were stored in the same basement right along with his video game camo decked out lair. And he grew up shooting them with her. Again.... not the sort of activity for a troubled mind. It's been reported that the guns were locked up but he probably already had a key considering they were avid shooters.

Then she starts leaving the disturbed young man alone for days on end while she was taking 3 day trips while leaving the kid pre cooked meals. Yet she knows that he should be in a facility and is working towards moving him there.

So obviously... let's get rid of all the guns.

Good thing the crazy ass kid didn't have gasoline or matches we'd all be in danger of now walking to work and sun baking our BBQ ribs on the grill.

Bronco Yoda
12-24-2012, 11:21 AM
.

jerseyguy4
12-24-2012, 12:01 PM
Lost in all this gun talk is the fact that this kid was mentally disturbed! The parent was totally irresponsible & it all set up for the perfect **** storm.
Yes, "a perfect storm", but not thee perfect storm. People need to be careful when playing the numbers game. What I mean is that there are so many people and so many guns in this country, that you can count on the fact that more scenarios just like this nutcase's life exist right now, even AFTER this happened. Right now, in some basement, some disturbed kid with access to guns has been playing Call of Duty for the last 20 straight hours. That doesn't mean he will do what Lanza did....but eventually, some kid, somewhere, will.

Obushma
12-24-2012, 02:28 PM
I'd like to remind Americans, Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world. If you wonder why that is, take the time to watch this three min video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=player_embedded#!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6nf1OgV449g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DenverBrit
12-24-2012, 03:13 PM
There's the answer.

You only get to own a gun AFTER you've served in the military, had extensive training and have been declared sane and competent!

Merry Christmas!

W*GS
12-24-2012, 03:14 PM
I'd like to remind Americans, Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world.

Actually, several other countries have less crime than Switzerland. It's not the lowest in the world, and, you need to be more explicit as to what crime means.

If you wonder why that is, take the time to watch this three min video.

Switzerland's low crime rate doesn't have a lot to do with its militia weapons. That's a libertarian myth.

Gun politics in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

It's not the hoplophile utopia some wish it was.

BroncoBeavis
12-24-2012, 10:58 PM
Think about what you're saying.

Almost any car taken will have registration and insurance, which means liability is covered, and the victims, or family, have recourse.

Mostly bull****. If someone legitimately jacks your car your insurance isn't covering any liability whatsoever. They'll buy you a new car if you've got full covg. But they're not paying for any collateral damage to anyone else. When it comes to liability they mostly insure drivers not cars.

DenverBrit
12-26-2012, 12:20 PM
Mostly bull****. If someone legitimately jacks your car your insurance isn't covering any liability whatsoever. They'll buy you a new car if you've got full covg. But they're not paying for any collateral damage to anyone else. When it comes to liability they mostly insure drivers not cars.

You're talking about something completely different.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/K2P86C-1x3o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DenverBrit
12-26-2012, 12:34 PM
The concept of gun owner liability insurance is gathering momentum.


Gun control
Insurance policy

Dec 26th 2012, 14:45 by M.S.

NOURIEL ROUBINI, a guy who knows a lot about risk, tweets in favour of mandatory liability insurance for gun owners: http://tweetwood.com/Nouriel/tweet/283912306671366144

If we had liability insurance on guns, as we do 4 cars, we will see which insurance company would insure at which price folks with arsenals

It's an idea that seems to be gathering a bit of steam. At Forbes.com, John Wasik lays out the logic behind treating firearm deaths as a market externality to be compensated via insurance, as we do with cars: "Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers... An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem." Robert Cyran and Reynolds Holding write that mandatory liability insurance is a measure that could pass Supreme Court muster where other restrictions might fail: "[T]here’s a strong argument that damage caused by firearms gives the government a 'compelling interest' to require insurance, the test for infringing a constitutional right."

More.........http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-0

Meck77
12-27-2012, 03:38 AM
Well if some ahole wants to shoot up a school in AZ it's likely he will get shot at bythe principal or another employee before the police arrive. :thumbs:

Arizona leading the way to protecting their children.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/26/us/arizona-armed-principals/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


Obama's children go to school with 11 armed security officers. Why should the President's children be protected with guns and not yours?


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

BroncoBeavis
12-27-2012, 04:46 AM
The concept of gun owner liability insurance is gathering momentum.




More.........http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/gun-control-0

Again pure fantasy. Expecting someone willing to commit murder is going to line up for gun liability insurance because the law says they should. LOL

Just curious, in your fantasy candy land is there no such thing as uninsured motorists?

DenverBrit
12-27-2012, 07:12 AM
Again pure fantasy. Expecting someone willing to commit murder is going to line up for gun liability insurance because the law says they should. LOL

Just curious, in your fantasy candy land is there no such thing as uninsured motorists?

8')

http://sadventurez.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/box-of-rocks.jpg

BroncoBeavis
12-27-2012, 08:00 AM
DB's dream candidate

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMnZQO6VwNnwmcnCz27bfk8HTAUsM8j IglMRRg8d59tNZppsMtyA

:)

http://www.theonion.com/articles/john-edwards-vows-to-end-all-bad-things-by-2011,2235/

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 08:32 AM
There's the answer.

You only get to own a gun AFTER you've served in the military, had extensive training and have been declared sane and competent!

Merry Christmas!

Come on now, we all know a bunch of hicks, gang bangers, bumbling idiots, wanna be heros and socio/psychopaths are equivalent to trained, screened militia members.

Requiem
12-27-2012, 08:36 AM
Has there been a website or foundation set up to help benefit the families who lost loved ones or children? Please link or let me know. Couldn't help but feel for all those impacted over the holiday.

Pony Boy
12-27-2012, 08:52 AM
Has there been a website or foundation set up to help benefit the families who lost loved ones or children? Please link or let me know. Couldn't help but feel for all those impacted over the holiday.

Yes many wesites, it didn't take the scumbags long to set them up.

The family of Noah Pozner was mourning their 6-year-old who was killed in the Newtown school massacre when their sorrow was compounded by outrage.

Someone they didn't know was soliciting donations in Noah's memory, claiming that they'd send any cards, packages and money collected to his parents and siblings. An official-looking website had been set up, with Noah's name as the address, even including petitions on gun control.

Noah's uncle, Alexis Haller, called on law enforcement authorities to seek out "these despicable people."

http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2012/12/19/as-relatives-mourn-newtown-shooting-victims-scam-artists-move-in-for-profit/

DenverBrit
12-27-2012, 10:59 AM
Come on now, we all know a bunch of hicks, gang bangers, bumbling idiots, wanna be heros and socio/psychopaths are equivalent to trained, screened militia members.

You'd think so, when someone clueless points to Switzerland and say "see, they have guns and a low murder rate." :)

Fedaykin
12-27-2012, 11:00 AM
You'd think so, when anyone points to Switzerland and say "see, they have guns and a low murder rate." :)

It's a great model as long as you accept automatic, universal conscription. =)

tesnyde
12-28-2012, 12:00 AM
The other sick ****s are coming out. Anyone see this guy and his twisted perception caught on video?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/jonathan-lee-riches-violated-687543

ant1999e
12-28-2012, 01:54 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M1u0Byq5Qis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

ant1999e
12-28-2012, 01:56 AM
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
cont...

DenverBrit
12-28-2012, 12:07 PM
Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
cont...

Firearm offenses include all reported incidents....including carrying a replica or simply carrying a weapon. But guns are very slowly entering communities, mostly carried by adolescences.

Also from 2009:

Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths

The number of deaths in Britain from gunshot wounds has fallen to a 20-year low despite concerns about levels of violent crime.

Most of the 42 gun-related deaths last year took place in London, the West Midlands, Manchester or Merseyside, with swathes of the country recording no homicides, suicides or accidental deaths from firearms. One third of the victims were younger than 21 and four of them were female. The Gun Control Network, which campaigns for tougher restrictions on firearms, disclosed the figure, which was a sharp drop on 2007, when 51 gun-related deaths were recorded in England, Wales and Scotland.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html
42 gun deaths? Long way to go to catch up with the 9000 here. :)

BroncoBeavis
12-28-2012, 02:02 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html
42 gun deaths? Long way to go to catch up with the 9000 here. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

LOL

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMnZQO6VwNnwmcnCz27bfk8HTAUsM8j IglMRRg8d59tNZppsMtyA

DenverBrit
12-28-2012, 02:41 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm



LOL

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMnZQO6VwNnwmcnCz27bfk8HTAUsM8j IglMRRg8d59tNZppsMtyA

Apart from finding it funny, what was your point?

BroncoBeavis
12-28-2012, 02:51 PM
Apart from finding it funny, what was your point?

Just that dosomethingism never rests.

Which I guess proves that every fight at every level is important.

Dosomethingers ask "why do you care about 30 round clips?"

And in all honesty, it's because someday it will be 10 round clips. Then 5. Then semi-automatics (if not before) Then anything above a single-shot. Followed by all firearms, and probably crossbows, down to knives. Maybe even longer-tined forks. :) Pretty much anything that can grab a headline will become a potential target.

Dosomethingism is a real bitch.

DenverBrit
12-28-2012, 03:10 PM
Just that dosomethingism never rests.

Which I guess proves that every fight at every level is important.

Dosomethingers ask "why do you care about 30 round clips?"

And in all honesty, it's because someday it will be 10 round clips. Then 5. Then semi-automatics (if not before) Then anything above a single-shot. Followed by all firearms, and probably crossbows, down to knives. Maybe even longer-tined forks. :) Pretty much anything that can grab a headline will become a potential target.

Dosomethingism is a real b****.

Right. This is a much better way forward.

http://kfpcpa.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/head-in-the-sand.jpg

BroncoBeavis
12-28-2012, 03:37 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9t5RyGq0rQHjDrSVE6bKRWwG-Tbb7CD4iz0ctITrJwkyG9X40hw

I know! We need to work on that category way over on the left, cuz it was in the news.

Dosomefin!!!

barryr
12-31-2012, 10:07 AM
This admin. funds a program to give gun to criminals and gangs in Mexico to be brought over the border that are used to kill people, including women and children, and now they want to establish more laws against the possession of guns? Really makes a lot of sense. The dumbing down of this country is complete if that makes sense to the majority of people.

bombay
01-06-2013, 02:22 PM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/06/vermont-teacher-threatens-school-turns-in-bushmaster-rifle-before-being-committed/


A Vermont teacher threatens his school on youtube before turning in his bushmaster and having himself committed.

Bronco Yoda
01-08-2013, 11:07 PM
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

cutthemdown
01-08-2013, 11:15 PM
I'm willing to put up with a few gun massacres a yr to keep my rights. Just like I agree with Paul that all the cameras to make us safe are really just taking away more rights. I don't care what the numbers say we aren't giving up anything but automatic weapons and large clips. Anything more is BS.

BroncoInferno
01-09-2013, 06:02 AM
I'm willing to put up with a few gun massacres a yr to keep my rights.

Easy for you to say when it isn't any of your family/friends among the slaughtered.

houghtam
01-09-2013, 06:59 AM
I'm willing to put up with a few gun massacres a yr to keep my rights.

Finally.

At least someone finally stopped being a pussy and came out and said it. Other people's lives are a small price to pay for the false sense of security and downright FUN! that a gun provides.

Now let's take it a step further...are you okay with massacres involving friends or family as long as you get to keep your guns?

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 07:03 AM
Finally.

At least someone finally stopped being a p***Y and came out and said it. Other people's lives are a small price to pay for the false sense of security and downright FUN! that a gun provides.

Now let's take it a step further...are you okay with massacres involving friends or family as long as you get to keep your guns?

Neoprohibitionism is awesome.

Bronco Yoda
01-09-2013, 07:14 AM
Finally.

At least someone finally stopped being a p***Y and came out and said it. Other people's lives are a small price to pay for the false sense of security and downright FUN! that a gun provides.

Now let's take it a step further...are you okay with massacres involving friends or family as long as you get to keep your guns?

Does that include hammers and clubs then?

BroncoInferno
01-09-2013, 07:23 AM
Neoprohibitionism is awesome.

Stupid comparison. No one is proposing the complete abolition of guns. Additionally, situational prohibition still exists. We don't allow folks to put others in danger while they are impared by alcohol...hence DUI/DWI/open container laws.

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 07:25 AM
Does that include hammers and clubs then?

Don't forget kitchen knives. Let me tee that up for Hough...

"How many children have to die so you can enjoy a freshly chopped salad? Would you watch your little sister die for some diced Pineapple?" :)

lonestar
01-09-2013, 07:32 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS9t5RyGq0rQHjDrSVE6bKRWwG-Tbb7CD4iz0ctITrJwkyG9X40hw

I know! We need to work on that category way over on the left, cuz it was in the news.

Dosomefin!!!

Since handguns are the weapon of choice of the drug sellers for protectin their turf. Fix that problem and about 3/4 of those murders disappear.

Frankly except for some of the innocents that get shot in gutless drive bys IMO let them eliminate each other the world will be a better place.

Then give me a call.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
01-09-2013, 07:36 AM
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/03/fbi-hammers-clubs-kill-more-people-than-rifles-shotguns/

FBI: Hammers, Clubs Kill More People Than Rifles, Shotguns

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

Handguns?

Assault rifles?

This is like saying "more people are killed by station wagons than by hatchbacks, so OBVIOUSLY all cars and trucks are safe."

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 07:38 AM
Stupid comparison. No one is proposing the complete abolition of guns.

No, currently they're proposing restricting firearms that kill less people in the United States than fisticuffs do. Because doing 'something' feels good. Even if it does nothing (but harass the law abiding)

We don't allow folks to put others in danger while they are impared by alcohol

LOL

Yeah, totally. Problem solved.

LOL

W*GS
01-09-2013, 07:44 AM
BroncoBeavis, do you agree with cut? A few mass shootings a year is an acceptable price to pay for the RKBA?

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 07:56 AM
BroncoBeavis, do you agree with cut? A few mass shootings a year is an acceptable price to pay for the RKBA?

Let me boil this down to what it is.

People with freedom and power have the unfortunate capacity to harm others. The only way to prevent that harm is to diminish the people's freedom and power.

I don't particularly personally care about assault rifles. I only care that it won't end there. "Do Somethingers" will keep "Doing Something" until the day bad things stop happening. Which is to say never.

But they get to feel better about themselves I guess, so that's something. Gradually handing over our freedom so a certain segment can get a few legislative warm fuzzies every now and again... priceless.

W*GS
01-09-2013, 08:30 AM
Let me boil this down to what it is.

People with freedom and power have the unfortunate capacity to harm others. The only way to prevent that harm is to diminish the people's freedom and power.

Without safety, there is no freedom.

You still didn't answer the question.

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 09:00 AM
Without safety, there is no freedom.

You still didn't answer the question.

Wow, you've turned Franklin on his head there a bit, haven't you?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

DenverBrit
01-09-2013, 10:02 AM
Wow, you've turned Franklin on his head there a bit, haven't you?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Franklin was referring to the 'Patriot act.'

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 10:24 AM
Franklin was referring to the 'Patriot act.'

Probably true... good point.

chadta
01-09-2013, 02:49 PM
Just that dosomethingism never rests.

Which I guess proves that every fight at every level is important.

Dosomethingers ask "why do you care about 30 round clips?"

And in all honesty, it's because someday it will be 10 round clips. Then 5. Then semi-automatics (if not before) Then anything above a single-shot. Followed by all firearms, and probably crossbows, down to knives. Maybe even longer-tined forks. :) Pretty much anything that can grab a headline will become a potential target.

Dosomethingism is a real b****.

First let me say, i am against drunk driving, and would never do it, but

MADD is the perfect example of dosomethingers

I think we can all agree that people that cant walk, are too drunk to drive, here the legal limit was .1, then it got moved to .08, now its still .08 but at .05 you get a 72 hour suspension, and your car is impounded road side, even tho the law is .08

Madd recently has been pushing for .000, thats right no alcohol in your blood at all while driving, which im sorry but that is just flat out stupid. whatever makes them sleep better at night i guess.

W*GS
01-09-2013, 03:34 PM
Wow, you've turned Franklin on his head there a bit, haven't you?

Still true:

"They who can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Think the "liberty" to blow through stop signs.

cutthemdown
01-09-2013, 03:37 PM
Easy for you to say when it isn't any of your family/friends among the slaughtered.

I've had lots of friends and family pass on. Death is a part of life. One friend fell off a cliff at summer camp but i don't want mountain climbing made illegal. One got stabbed but making knives illegal is silly. A few in car wrecks on the freeway where I am sure 25mph speed limits would have saved them, but i would rather take my chances at 60.

Sorry inferno but liberals and the govt can't make you safer.

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 04:00 PM
Still true:

"They who can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Think the "liberty" to blow through stop signs.

You make it easier with every post... Freedom means living with people's ability to blow through stop signs.

Have we mandated cars that are incapable of running stop signs? Would you support cars being manufactured with a 'government stop' function?

No, cars are made with the ability to obey or violate the law. The discretion of which is left to the free will of the driver.

cutthemdown
01-09-2013, 04:06 PM
Finally.

At least someone finally stopped being a p***Y and came out and said it. Other people's lives are a small price to pay for the false sense of security and downright FUN! that a gun provides.

Now let's take it a step further...are you okay with massacres involving friends or family as long as you get to keep your guns?

You are never ok with a massacre. At least not a sane person. But you then have to realize you can't make guns illegal just because a gun was used in a murder.

I am on the record as being ok with CA style rules for the whole country. Every gun registered, every gun bought with a background check, a waiting period to get your gun, and a clip size of no more then 10.

I think you can still have tons of fun with guns and protect yourself under those rules.

But I'm not stupid enough to really think that means i won't get shot or murdered just as easy if people had 20 round clips. Its just that you have to give the liberals something to feel like they are governing well.

Are there more gun deaths in the sates that allow high capacity clips then in the states that don't?

Bronco Yoda
01-09-2013, 04:36 PM
Still true:

"They who can give up essential safety to obtain a little temporary liberty, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Think the "liberty" to blow through stop signs.

Blowing through a stop sign saved our lives one time. We were camping in a rural mtn. area a few years ago and I was coming up on a 4 way stop sign. I notice in my rear view mirror an oar truck coming up on me fast almost out of control like with his wheels smoking. I didn't hesitate to step on the gas after seeing the coast was clear (cross traffic). Sure enough that truck blasted straight through the stop sign and I barely got out of it's way stomping on the gas.

Sure glad I had the opportunity and freedom to take liberty with that stop sign law instead of say... having your car forced to automatically stop (by way of say electronic device) at every stop sign.

How 'bout you? Wouldn't YOU want this freedom of choice. It's all about personal responsibility. Freedom has it's price.

houghtam
01-09-2013, 05:41 PM
Blowing through a stop sign saved our lives one time. We were camping in a rural mtn. area a few years ago and I was coming up on a 4 way stop sign. I notice in my rear view mirror an oar truck coming up on me fast almost out of control like with his wheels smoking. I didn't hesitate to step on the gas after seeing the coast was clear (cross traffic). Sure enough that truck blasted straight through the stop sign and I barely got out of it's way stomping on the gas.

Sure glad I had the opportunity and freedom to take liberty with that stop sign law instead of say... having your car forced to automatically stop (by way of say electronic device) at every stop sign.

How 'bout you? Wouldn't YOU want this freedom of choice. It's all about personal responsibility. Freedom has it's price.

I understand you're using the stop sign in your analogy because that was the example he gave you to use, but come on, it's an absolutely awful comparison.

To make it even remotely similar, you'd have to say you should have the freedom of choice to get your own big ass truck and maneuver it into position to block the other truck, all while other smaller cars are darting in and out of traffic and there is just as good a chance of you running over one of the other cars as there is actually stopping the other truck.

Again and for the millionth time, no one is talking about banning guns. What is being brought up are moderate, reasonable measures to prevent stuff like this from happening, or at the very least lessen the impact by regulating types of weaponry and ammunition.

BroncoBeavis
01-09-2013, 08:40 PM
I understand you're using the stop sign in your analogy because that was the example he gave you to use, but come on, it's an absolutely awful comparison.

To make it even remotely similar, you'd have to say you should have the freedom of choice to get your own big ass truck and maneuver it into position to block the other truck, all while other smaller cars are darting in and out of traffic and there is just as good a chance of you running over one of the other cars as there is actually stopping the other truck.

Wow, that's convoluted.

Again and for the millionth time, no one is talking about banning guns. What is being brought up are moderate, reasonable measures to prevent stuff like this from happening, or at the very least lessen the impact by regulating types of weaponry and ammunition.

They tried that from '94 to '04. And there was still OKC, Columbine, and 9/11 among others. Turns out Evil doesn't keep up on the latest Federal Rules and Regulations.

houghtam
01-09-2013, 09:16 PM
Wow, that's convoluted.



They tried that from '94 to '04. And there was still OKC, Columbine, and 9/11 among others. Turns out Evil doesn't keep up on the latest Federal Rules and Regulations.

This is such a played out and ill-conceived argument, and for the millionth time, it takes a different type of psychological profile to kill with different methods.

I'm sure the kid who stole his mom's guns, killed her and shot up a school would have just rented a moving van and bought a bunch of fertilizer instead.

Yeah, the Aurora shooter was totally going to settle for knifing an entire theater to death after posing for the camera in full battle gear just hours before the shooting.

bowtown
01-09-2013, 09:28 PM
This is such a played out and ill-conceived argument, and for the millionth time, it takes a different type of psychological profile to kill with different methods.

I'm sure the kid who stole his mom's guns, killed her and shot up a school would have just rented a moving van and bought a bunch of fertilizer instead.

Yeah, the Aurora shooter was totally going to settle for knifing an entire theater to death after posing for the camera in full battle gear just hours before the shooting.

Sharks swimming in a vat of acid.

cutthemdown
01-10-2013, 12:36 AM
If people can't use guns they will just put laser beams on cats. Idiots!

We will have to wait and see what King Obama plans for his decrees on gun control. I love how because he tells us before hand he is going to circumvent Congress that makes it ok. Good thing is if its all executive orders a new president can just overturn them easily. But the real reason is hes trying to avoid having to make dems who will be running for re-election in 2 yrs be blamed for it.

Doggcow
01-10-2013, 12:41 AM
Why do people think that Criminals will obey gun laws?

cutthemdown
01-10-2013, 01:11 AM
Why do people think that Criminals will obey gun laws?

They think maybe if the guy goes to reload his clip he gets taken down. Where if he had a 30 round clip he would have kept shooting.

They think that more background checks will lead to less guns being sold to felons and other criminals/crazy people.

I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 05:49 AM
This is such a played out and ill-conceived argument, and for the millionth time, it takes a different type of psychological profile to kill with different methods.

I'm sure the kid who stole his mom's guns, killed her and shot up a school would have just rented a moving van and bought a bunch of fertilizer instead.

Yeah, the Aurora shooter was totally going to settle for knifing an entire theater to death after posing for the camera in full battle gear just hours before the shooting.

Speaking of ill conceived, this is a comic tapdance you're doing. Just last post you're talking about how nobody wants to ban guns. Now suddenly you're pretending some fantasmic legislation would've forced the aurora shooter to resort to cutlery.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 07:17 AM
I guess outside of that even they admit that really gun deaths probably won't go down much. At least not this round of regulations. The long term plan is to keep chipping away until guns illegal to own period.

This is the essence behind guys like Hough trying to have it both ways. The end goal is virtually no civilian owned guns. They'll retreat from saying it that way every time you confront them with it, But their utopian expectations can only lead there. And they know it. They just can't say it.

The process they hope to use is to slowly take something away every time the headlines enable them to. And in a national media covering 300+ million people, they know that will be a regular opportunity.

W*GS
01-10-2013, 07:36 AM
You make it easier with every post... Freedom means living with people's ability to blow through stop signs.

Stop signs are a limitation on your freedom.

Why do you tolerate them?

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 07:43 AM
Stop signs are a limitation on your freedom.

Why do you tolerate them?

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsMt8AXG77Iu6y1qN0Z8yu-OgZlQO0S9NqNUKXTmHZZyffE3km

W*GS
01-10-2013, 07:46 AM
It's all about personal responsibility.

Was Ms. Lanza being responsible?

Freedom has it's price.

Citizens in other nations are no less free than we are yet they don't have to suffer ~100,000 firearm-caused deaths and injuries annually.

W*GS
01-10-2013, 07:47 AM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQsMt8AXG77Iu6y1qN0Z8yu-OgZlQO0S9NqNUKXTmHZZyffE3km

Why is more guns in more hands in more places the preferred solution?

Meck77
01-10-2013, 07:48 AM
So much for Democracy. We are truly bordering communist territory now.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html

W*GS
01-10-2013, 07:52 AM
So much for Democracy. We are truly bordering communist territory now.

Puhleeze.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 08:00 AM
This is the essence behind guys like Hough trying to have it both ways. The end goal is virtually no civilian owned guns. They'll retreat from saying it that way every time you confront them with it, But their utopian expectations can only lead there. And they know it. They just can't say it.

The process they hope to use is to slowly take something away every time the headlines enable them to. And in a national media covering 300+ million people, they know that will be a regular opportunity.

LOL

Yeah, that's exactly what I want. No guns. I don't own one or anything. I mean, "technically" it's considered an antique, but it still fires live, and is just as capable of killing today as it was 150 years ago. Of course, it's a muzzle loader and only able to fire one round at a time, but...when you think of it, I'm following more closely to the intent of the Second Amendment than most of you mouth-breathing gun crusaders.

Then you have the constitutionality issue. The Second Amendment clearly allows for the ownership of guns. What it doesn't specifically allow for are weapons that no civilian has any business owning, and there is absolutely no case that can be made for the "need" to own assault rifles or 100 round clips.

Elway 4 Life
01-10-2013, 08:26 AM
Was Ms. Lanza being responsible?



Citizens in other nations are no less free than we are yet they don't have to suffer ~100,000 firearm-caused deaths and injuries annually.

Abso-freakin-lutely not! In this particular tragic incident Ms. lanza was horribly irresponsible. She had and arsenal of weapons not properly secured with an obviously mentally ill person with access to them.

Many of the tragic shooting incidents that happen in homes are the result of gross negligence by the gun owners. My wife and I have a total of 7 firearms that are locked up in a gun safe and we are the only ones with the combo. We both have completed a law enforcement certified gun safety course as well as a concealed handgun course. Getting rid of guns is not the answer. IMO everyone who buys a firearm of any sort must go through some sort of safety course before they receive that purchased firearm.

I'm actually ok with another ban on all AR type weapons as well as high capacity clips. The AR rifles are fun to shoot on a range but absolutely unecessary unless there is an imminent zombie invasion that I am unaware of in which case I retract my last statement.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 08:26 AM
LOL

Yeah, that's exactly what I want. No guns. I don't own one or anything. I mean, "technically" it's considered an antique, but it still fires live, and is just as capable of killing today as it was 150 years ago. Of course, it's a muzzle loader and only able to fire one round at a time, but...when you think of it, I'm following more closely to the intent of the Second Amendment than most of you mouth-breathing gun crusaders.

Great great. You want guns. Just ones that are hopelessly useless in any practical application. And far more dangerous to the operator to boot. Weren't you saying something about accidental deaths before? Get a hundred million gun owners playing with black powder in their homes and then tell me how much you care about each and every life. LOL

Then you have the constitutionality issue. The Second Amendment clearly allows for the ownership of guns. What it doesn't specifically allow for are weapons that no civilian has any business owning, and there is absolutely no case that can be made for the "need" to own assault rifles or 100 round clips.

So my freedom is based on what you feel I "need"

Maybe this'll include a Presidential EO requiring criminals to give 60 seconds notice before entry so musket nation has adequate time to get loaded and ready. (God help them if they miss) LOL

BTW, the aurora shooter's 100-round magazine jammed (which they're notorious for). He would've done much more damage with smaller clips. They're pretty easy to change, you know. Quite unlike loading a musket.

houghtam
01-10-2013, 08:54 AM
So my freedom is based on what you feel I "need"

No, your freedom is based on the interpretation of the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Limits on rights are a common thing, especially when those rights directly result in loss of life. You are not able to shout fire in a crowded movie theater, nor are you allowed to threaten the life of another person, yet we still have the Right to Free Speech. You can own any type of car you want, but you can't drive any car you want. It needs to be street legal.

Guns, while some serve a useful purpose, need regulation. While it may be the gun holders who kill people, you can't regulate the people, so you must regulate the guns. To say that people who want to kill will find a way to kill no matter what shows a complete lack of understanding of criminal psychology and psychological profiling.

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 08:54 AM
Why is more guns in more hands in more places the preferred solution?

I think you're missing the point. There's no 'solution' to crazy people harming other people.

The best you can do is keep on the lookout and petition for a system that allows troubled people to be worked with BEFORE they do something terrible. And this would have benefits far beyond stopping an occasional mass shooting.

W*GS
01-10-2013, 09:16 AM
I think you're missing the point. There's no 'solution' to crazy people harming other people.

That's not the way the NRA sees it.

The best you can do is keep on the lookout and petition for a system that allows troubled people to be worked with BEFORE they do something terrible. And this would have benefits far beyond stopping an occasional mass shooting.

Do we really want the gubmit to know everyone's mental health status?

The Swiss have nearly as many guns per capita as we do, but the cost they pay in fatalities and injuries is much lower. Why?

houghtam
01-10-2013, 09:23 AM
Wow, you've turned Franklin on his head there a bit, haven't you?

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I love when people use this quote. It demonstrates that the Founding Fathers didn't really believe what you think they did.

Hey Ben, would you like to explain how state constitutions requiring the service of able-bodied men during times of war isn't giving up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety? How about why the framers of the Constitution explicitly spelled out Congress' power to tax, making me give up my right to property, for whatever benefits I'm supposed to be getting, not the least of which is the safety provided to me by the armed forces?

Or maybe, just maybe...does it mean that this nation was founded on compromise, and the blind adherence to the letter of the Constitution is just as much of a detriment to the country as disregarding it entirely?

BroncoBeavis
01-10-2013, 09:59 AM
That's not the way the NRA sees it.

That's why their approach is ill-advised.


Do we really want the gubmit to know everyone's mental health status?

No, but I wouldn't mind it if I said "I think my neighbor/son is crazy and might hurt somebody" and the response of the state was something more than "Well let me know if he does"

The Swiss have nearly as many guns per capita as we do, but the cost they pay in fatalities and injuries is much lower. Why?

Good question. But you could fill an encyclopedia on the cultural/demographic divide between us and the Swiss. It certainly doesn't help establish that more guns equals more death, however.