Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[The Question]

Here's an idea, a gun owner's license. It gets renewed every year and you have to go through an extensive background check to get it an renew it. In order to legally purchase a gun, you have to provide it to the seller and they must submit a receipt to the feds for registration.

Bottom line, the only way to enforce background checks is to register all guns. Then the sales can be tracked and any gun that changes hands with no record of a background check lands the seller and buyer in prison for 10 years.

So, basically, regulate guns and gun ownership the same way we regulate cars and car ownership. Makes perfect sense to me. Guns should be at least as well regulated as cars.

 

[Hotwire]

So, basically, regulate guns and gun ownership the same way we regulate cars and car ownership. Makes perfect sense to me. Guns should be at least as well regulated as cars.

Just with more severe punishments.

 

[dnno1]

People place more value on money and are still spooked by the possibility of another hijacking; that's probably why background checks work so well in those areas.

Of course, I've never been to a gun shop where there wasn't a background check. I went to get a 9MM a couple of months ago; the shop was pretty packed. No one got their guns without filling out all the necessary paperwork. So perhaps you are right about the effectiveness of background checks.

So we don't place just as much value on human life and crime?

 

[dnno1]

My friend doesn't need a gun. He has one of these in his backyard:

 

[Handsome Rob]

So are you trying to suggest that we arm the people at the day care so that they could blow away a delusional man with a coffee cup when it was just as easy to escort him out of the facility and then call the police? How much do you want to bet that the police would have been there a lot sooner if there was actual shooting?

Actually, as long as they have been properly trained in using their firearms, I'd be fine with armed day care workers. As to your second question:

How about this lady who was killed while on the phone with 911 reporting a shooting? Yeah, the police sure made it in time!

Or this lady? They heard her being murdered over the phone. She was choked to death, but I suppose the police naturally didn't think death by choking was as important as death by shooting, so that's why they didn't make it in time.

Or this lady? She called 911 reporting that her boyfriend had a gun pointed at her and was going to shoot her. Pre-shooting isn't an actual shooting yet, so that must be why the police didn't get there in time to prevent the eventual murder-suicide. But hey, to their credit, police were dispatched and made it to the door in 54 seconds. But, still not in time . . .

Or this lady? She called 911 to report someone breaking into her home. But hey, a burglary isn't a shooting! They heard her being shot over the phone.

Like I said, when seconds count, the police are only minutes (or sometimes 54 seconds) away. I have a lot of respect for the police, but they aren't Superman. They don't have superspeed and don't always get there in time, so it's up to the person to take defense up for himself or herself. I believe that defense is best made by someone trained to handle their own firearm.

The man at the day care may have been ultimately harmless, but I just gave you four examples where someone CLEARLY wasn't harmless, and 911 only let them know where to go to find the bodies.

 

[Bill]

So are you trying to suggest that we arm the people at the day care so that they could blow away a delusional man with a coffee cup when it was just as easy to escort him out of the facility and then call the police? How much do you want to bet that the police would have been there a lot sooner if there was actual shooting?

Sure, they could have helped count the bodies and then proceeded to get confused over what was actually used in the shooting.

 

[Schlosser85]

How much do you want to bet that the police would have been there a lot sooner if there was actual shooting?

Because the police should only show up after people get blown away...

 

[dnno1]

Actually, as long as they have been properly trained in using their firearms, I'd be fine with armed day care workers. As to your second question:

How about this lady who was killed while on the phone with 911 reporting a shooting? Yeah, the police sure made it in time!

Or this lady? They heard her being murdered over the phone. She was choked to death, but I suppose the police naturally didn't think death by choking was as important as death by shooting, so that's why they didn't make it in time.

Or this lady? She called 911 reporting that her boyfriend had a gun pointed at her and was going to shoot her. Pre-shooting isn't an actual shooting yet, so that must be why the police didn't get there in time to prevent the eventual murder-suicide. But hey, to their credit, police were dispatched and made it to the door in 54 seconds. But, still not in time . . .

Or this lady? She called 911 to report someone breaking into her home. But hey, a burglary isn't a shooting! They heard her being shot over the phone.

Like I said, when seconds count, the police are only minutes (or sometimes 54 seconds) away. I have a lot of respect for the police, but they aren't Superman. They don't have superspeed and don't always get there in time, so it's up to the person to take defense up for himself or herself. I believe that defense is best made by someone trained to handle their own firearm.

The man at the day care may have been ultimately harmless, but I just gave you four examples where someone CLEARLY wasn't harmless, and 911 only let them know where to go to find the bodies.

Last I checked Emergency 911 service had a pretty high success rate. You could only come up with 4 examples of how people died without a gun and now it's no longer effective? There are about 80 million adults (in about 40 million households) owning guns in the United States, but yet we should dismiss the fact that somehow other 220 million people or for that matter the other 74 million households have somehow managed to cope without needing a gun?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that injecting a weapon of any kind in an environment that has a high amount of untrained infants and children is going to be a solution. Especially when it was just as easy to escort a disoriented person out of a nursery (without a gun) out of the facility before authorities could come to the scene to investigate. Guns are not needed in daycares.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Last I checked Emergency 911 service had a pretty high success rate. You could only come up with 4 examples of how people died without a gun and now it's no longer effective? There are about 80 million adults (in about 40 million households) owning guns in the United States, but yet we should dismiss the fact that somehow other 220 million people or for that matter the other 74 million households have somehow managed to cope without needing a gun?

I'm sorry, but I don't think that injecting a weapon of any kind in an environment that has a high amount of untrained infants and children is going to be a solution. Especially when it was just as easy to escort a disoriented person out of a nursery (without a gun) out of the facility before authorities could come to the scene to investigate. Guns are not needed in daycares.

1. You do realize that your statement that "Last I checked Emergency 911 service had a pretty high success rate" in NO WAY contradicts my statement that "Like I said, when seconds count, the police are only minutes (or sometimes 54 seconds) away," right? Both are admissions that 911 and the police aren't 100% effective in preventing crime once the phone call is made. So, what happens in situations where the police can't get there in time?

2. I only listed four examples--there are more out there. You are aware that people can give examples in which said examples don't represent every actual example, right? So, your assertion that I could "only come up" four is simply wrong.

3. I'm not dismissing that people can go their whole lives without owning a gun and never needing to use one to defend themselves. The difference between me and you, however, is that I want to them to keep the freedom to have had the choice of gun ownership should they find themselves in a position to defend themselves alone. You want to strip them of that freedom. There are no guarantees of personal safety in either of our positions. So, the difference comes down to liberty, and you're on the side of taking it away. That's it.

 

[The Question]

More gun laws = fewer deaths, 50-state study says

States with more gun laws have fewer gun deaths, study says but which ones work is uncertain

By Lindsey Tanner, AP Medical Writer | Associated Press


CHICAGO (AP) -- States with the most gun control laws have the fewest gun-related deaths, according to a study that suggests sheer quantity of measures might make a difference.

But the research leaves many questions unanswered and won't settle the debate over how policymakers should respond to recent high-profile acts of gun violence.

In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.
The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

More than 30,000 people nationwide die from guns every year nationwide, and there's evidence that gun-related violent crime rates have increased since 2008, a journal editorial noted.

During the four-years studied, there were nearly 122,000 gun deaths, 60 percent of them suicides.

"Our motivation was really to understand what are the interventions that can be done to reduce firearm mortality," said Dr. Eric Fleegler, the study's lead author and an emergency department pediatrician and researcher at Boston Children's Hospital.

He said his study suggests but doesn't prove that gun laws — or something else — led to fewer gun deaths.

Fleegler is also among hundreds of doctors who have signed a petition urging President Barack Obama and Congress to pass gun safety legislation, a campaign organized by the advocacy group Doctors for America.

Gun rights advocates have argued that strict gun laws have failed to curb high murder rates in some cities, including Chicago and Washington, D.C. Fleegler said his study didn't examine city-level laws, while gun control advocates have said local laws aren't as effective when neighboring states have lax laws.
Previous research on the effectiveness of gun laws has had mixed results, and it's a "very challenging" area to study, said Dr. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy. He was not involved in the current study.
The strongest kind of research would require comparisons between states that have dissimilar gun laws but otherwise are nearly identical, "but there isn't a super nice twin for New Jersey," for example, a state with strict gun laws, Webster noted.

Fleegler said his study's conclusions took into account factors also linked with gun violence, including poverty, education levels and race, which vary among the states.

The average annual gun death rate ranged from almost 3 per 100,000 in Hawaii to 18 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Hawaii had 16 gun laws, and along with New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts was among states with the most laws and fewest deaths. States with the fewest laws and most deaths included Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma.
But there were outliers: South Dakota, for example, had just two guns laws but few deaths.

Editorial author Dr. Garen Wintemute, director the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, said the study doesn't answer which laws, if any, work.

Wintemute said it's likely that gun control measures are more readily enacted in states with few gun owners — a factor that might have more influence on gun deaths than the number of laws.
___
AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner can be reached at http://www.***********

http://news.yahoo.com/more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-134804944.html

 

[SuperT]

^ I thought that was obvious. You can also say the same about other countries outside of the US as well. The UK and Australia have more restrictive gun laws than America and they've seen a staggering drop in gun deaths in comparison to the US.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

So, basically, regulate guns and gun ownership the same way we regulate cars and car ownership. Makes perfect sense to me. Guns should be at least as well regulated as cars.

That's pretty much my feeling. I mean while driving isn't a described freedom (why would it have been, cars were not invented yet), it's central to my life, we can track cars real well in America too, because we have to register ours, and if I do a sh***y enough job operating a car, it gets taken away from me, sometimes, hopefully, before anyone gets hurt. Yet if you demonstrate you can't operate a gun safely no one pulls you over, you don't get citations, you don't have to appear before a judge, or be made to go take gun safety classes, no third party inspects your guns (like many states do with cars), yet we do all this for something fundamental for me to get to and from work. Something I basically need to support myself. In my opinion, that's all out of whack.

Also we don't say "if you license drivers, only outlaws will drive cars" or "speeding laws only apply to those that follow them" or "only law abiding citizens stop at stop signs".

Also, the NRA has been making this car death analogy for a while now, yet they want guns to be treated as 'more special' than cars. That to me, is ridiculous.

 

[The Question]

That's pretty much my feeling. I mean while driving isn't a described freedom (why would it have been, cars were not invented yet), it's central to my life, we can track cars real well in America too, because we have to register ours, and if I do a sh***y enough job operating a car, it gets taken away from me, sometimes, hopefully, before anyone gets hurt. Yet if you demonstrate you can't operate a gun safely no one pulls you over, you don't get citations, you don't have to appear before a judge, or be made to go take gun safety classes, no third party inspects your guns (like many states do with cars), yet we do all this for something fundamental for me to get to and from work. Something I basically need to support myself. In my opinion, that's all out of whack.

Also we don't say "if you license drivers, only outlaws will drive cars" or "speeding laws only apply to those that follow them" or "only law abiding citizens stop at stop signs".

Also, the NRA has been making this car death analogy for a while now, yet they want guns to be treated as 'more special' than cars. That to me, is ridiculous.

In addition to that, though, I do think an assault weapons ban is reasonable.

 

[dnno1]

1. You do realize that your statement that "Last I checked Emergency 911 service had a pretty high success rate" in NO WAY contradicts my statement that "Like I said, when seconds count, the police are only minutes (or sometimes 54 seconds) away," right? Both are admissions that 911 and the police aren't 100% effective in preventing crime once the phone call is made. So, what happens in situations where the police can't get there in time?

Wrong, you said that the police are not supermen, so you still think that everyone should have a gun for that reason (when in actuality it is not necessary).

2. I only listed four examples--there are more out there. You are aware that people can give examples in which said examples don't represent every actual example, right? So, your assertion that I could "only come up" four is simply wrong.

Sure, but they don't out way the hundreds of millions of calls (over 240 million to be more exact) that do get througn. Now granted, not all of those calls turn into arrests (a lot are for medical emergencies), but a far larger number does lead to an arrest for a crime than the hand fulls that you can come up with .

3. I'm not dismissing that people can go their whole lives without owning a gun and never needing to use one to defend themselves. The difference between me and you, however, is that I want to them to keep the freedom to have had the choice of gun ownership should they find themselves in a position to defend themselves alone. You want to strip them of that freedom. There are no guarantees of personal safety in either of our positions. So, the difference comes down to liberty, and you're on the side of taking it away. That's it.

You are dismissing the fact that millions of people go through most of their lives without the need for a firearm... and it is a farce to think that you actually have a freedom to have a choice (even that is based on whomever is willing to create or sell that to you). It actually is a privilege and if that privilege inteferes with another persons individual freedoms it should be subject to being revoked or regulated.

 

[Victarion]

I'll throw out the most recent example: that lady who shot an intruder, ending with the intruder getting into his car and running into a street light. The gun did her well there.

In the interest of arguing semantics, dnno, who is to say a firearm ban isn't encroaching on the individual freedoms of the people who collect/enjoy guns?

 

[Handsome Rob]

Wrong, you said that the police are not supermen, so you still think that everyone should have a gun for that reason (when in actuality it is not necessary).

Actually I said, " . . . but they aren't Superman. They don't have superspeed and don't always get there in time." Do you see the "don't always," dnno1? Look closely . . . I even bolded it for you here. If they don't always get there in time, what does that also mean? I'll fill you in, since you clearly aren't comprehending it: It means that they also there are times when they DO get there in time. So when I say there is no contradiction, it's because there ISN'T.

Your assertion that 911 has a high success rate (which by definition isn't 100%) is not contradictory to my assertion that the police don't always get there on time. Both clearly indicate that the police aren't always there in time. Which brings me back to the one thing you are right on above: I do believe everyone should have a gun. I wouldn't force it on them, though. Keeping an object in the house that you're irrationally scared of is not something I'd make you do, dnno1.

Sure, but they don't out way the hundreds of millions of calls (over 240 million to be more exact) that do get througn. Now granted, not all of those calls turn into arrests (a lot are for medical emergencies), but a far larger number does lead to an arrest for a crime than the hand fulls that you can come up with .

And of the 80,000,000 gun owners you cited, there were a total of 31,672 gun deaths in 2010. And, given your goal to ban all guns, I guess that makes two of us guilty for using small numbers in the face of much larger ones to the contrary to justify our beliefs.

You are dismissing the fact that millions of people go through most of their lives without the need for a firearm... and it is a farce to think that you actually have a freedom to have a choice (even that is based on whomever is willing to create or sell that to you). It actually is a privilege and if that privilege inteferes with another persons individual freedoms it should be subject to being revoked or regulated.

1. How am I dismissing it when I clearly stated I am not dismissing it?

2. As to the rest of your post, I won't get into it. I know freedom of choice is a myth to a totalitarian government fanboy like yourself, and I know that you don't understand basic constitutional principles, so I won't get on this merry-go-round with you again. If you can see "privilege" where the 2nd amendment clearly states "right," there's no point in going further.

 

[Figs]

I can't believe how ignorant some of these anti gun nuts are.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/dem-strategist-no-guns-just-tell-men-not-rape-wome/

[YT]8RtYfusw4qw[/YT]

 

[The Question]

But she's right. Ultimately, the best way to deal with rape is to change America's cultural attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles that cause it in the first place. Especially because the vast majority of rapes aren't committed by strangers assaulting the victim in public places, they're committed by people they know and are familiar with.

 

[Figs]

But she's right. Ultimately, the best way to deal with rape is to change America's cultural attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles that cause it in the first place. Especially because the vast majority of rapes aren't committed by strangers assaulting the victim in public places, they're committed by people they know and are familiar with.

Bottom line is, she thinks that telling guys NO will work...

I'm trying to remember how well that went a few decades ago with the "just say no" slogan for drugs.

 

[The Question]

Bottom line is, she thinks that telling guys NO will work...

I don't think that's what she's saying. I think she's saying the focus needs to be on education and changing the way we raise young men to view and treat women. But Hannitty really didn't give he a chance to articulate herself.

And, again, either way arming women will not prevent the vast majority or rapes, because the vast majority or rapes are committed by people they know in places they think they're safe, not in dark alleyways with strangers.

I'm trying to remember how well that went a few decades ago with the "just say no" slogan for drugs.

I don't think sexual abuse and drugs are in any way analogous.

 

[Figs]

I don't think that's what she's saying. I think she's saying the focus needs to be on education and changing the way we raise young men to view and treat women. But Hannitty really didn't give he a chance to articulate herself.

And, again, either way arming women will not prevent the vast majority or rapes, because the vast majority or rapes are committed by people they know in places they think they're safe, not in dark alleyways with strangers.



I don't think sexual abuse and drugs are in any way analogous.

********. She should have said that about education more clearly. If that's what she meant, she tried to make her point in an ignorant way.

As for sexual abuse and drugs are in no way analogous. The actual acts are in no comparable. It's the method of how to get people to stop is what I was talking about, not the actual acts.

 

[The Question]

********. She should have said that about education more clearly. If that's what she meant, she tried to make her point in an ignorant way.

What was "ignorant" about the way she made her point? What does that even mean?

As for her being more clear: When she actually started getting into detail about what she was talking about, bringing up youth programs and feminist men's organizations, the other people were talking over her very loudly. She did not have the opportunity to be clear about what she was saying, that opportunity was taken from her.

As for sexual abuse and drugs are in no way analogous. The actual acts are in no comparable. It's the method of how to get people to stop is what I was talking about, not the actual acts.

Yeah, no. The two are so completely different that your comparison doesn't work. Rape is a result of institutionalized misogyny, objectification of women, and perpetuating very unhealthy attitudes toward their own sexuality in young men. Drug abuse has nothing to do with any of those things.

 

[Figs]

Yeah, no. The two are so completely different that your comparison doesn't work. Rape is a result of institutionalized misogyny, objectification of women, and perpetuating very unhealthy attitudes toward their own sexuality in young men. Drug abuse has nothing to do with any of those things.

To get my point across with this part of the discussion I guess would involve me having to be there in person.

I already said in my previous post, that I agree with you that the ACT of rape is not to be compared with the ACT of drug use. I was talking about the suggested help to prevent those is basically just saying No. I'm not talking about the acts, I'm talking about the advice people are given to avoid said acts.

 

[The Question]

To get my point across with this part of the discussion I guess would involve me having to be there in person.

I already said in my previous post, that I agree with you that the ACT of rape is not to be compared with the ACT of drug use. I was talking about the suggested help to prevent those is basically just saying No. I'm not talking about the acts, I'm talking about the advice people are given to avoid said acts.

I know that. But what I'm saying is, since the two acts are so different, then saying "it didn't work for drugs so it won't work for this" doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

[MrMonk]

So, basically, regulate guns and gun ownership the same way we regulate cars and car ownership. Makes perfect sense to me. Guns should be at least as well regulated as cars.

I agree.