Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[dnno1]

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.

And you are using that point as an argument to arm everyone, which is not necessary.

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.

A high success rate is comparative and does not necessitate 100% unless you are looking at just pass and fail. Police may not always respond to a call in a rapid fashion, but you have to consider the case. In this case the suspect only had a coffee cup and was escorted out of the facility prior to the police arriving (and maybe even before the call was made). There was no need to respond to that right away since the treat level to the public was low. Furthermore even though you believe it to be the case, not everyone should or can have a gun. It is ridiculous to believe or even think that way and you should know better.

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.

That's more than the number of victims of terrorism world wide in the same year (which was about 13,186). I'm not laughing because it's not a laughing matter. We have a problem here and I don't think making it easier for people to kill alleviates it.

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

Because you still insist that we should arm childcare providers when that is clearly not necessary. Saying that you are not dismissing it does not change what you believe. And because you believe that, you are dismissing the facts.

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.

Actually I do, but I also believe in reality. The Constitution only ensures that you have life liberty and the ability to peruse happiness. You don't have nor does it mean you have a freedom to choose what ever you want. You certainly can't choose to live on the sun nor do you have the freedom to choose something that does not exist. You can only choose what is given or available to you. That's the reality of it, so you really can't say that you have the freedom to choose whatever you want. That is a farce.

 

[MrMonk]

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.

The argument for gun control is quite sound and it is supported by every mayor of every major city in the union.
BTW, gun control and regulations do not equate the elimination of guns.
That's not going to happen.

But given that the nation has endured multiple school massacres through the years ( approx 3 per year since 1993), the mood of the nation is for more controls. So, it is reasonable for everyone to acknowledge that reality.

Secondly, the very last thing that police officers desire is to come upon a crime scene in which everyone is armed and shooting at each other. The OK Coral is not the place to be if you're a cop. Therefore the argument for more and more guns is hard to support especially by law enforcement.

 

[Bill]

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



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

The study is incomplete at best, and misleading, at worst. He includes suicides, which pump up the numbers, but do not reflect the point of more legislation, which should affect homicides. When he takes the top 10 for each side as an example, he neglects to mention D.C., which has draconian gun laws and the nation's highest homicide rate, which would pump up the deaths from homicides of supposedly "safe" states to above that of supposedly "unsafe" states. Once you take an honest look at the numbers, gun laws are largely ineffectual at reducing or inducing gun violence in either states with many, or few, gun laws.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

The argument for gun control is quite sound and it is supported by every mayor of every major city in the union.
BTW, gun control and regulations do not equate the elimination of guns.
That's not going to happen.

But given that the nation has endured multiple school massacres through the years ( approx 3 per year since 1993), the mood of the nation is for more controls. So, it is reasonable for everyone to acknowledge that reality.

Secondly, the very last thing that police officers desire is to come upon a crime scene in which everyone is armed and shooting at each other. The OK Coral is not the place to be if you're a cop. Therefore the argument for more and more guns is hard to support especially by law enforcement.

And that is why they shouldn't make laws for those who don't live in the city. Most major mayors are liberal Democrats who don't hold the same values/views as those in suburban or rural areas. No reason why urban policies need to invade ones in rural areas that work, especially since most live in the country to get away from having too many city laws to abide by. Rural areas can't help that cities seem to produce more degenerate, law-abusing gun users. One size fits all gun laws are never going to pass in a majority of states.

 

[MrMonk]

And that is why they shouldn't make laws for those who don't live in the city. Most major mayors are liberal Democrats who don't hold the same values/views as those in suburban or rural areas. No reason why urban policies need to invade ones in rural areas that work, especially since most live in the country to get away from having too many city laws to abide by. Rural areas can't help that cities seem to produce more degenerate, law-abusing gun users. One size fits all gun laws are never going to pass in a majority of states.

Human beings are all flawed..whether they are in the rural regions of the nation or in urban areas. Most suicide deaths by guns happen in the remotest rural areas. And the gun massacres that we have encountered have happened in "safe" bucolic rural and suburban areas.
So..if there is one aspect that connects the issue it is the fact that human beings are violent creatures who tend towards violence.

The restrictions that have come into place over the past 20 years correlate with
the drop in gun deaths and in gun violence as well. So over site and law does work.

It's not perfect..nothing is this side of eternity..but it's all we have. I am not for the elimination of guns..I am a hunter and have hunted all of my life.
But I am also keenly aware of the reality of a powerful weapon that is too easily available.

Most hunters BTW with any age and tradition are not keen on the yahoos shooting willy nilly in the woods without a clue.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Seriously? Is this what passes as senior leadership in the Democratic Party on gun control? Thinking PTSD is something new that only came about from the Iraq War is just plain stupidity. PTSD has been around forever and has been called so many different things over the years (battle fatigue, shell shock, exhaustion, etc.) Also, PTSD is not limited to only military veterans; anybody exposed to some sort of traumatic event can have it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

 

[Kelly]

Seriously? Is this what passes as senior leadership in the Democratic Party on gun control? Thinking PTSD is something new that only came about from the Iraq War is just plain stupidity. PTSD has been around forever and has been called so many different things over the years (battle fatigue, shell shock, exhaustion, etc.) Also, PTSD is not limited to only military veterans; anybody exposed to some sort of traumatic event can have it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_not_be_exempt_from_assault_weapons_ban.html

Teachers that have gone through school shootings like the ones we have seen are required to go through the counseling for PTSD...

 

[dnno1]

The study is incomplete at best, and misleading, at worst. He includes suicides, which pump up the numbers, but do not reflect the point of more legislation, which should affect homicides. When he takes the top 10 for each side as an example, he neglects to mention D.C., which has draconian gun laws and the nation's highest homicide rate, which would pump up the deaths from homicides of supposedly "safe" states to above that of supposedly "unsafe" states. Once you take an honest look at the numbers, gun laws are largely ineffectual at reducing or inducing gun violence in either states with many, or few, gun laws.

They are all gun related homicides (suicide included). It's fair because the same rule is applied to each state. It would be different if the study looked at suicides in a state like Louisiana, but didn't look at that in a state like New York. Furthermore, the study was published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association (JAMA) so it more than likely was a peer reviewed study and not just quackery. The setting of the study was the fifty U.S. States and the participants were the population of all these states -- Washington D.C. is not considered a state.

Data taken from the 2011 D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Annual Report

Just for the record though, there were 99 firearms homicides in the District of Columbia in 2010 (a city that had a population of over 601,000 at that time). That equates to a (firearm) homicide rate of 16.45 per hundred thousand people which (although still in the top 5), would put it behind states like Alaska, Louisiana, and Montana, which all have lax gun laws (that's if D.C. were treated as a state). If you look at the 2011 rate, it is much lower at 12.45 per hundred thousand. The DCMPD attribute the drop as a result of multiple factors such the increase in population, bettering community ties, developing sources, the use of modern technology, and strict accountability in information sharing. None of the reasons offered indicated that more guns helped to drop the numbers.

 

[Bill]

They are all gun related homicides (suicide included). It's fair because the same rule is applied to each state. It would be different if the study looked at suicides in a state like Louisiana, but didn't look at that in a state like New York. Furthermore, the study was published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association (JAMA) so it more than likely was a peer reviewed study and not just quackery. The setting of the study was the fifty U.S. States and the participants were the population of all these states -- Washington D.C. is not considered a state.

Data taken from the 2011 D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Annual Report

Just for the record though, there were 99 firearms homicides in the District of Columbia in 2010 (a city that had a population of over 601,000 at that time). That equates to a (firearm) homicide rate of 16.45 per hundred thousand people which (although still in the top 5), would put it behind states like Alaska, Louisiana, and Montana, which all have lax gun laws (that's if D.C. were treated as a state). If you look at the 2011 rate, it is much lower at 12.45 per hundred thousand. The DCMPD attribute the drop as a result of multiple factors such the increase in population, bettering community ties, developing sources, the use of modern technology, and strict accountability in information sharing. None of the reasons offered indicated that more guns helped to drop the numbers.

First of all, suicide is not the same thing as homicide. The police rule them as a different category, and they are not related to gun violence, which is what gun laws are, or at least should be, designed to hinder. Fleegler's research shows, according to his own charts, that the lower numbers of death among the states relate exclusively to suicides. Homicides are roughly the same, and show to be lower among the top 10 states with less laws.

Second, DC is part of the US, and it certainly should be included given that it has very strict gun laws, but it is an outlier much like Louisiana. When both are included and we measure the homicides, the numbers show that gun laws don't do much for actual gun violence.

It should be noted that when you used the VPC chart, which includes all firearm death and a pdf from the DCPD of just homicide deaths, so you skewed the results. Interestingly enough, those top numbers change dramatically when suicides are eliminated. Look at this chart from Fleegler's research page, and you can see just how important including suicides, and excluding DC, is to his numbers.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

An assault weapons ban, headed by Feinstein and other Democrats, passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, 10-8. I don't even think this bill will make it through the Senate, let alone a Republican-controlled House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...apons-ban-passed-after-heated-senate-hearing/

 

[Kable24]

An assault weapons ban, headed by Feinstein and other Democrats, passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, 10-8. I don't even think this bill will make it through the Senate, let alone a Republican-controlled House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...apons-ban-passed-after-heated-senate-hearing/

I hope not because prices on sporting rifles or as the uneducated refer to them as assault weapons are finally coming down in price.

 

[Kelly]

An assault weapons ban, headed by Feinstein and other Democrats, passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, 10-8. I don't even think this bill will make it through the Senate, let alone a Republican-controlled House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...apons-ban-passed-after-heated-senate-hearing/

It can possibly make it through the Senate...but those Senators up for re-election in 2014 and in Red states may be the fly in the ointment.

 

[Bill]

I hope not because prices on sporting rifles or as the uneducated refer to them as assault weapons are finally coming down in price.

I just hope ammo becomes more widely available.

 

[Kable24]

I just hope ammo becomes more widely available.

Agree with that one. I only have about 1200 rounds of .223 left. I would be happy to snag another 1000 rounds.

 

[Kelly]

I've been shopping for a "pump action" and cannot find one anywhere....hopefully this will all calm down, and the stores will build up their inventories again. People flew out and bought up those suckers...lol

 

[wiegeabo]

Agree with that one. I only have about 1200 rounds of .223 left. I would be happy to snag another 1000 rounds.

So you're planning to kill 2200 people?!?!


I couldn't resist

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I've been shopping for a "pump action" and cannot find one anywhere....hopefully this will all calm down, and the stores will build up their inventories again. People flew out and bought up those suckers...lol

Even shotgun inventories are low? I only thought it was ARs and other long rifles that were in short supply since none of the other gun-related websites I've visited have said anything about shotguns.

 

[Kelly]

Even shotgun inventories are low? I only thought it was ARs and other long rifles that were in short supply since none of the other gun-related websites I've visited have said anything about shotguns.

I'm not going to buy off the internet I don't think anyone should be able to do that...but yeah at conventional stores here in Houston they all sold out and can't keep in stock.

 

[Super Kal]

even the internet stock is incredibly low... the only options right now for purchasing is either stores with limited allocation or gun shows. your choice.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

I'm not going to buy off the internet I don't think anyone should be able to do that...but yeah at conventional stores here in Houston they all sold out and can't keep in stock.

I meant none of the gun-related news sites and forums I visit have said anything about a shortage. Only talk of AR/long rifle shortage.

 

[Kable24]

So you're planning to kill 2200 people?!?!


I couldn't resist

Apparently, according to someone on here. That's not counting the 900 rounds of 9mm, 200 rounds of .45ACP, 100 rounds of 12 gauge and 1000 rounds of .22LR I have. dnno1 probably thinks, I'm planning on taking out a small town. lol

Local stores around here are starting to get more long guns in stock. Ammo is still a tough one and when they do, they limit the amount you can take. Online ammo retailers I frequent are still hit or miss.
The gun show I'm going to in a couple of weeks will give me a better idea of what vendors are dealing with. I'm hoping to pick up 1 or 2 items to add. If they have them that is.

 

[Kelly]

I meant none of the gun-related news sites and forums I visit have said anything about a shortage. Only talk of AR/long rifle shortage.

oooh, ok.....it could be just this area....but my brother in law had trouble finding one in Dallas as well. The guy at Academy called other stores in the area when I first went in and they couldn't fine one anywhere. Ammunition is flying off the shelf. We couldn't find 9mm ammunition the other day for our CHL class. They told me when they would get another shipment, I went in that day and they were already sold out. It's nuts...

I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find one in Houston....SOMEWHERE....but I just don't have that kind of time to look. I'll just wait and let the inventory build up again.

There was a car dealership giving them away with new cars....I can't remember what happened with that, there was some kind of legal issue with it or something.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Plans for an AWB have been dropped in the Senate, due to fewer than 40 members supporting it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/19/us-usa-guns-senate-idUSBRE92I11G20130319

 

[wiegeabo]

Good.

Now lets go after the guns and people that actually do pretty much all the crime.

 

[Kelly]

Damn......I figured it would "at the least" be given a chance to go up for a vote. I guess those Dems in the Red States said, no, and oh hell no.....we don't people to know how we would vote.

Wow......